This paper examines the economic impact of GM co-existence on the global organic sector to date through GM contamination of organic food and crops. A total of 15 GM contamination incidents in the organic sector are identified, occurring either from cross-pollination from GM crops being grown in the area or due to contamination in the post-harvest supply chain. The financial losses incurred by organic farmers and food companies due to GM contamination are considerable, through lost markets, lost sales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification and product recalls. It is important that co-existence regimes address all of these impacts, with the GM sector being held accountabl

Azeez, Ms Gundula

Hewlett, Ms Kathleen

English

Organic Eprints

16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.htmlThe Economic Impacts of GM Contamination Incidents on theOrganic SectorHewlett, KL1 & Azeez, GSE2Key words: GM, contamination, co-existenceAbstractThis paper examines the economic impact of GM co-existence on the global organicsector to date through GM contamination of organic food and crops. A total of 15 GMcontamination incidents in the organic sector are identified, occurring either fromcross-pollination from GM crops being grown in the area or due to contamination inthe post-harvest supply chain. The financial losses incurred by organic farmers andfood companies due to GM contamination are considerable, through lost markets, lostsales, lower prices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification and productrecalls. It is important that co-existence regimes address all of these impacts, with theGM sector being held accountable.IntroductionOne of the main concerns of the organic sector is the impact of GM contamination ontheir businesses and ability to continue farming organically. Organic production ismore costly so it is essential that produce can be sold as ‘organic’ to get the higherprices needed to recoup their costs. GM contamination of organic products istherefore a serious issue for retailers and the organic sector, due to its impacts on thetrust in organic produce. UK Ministers have publicly promised to protect the organicsector against the impacts of GM crops, as it is valued by the UK Government for itsenvironmental benefits.  However, the organic sector is concerned that the UKGovernment and European Commission have not recognised the full economicdamages that can occur through the marketplace, instead focusing on whether legalstandards on GM levels are breached.  There are now many cases of serious impactsof GM contamination of organic crops and food around the world and these are not oronly partially related to legal standards.MethodGM contamination incidents and their consequences were identified in the organicsector through a literature review covering industry reports, reports from non-governmental organisations, records of organic certification bodies, press reports andgovernment records, with verification from parties involved where necessary.=1 Soil Association, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS7 8AP, UK, Emailkhewlett@soilassociation.org, Internet www.soilassociation.org2 Soil Association, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS7 8AP, UK, Emailgazeez@soilassociation.org, Internet www.soilassociation.org16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.htmlResultsOilseed rape2002+: Canadian organic farmers sue over contamination of oilseed rape seed bycross-pollination.  In Canada, 73% of the oilseed rape area is now GM, resulting inalmost complete contamination of non-GM seed stocks. The lack of clean seed hasforced farmers in Saskatchewan to all but abandon organic oilseed rape production.iThey now pursuing a class action lawsuit against the biotechnology companies toseek compensation for the millions of dollars of damage to businesses.Maize 2005: Cross-pollination of Spanish maize by GM crops has caused financial andgenetic diversity losses. GM contamination was found in organic maize crops on fiveseparate organic farms in Aragon and Catalonia.  The contaminants were Bt176 andMON810, at levels of 0.15% to 12.6%.  In all cases, organic certification waswithdrawn and farmers suffered economic losses.  Two of the incidents involved localvarieties of seeds: these varieties have now been lost.ii2005: Wide contamination of organic maize by cross-pollination in Aragon. Tests offields and grain silos found MON 810 in 50% of the samples, at levels of 0.03% -1.9%. Unable to sell the maize as organic, farmers suffered financial losses.iii2004: Cross-pollination cost organic farmers in Aragon more than €4,000. Sampleswere taken from three organic maize crops.  All were contaminated: one with Bt176 at34% despite being over 500m from a GM field, and all with MON 810 at levels of 0.1%- 0.5%. Organic certificates were withdrawn and one farmer reported that the incidenthad cost him €4,000 due to the lower market price for GM maize.iv2003: GM contamination of maize by cross-pollination led to end of organic productionin Navarra.  A tiny amount of GM maize was being grown in the region, but testsrevealed that two organic fields contained Bt176 at above 0.05%. Organic status waswithdrawn but neither farmer had any right to compensation and, as a result, almost allfarmers in Navarra have ceased production of organic maize.v2001: GM contamination of maize by cross-pollination could cost US organic farmersc.$90 million/year. Across the USA, organic farmers are being affected by lower pricesor loss of sales due to GM contamination from neighbouring farms. It is estimated thatcontamination of the total organic maize crop would total a potential lost income ofover $90 million annually for organic farmers.vi Organic and Identity Preserved grainelevators in North Dakota and Minnesota regularly test their deliveries for presence ofGMOs, and have to turn away 2 - 5 % of all grain due to GM contamination.vii1998: GM contamination of organic maize cost food company $150,000. Terra Primahad to recall 87,000 bags of organic tortilla chips found to be GM contaminated, at acost of $150,000. The source was traced to an organic farm in Texas that had beencross-pollinated by Bt GM maize. The contamination had been discovered only afterthe maize had been processed and shipped to Europe.viiiSoya16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.html2007: Post-harvest GM contamination of organic soybeans cost food company$100,000.  Nevada Soy was forced to close their business for a month following apositive GMO test on their organic soybean oil. The following investigation revealedthat a shipment of organic soybeans travelling to the organic processor wascontaminated by up to 20% GM. The company lost $100,000 as a result of thecontamination incident and was forced to sell their products on the conventionalmarket.ix2006: Tests show 57% of Japanese organic tofu is GM contaminated. Tests ofsupermarket tofu revealed that 57% of organic tofu and 30% of tofu samples labelledas ‘100% Japanese soy’ contained GM, even though GM soya is not grown in Japan.x2005: GM contamination of Korean organic soya baby milk forced removal of brands’organic labels. Testing by the South Korea Food and Drug Administration found GMcontamination in four brands of organic soya baby milk. The companies were orderedto remove their organic labels without compensation.xi2004: Discovery of GM contamination of UK organic soya food prompts negativepublicity.  9 samples of organic soya foods were purchased across the UK. 5 showedGM contamination at levels of 0.1% - 0.9%. This resulted in considerable negativepublicity and pressure on the UK organic industry.  In total 19 samples labelled aseither ‘GM free’ or ‘organic’ were tested. 8 contained GM material.xii2004: GM contamination of organic soya in Brazil means farmers unable to sellproduce as organic.  In Brazil, GMOs contaminated many organic soya crops, despitefarmers’ spending much time and money in efforts to protect them.  Those affectedare no longer getting the higher premiums for organic produce.xiii2002: GM contamination of organic soya animal feed causes losses to feed-mill andorganic farmers. The Soil Association found that a batch of organic soya at a feed milltested positive for GM, despite testing negative in Italy and on arrival in the UK. Theremoval of organic status from the feed, and livestock that had eaten it, caused majorfinancial losses to the feed-mill and organic farmers.xivPapaya2005: GM papaya seedlings mistakenly supplied to organic farmers in Hong Kong. Inearly 2005, organic and non-organic farmers received papaya seedlings from theGovernment, but were not informed they were ‘very probably GM’ until one year later.The GM fruit had already been sold in markets, breaching organic regulations.Laboratory testing of fruit and leaf samples revealed GM sequences and suggestedthat there were at least 100 GM papaya trees in the region.  The GM papaya variety isnot approved for sale and had not passed any long-term safety tests.xv2004: GM contamination of Hawaiian papaya led to loss of export markets. Nearly20,000 papaya seeds, mainly from organic farms across the Big Island, showed a GMcontamination level of 50%. Further papaya samples from organic farms on Oahu andKauai xvi also showed contamination. Unable to control the contamination from GMorchards, organic farmers are now forced to sell their papaya at a third of the pricethey were getting before. Total papaya production in Hawaii has reduced by 30%since the GM varieties were introduced in 1998 and export markets have shrunkrapidly as it is difficult to guarantee non-GM fruit.xvii16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20, 2008Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.htmlConclusionsGM contamination can give rise to a wide range of economic impacts beyond thoserelated to legal tolerance standards. These include lost markets, lost sales, lowerprices, negative publicity, withdrawal of organic certification and product recalls.Adoption of specific standards in the legislation is unlikely to adequately reduce theseincidences.  These findings highlight the need to control the level of contaminationrather than simply adjusting the legal standards for tolerance.References=i ‘Seeds of doubt – North American farmers’ experiences of GM crops’, Soil Associationii ‘Impossible coexistence’, report by Greenpeace Spain, Assemblea Pagesade Catalunya andPlataforma Transgenics Fora, April 2006iii Research by the Comite Aragones de Agricultura Ecologica (CAAE) presented in conjunctionwith Union de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Aragon (UAGA) and Greenpeace, December2005iv CAAE research, 2004, presented in ‘Impossible coexistence’, report by Greenpeace Spain,Assemblea Pagesade Catalunya and Plataforma Transgenics Fora, April 2006v ‘Failing in the field – GM crops in Spain don’t deliver promises but harm farmers andenvironment’, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth press release, August 26, 2003vi ‘Union of Concerned Scientists comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on therenewal of Bt-crop registrations’, www.biotech-info.net, 10 September 2001vii ‘Seeds of doubt – North American farmers’ experiences of GM crops’, Soil Associationviii ‘FDA holds Oakland hearing to discuss genetic labelling’, Oakland Tribune, 14 December 1999ix ‘Questions of fraud raised by GMO contaminated shipment of soybeans’, The Organic and Non-GMO report, June 2007x ‘Results of GMO soy survey’,CBIC Bio Journal, March 2006xi ‘Korea – organic soybean milk has GM contamination’, GM Contamination Register, Greenpeaceand Genewatch UKxii Partridge, M. & Murphy, D.J. (2004) Detection of genetically modified soya in a range of organicand health food products: Implications for the accurate labelling of foodstuffs derived frompotential GM crops. British Food Journal 106:166-180xiii Greenpeace interview with Antonio Wünsch, president of Cotrimaio, a cooperative from RioGrande do Sul in March 2004. Presentation by Paulo Moraes, from EcoBrazil Organics Ltd atthe seminar "Transgênicos: aprofundar o debate para a votação em plenário", November 23,2004 at the Brasilian National Congressxiv ‘GM contamination of organic animal feed’, Soil Association press release, 14 November 2002xv ‘Unsafe GE papaya seedlings distributed by Hong Kong government’, Greenpeace China pressrelease, 13 March 2006xvi ‘New research reveals widespread GMO contamination and threats to local agriculture from theUniversity of Hawaii’s GMO papaya’, Hawaii GEAN and GMO-Free Kauai press release, 9Sept 2004xvii ‘The Failure of GE Papaya in Hawaii’, Greenpeace briefing, May 2006

The Economic Impacts of GM Contamination Incidents on the Organic Sector

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints