The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production

[OrganicABC]

The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production

- USDA, GAIN Report Number: IT9014 Office of Foreign Service Operations (OFS); Approved By: Jim Dever
Prepared By: Cyndi Barmore. May 6, 2009. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GA..._5-26-2009.pdf

Report Highlights: The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs. [1] In reality, the divide between organics and biotechnology is an artificial construction maintained by ideology rather than science. A governmental decision to change organic regulations to permit the use of biotechnology could have far-reaching policy implications for global agriculture. Allowing producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops could encourage the development of a new type of environmentally sustainable agricultural production with greater benefits for the consumer. [1] Isabel Rosa, GAIN Report: Organic Agriculture in Italy, 2008 (Foreign Agricultural Service: Rome, 2008) 5.

General Information: The Debate over Biotechnology Organic promoters are primarily concerned that incorporating biotechnology into agriculture will create unpredictable long-term problems for consumers and the environment. Greenpeace, a leader among non-governmental organizations committed to environmental protection, describes its global campaign against biotechnology as a fight "to protect the public's health and prevent the contamination of the environment." [1]

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the leading umbrella organization for organic organizations worldwide, rejects biotechnology on grounds of uncertainty. In laying out organic agriculture's fundamental principles, IFOAM states that "Organic agriculture should prevent significant risks by adopting appropriate technologies and rejecting unpredictable ones, such as genetic engineering." [2] Due to such concerns, organic lobbies in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere have successfully outlawed biotechnology in organic certification standards.

The scientific community consistently responds that biotechnology has not created new ills for humanity or the environment. Agricultural biotechnologists contend that health and environmental concerns are unfounded worries based on unjustified fears.

Independent EU food safety panels unanimously report that Bt-corn, a biotech crop including an insecticide gene derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, is equivalent in safety to conventional corn. [3] After six years of scientific examination, an EU commission declared in 2002 that there was no scientific basis for the EU's ban on new biotechnology. [4] The commission reported that the primary difference between conventional plant breeding and biotechnology is the higher precision inherent in the latter.

The National Research Council argues that the accuracy with which plant biotechnologists alter a plant's genes makes the process even safer than conventional breeding. [5] Biotechnology supporters argue that biotech crops are not only safe, but potentially more nutritionally beneficial to the consumer than conventional varieties. For example, Golden Rice is a variety of rice fortified with vitamin A. Its widespread adoption could supplement the nutrition of the 120 million children deficient in vitamin A and prevent 1 to 2 million deaths annually. [6] There is a significant variety of health additives that could improve the nutritional quality of crops, ranging from fatty acid omega-3 in canola for cardiovascular and mental health, to the antioxidant lycopene in tomatoes. [7]

Proponents of biotechnology also contend that such crops are better for the environment than conventional varieties. Some biotech crops are pest resistant, thereby reducing the amount of pesticides farmers require. Bt-corn, for example, repels insects that would normally feed on the crop. Farmers who grow Bt-corn on a single hectare use 75 percent less pesticides, essentially receiving the benefits of chemicals without releasing them into the environment or leaving residue on the final product. [8] Similarly, Roundup Ready soybean farmers in the U.S. spent $753 million less on herbicide in 2001. [9] The Economic Research Service of the USDA compared pesticide use for Bt maize, Bt soybean, and Bt cotton to pesticide use for conventional varieties, and the biotech group used 7.6 million fewer acre-treatments in 1997. By 1998, savings were 17 million acre treatments, and Bt protection reduced mycotoxin contamination by 92 percent. [10] By 2002, 40 case studies of 27 biotech crops revealed pesticide use had fallen by 163 million pounds. [11]

Biotechnology also contributes to the fight against deforestation, as most unused potential farmland today is under tropical forest. From 1800 to 1950, farmers increased production by ploughing new land, razing forests, and clearing virgin pastures. With the advent of the Green Revolution, farmers adopted new technologies that increased yields 300 percent without expanding agricultural land use. Proponents argue that biotechnology would allow producers to increase yields on existing farms as well as cultivate suboptimal land. Salinity has rendered 40 percent of global irrigated land non-arable, but researchers Zhang and Blumwald developed technology that would allow farmers to grow plants in soil with 50 times more salt than normal water. [12] New plant varieties are also able to produce citric acid in the roots which enables growth in soil with a high aluminum content. [13]

The Potential of a New Organic-Biotech Movement
Organic regulations do not yet allow for organic-biotech production. In 2007 the EU adopted new organic legislation, Council Regulation 834/2007, that created a ceiling of five percent for the unintentional mixing of conventionally produced ingredients in organic products. In contrast, the EU will only tolerate biotech ingredients if they compose less than 0.9 percent of the final organic product. By indicating that biotech crops hold a different and greater danger than conventional varieties, the EU organic legislation seeks to make a pariah out of this technology.

There is no scientific reason to stigmatize biotechnology, and doing so threatens to cripple an agricultural movement that could help the environment, increase yields, and improve nutrition worldwide. The policy implications of changing governmental organic regulations to permit the organic cultivation of biotech crops would benefit consumers and the environment while reducing the stigma currently attached to biotechnology. The two systems have compatible nutritional and environmental goals, and together they could create a new form of sustainable production agriculture. Large-scale organic-biotech production would give organic consumers a more affordable product that is better for their health and the environment. Introducing biotechnology into organic agriculture would increase organic yields and contribute positively to the global food supply.

Combining biotechnology and organic methods would allow producers to maintain high yields while still catering to consumers who demand organic products. Pests, diseases, and spoilage - problems that biotechnology can counter - destroy almost 40 percent of global food crops annually. [14] For example, African maize is susceptible to stem borer beetles that destroy 15 to 40 percent of the crop each year, and a new biotech variety is resistant. [15] The disparity between American and European agriculture demonstrates the potential impact of biotechnology on yields. In 1996 when biotech crops were first introduced into commercial agriculture, grain yields in Europe equaled those in the United States. European grain production has since fallen behind the U.S. by 1 to 2 percent annually, implying that Europe could grow 15 percent more grain if it lifted its ban on biotechnology. [16]