• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture

Giuseppe

Emeritus
An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture

First field study in Europe carried out by a researcher from the UAB Institute of Environmental Science and Technology

The study was carried out by researcher Rosa Binimelis of the UAB Institute of Environmental Science and Technology.

Binimelis is working on the European project ALARM (Assessing Large Scale Risks for Biodiversity with Tested Methods) and analyses the application of the concept of coexistence between Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and conventional organic agriculture in the European Union. The results of the research have been published in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

Since GM cultivation was introduced in Spain in 1998 it has been surrounded by controversy, and in the past few years has evolved into a debate over the concept of coexistence between transgenic and conventional organic agriculture.

This concept was introduced in 2002 by the European Commission with two objectives: to deal with the emerging concerns derived from the admixture of different cultivations, since organic farmers are committed to not using GMOs, and to make it easier to lift the existing "de facto" moratorium - which is not officially recognised - within Europe so as to introduce new transgenic cultivations.

Thus the concept of coexistence, after applying technical measures, should make it possible to operate freely in the market while reducing the political conflicts linked to GMOs.

The European Commission is planning this year to evaluate how the policy of coexistence has been implemented in the past ten years.

Before GMOs were introduced previous studies in this area were carried out using modelling or experimental cases, due to the lack of commercial fields in most European countries.

Researcher Rosa Binimelis however analyses the situation in Catalonia and Aragon, where the commercial cultivation of transgenic crops began in 1998.

This research is therefore unique and especially relevant to the European Commission's assessment scheduled for this year and involved qualitative techniques by means of 51 in-depth interviews and participant observation (twenty-two interviews with farmers while the remaining were held with key political figures, including government representatives, scientists, academics, as well as NGO members and other organisations and platforms).

The situation of both types of cultivations in 2007 was the following: the surface used to plant transgenic maize in Catalonia and Aragon was respectively 23,000 ha and 35,900 ha, which represent 55% and 42% of the total surface used to cultivate this crop.

The variety of maize grown is the Bt corn, which is designed to ward off the European corn borer and is used mainly for feed production.

The maize production process is integrated in cereal cooperatives, which cover the entire production chain from the sale of seeds and inputs to commercialisation, including technical advice.

This system involves numerous infrastructures, which makes it difficult and expensive to segregate GM from organic and conventional production.

There are no specific silos for organic maize while only a minority of cooperatives in the region restricts the use of GMOs.

In parallel, organic agriculture is in expansion in Spain, increasing in the number of producers and hectares. However, this trend is reverted for the case of maize.

The author's analysis reveals a social confrontation between proponents and opponents of GM technology regarding the consequences it can have and the measures to be taken in regulating and taking responsibility for any cases of admixture.

Confrontation also exists when trying to define technical measures that would guarantee this coexistence since there are many doubts about its objectives.

Finally, the study analyses the difficulties organic farmers would face in order to claim compensations if admixture took place, due to technical uncertainties in measuring the level of "contamination" or its origin, but also because of possible social confrontations and doubts about how the GM technology was introduced.

In addition, many farmers who could sue for damages prefer not to in order to avoid any local confrontations in small villages.

As a result, the area devoted to organic maize was reduced by 75% in Aragon from 2004 (year in which the first analyses were carried out) to 2007 and by 5% in Catalonia between 2002 and 2005.

The percentage in Catalonia is lower because the only available data come from the first years of the analyses, when the cultivation of GM maize was not as widespread as it is today.

The trend was confirmed by organic certification bodies for the following years. This will lead to even more difficulties in obtaining local organically grown maize.

Given this context, the research concludes that both the concept of coexistence and different implementation proposals have generated new problems instead of solving existing conflicts.

By making farming models and the interpretation of their impacts an individual choice, the only issues taken into account in the system of compensation are individualised and economically valuable aspects.

The results until now point to the promotion of genetically modified farming over any other alternative.
-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/uadb-aic063008.php
-----
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

This is such a poorly understood area with so many different things being confused in one argument. The GM debate has two distinct issues one is the safety of the bioengineered product for human consumption ? either directly or via an intermediary - which is the easy part. If the product undergoes some agreed level of testing somewhere between that required for a food product and a drug then I see no great problem with this. The other aspect is the introduction of novel genetic material which is a matter of quite a different order. I am unwilling to accept that once a novel gene is introduced into a food crop anyone can guarantee it will stay where it is put unless it is only grown in BSL labs and then only until a lab accident occurs. Attempts to produce only infertile hybrids ? even if always successful - do not preclude genetic mixing by pathogens. The question then is what can any farmer/gardener/government do when the bioengineered resistance to some pest gets into a related wild species and creates additional costs for everyone else? While the lawyers salivate everyone else has a major problem and like pandemics, global warming or loss of biodiversity we have no international structures with the teeth to do anything about it.
Then we have the organics movement which seems to have decided that GM is not acceptable but once the modified genes are in circulation it is not a binary distinction. There is no way anyone can guarantee some pollen with GM genes has not fertilised a kernel in their field. As the article points out the farmer can no longer charge a premium for his ?organic? crop and will take a financial hit through no fault of his own but who he can go to for redress is less clear. If the aim of the organics movement is to provide food free of harmful chemicals it is not obvious why GM crops could not also be ?organic?.
I personally have not formed a firm opinion on this debate as I fear the unforeseen consequence of genetic manipulation but can not deny the enormous potential of a cereal crop which could fix its own nitrogen and what that might do for reduced nitrogen run off etc.
This is obviously going to run & run but in the end I fear a fait accompli as the accumulated escapes make the debate moot.
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

I suggest you see "The future of food."

After learning how one little genetic change in influenza can create dramatic changes, I'm not confortable with GM anything.

.
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Osterholm did an article on the potential dangers to our food supply due to bioterrorisum:

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/biosecurity/ag-biosec/news/mtotalk.html

This article does not mention a threat from GMO foods specifically but there may be some potential danger here.

Since is has already been proven with Bt corn that a viable grain can be produced that is poisonous to insects isn't it also possible that GMO grains, fruits or produce could be either accidentally or intentionally (bioterrorist/economic terrorist) produced to be poisonous to humans and livestock? A while back I think there was an article, I think it was in National Geographic where a person being interviewed claimed they could train someone to do genetic modification in a mater of months. I can only imagine the famine, misery and economic loss that could be caused if such a strain was developed and planted around the country or world and be allowed to freely pollinate with non-GMO varieties. Once the seed base has been compromised there is no putting the genii back in the bottle.

THe film the "Future of food" was informitive. Given this information and the state of the world I'm surprised that there is not more serious supervision of the industry. I hope Homeland Security is taking this potential threat seriously.

As I reread this post I hope that someone can honestly prove that this is not in the range of possibilities of contemporary science.
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

I have now found a copy of 'The future of food' and it fairly accurately encapsulates my own feelings on the subject. This is a subject I feel very strongly about and as it is almost entirely political it is outside the scope of what I could get away with on this forum beyond saying I could probably not support the statement at the end 'This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people' as I think the transition from democracy to corporate oligarchy has already been made.

I stand by what I posted earlier the problem is not with the biology; it is with the reckless way it is deployed and the lunacy in the patents and legal system that leaves a farmer being sued for pollution of his land by the polluting company for 'stealing their pollutants'.
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Organic Consumers Association has a section devoted to genetic engineering. Many good articles there on other things also.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/
 
Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

Re: _|An impossible coexistence: Transgenic and organic agriculture|_

GM products have a place in discussions about causes of disease. There appear to be some strong connections and unfortunately, a terrible lack of research. It would be unfortunate if we only consider pathogens and not the body's natural reactions to something it considers extremely foreign or toxic.

For example see http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2006/1600_sheep_dead_grazing_on_bt.html

(snipped)

Meanwhile, farming communities in Australia and New Zealand are concerned about new results showing illnesses associated with genetically engineered crops. Recent studies have found that ingestion of GE corn cause immune system reaction, diarrhea and vomiting. Pollen from GE corn has caused severe allergic reactions in people living close to the fields. Workers picking GE cotton have suffered rashes and blisters, leaving black discolouration on the skin. Research by the Australian CSIRO on GE peas also revealed unexpected effects: food supposed to be harmless caused a severe lung reaction in mice.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom