ISU Bioethics Outreach--BIB March 2005

Due to pollen drift, seed contamination, or seed handling procedures, biotech plants can end up growing on farms where the grower intended to plant only non-biotech crops. The result is sometimes referred to as adventitious presence of biotech plants. The adventitious presence of biotech plants on an organic farm interferes with the organic producer’s ability to produce a biotech-free crop, which lowers the value of the contaminated crop. The same considerations can affect conventional, non-biotech growers as well. If they plan to sell their crop in a market sensitive to biotech presence, such as in Japan or Europe, the value of their crops also depends on avoiding contamination by biotech crops. There is, therefore, a serious conflict of interest between organic and some conventional growers, on one hand, and those raising biotech crops in the same area. How should this conflict be resolved?

Is coexistence possible?
Whether coexistence of biotech and organic farming is possible depends on several parameters, including social as well as biological and technological considerations. For example, where there is a zero tolerance (set either by regulations or consumer preferences) for adventitious presence of biotech material in organic crops, organic farming itself might not be possible if organic farms are increasingly bordered by biotech crops whose producers neither inform their organic neighbors that they are growing biotech crops nor take measures to prevent contamination. On the other hand, biotech farming may not be legally possible in neighborhoods like some in Britain, where local councils have declared themselves “GM-free” areas.

The difficulty of preventing contamination of organic crops leads some to argue that a zero-tolerance policy requiring organic foods to be entirely free of contamination by biotech crops, does not serve the interests of organic growers. The rationale is that as long as a zero-tolerance policy is in place, organic growers are at a high risk of losing the value of their crops due to contamination. If some level of adventitious presence were permitted as acceptable for the organic label, organic growers would be more likely to be able to sell their crops in the organic market, even if some small adventitious presence were discovered.

However, some believe that this compromise could end up harming the organic community. The initial benefit of greater assurance of a market could be undermined in the longer term by loss of interest in organic foods by consumers who are committed to avoiding biotech foods. Such consumers might seek out labels indicating that foods are “GM-free” instead of “Organic.” Moreover, setting tolerances might look to organic farmers like setting off down a slippery slope, incurring the risk that tolerances will continue to be raised until the organic label has to give up on avoiding biotechnology altogether. Not least, instituting a system of tolerances might seem to many organic farmers as a concession of their entitlement to an uncontaminated organic crop.

Who should bear the costs of identity preservation?
One view on this question is that organic and conventional farmers are ethically entitled to an uncontaminated crop, and that the production of biotech crops infringes this ethical right. If this view is correct, it provides a strong presumption that biotech growers should bear the costs of coexistence. One argument that organic and conventional growers do hold this right is that organic and conventional farming are long-established practices, with which the production of biotech crops interferes. As the latecomer to the neighborhood, perhaps biotech crops should be treated as a potential nuisance that must be contained by their producers.

Some argue, on the other hand, that organic farmers should bear the cost of coexistence. One reason for this position is that because biotech foods have been deemed safe by regulatory agencies, keeping organic food “biotech-free” is simply a preference, not literally an issue of avoiding contaminating foodstuffs with unsafe substances. Another argument for this view is that organic farmers are the ones capturing a market premium by avoiding adventitious biotech presence in their crops. According to this argument, the widespread adoption of biotech crops simply creates a background condition that organic farmers need to address if they want to capture the added value of a biotech-free crop.

Neighborhood issues
While the issue of coexistence raises thorny questions of public policy and economics, it also raises more humble ethical issues about the obligations neighbors have to one another. Most incidents of pollen drift will impact one’s neighbors rather than strangers. Ideally, neighbors would know what is growing on neighborhood farms, and if a grower switches from organic or conventional crops to biotech crops, he or she ideally would inform the neighborhood of this fact.

However, ideal neighborhood communication may be difficult to achieve. For example, it may be difficult for a producer to inform her neighbors that she intends to grow biotech crops because she perceives that they will disapprove of this decision. Understanding and addressing such complicated social factors will be essential to achieving a workable plan for coexistence.

Does society at large have a stake in the outcome?
One view of the coexistence issue is that it is a conflict between two groups with different economic stakes in the proliferation of biotech crops. However, we can also assume a wider perspective on the consequences of various resolutions (or lack thereof) to this problem. The more widespread biotech crops become, the more difficult it will be to farm organically. Even if one is not convinced of the inherent superiority of organic agriculture, it is clear that making organic farming prohibitively difficult would reduce diversity in farming practices and social systems, and produce an unmet consumer demand for organic products. These adverse consequences suggest that society at large has a stake in assisting in finding a way for organic and biotech farming to coexist, rather than treating the problem as a conflict between two equally situated interest groups who should be allowed to fight it out on their own.

Upcoming Bioethics-Related Events

Sunday, February 27
7:00 p.m., Oak Room, Memorial Union, "Killer Coke: Colombia, Human Rights and Coca-Cola," Gerardo Cajamarca, Colombian Trade Unionist. Information.

March 15 - Bioethics Institute Application Deadline Information.

May 23-27 2005 - Bioethics Institute

June 13-July 1, 2005 - Online course: Teaching Bioethics:
This course will be of interest to any science or social studies teacher interested in teaching bioethics. Information.

July 11-29, 2005 - Online course: Ethics and Animals:
This course will enable participants to recognize and distinguish different views about the moral status of animals. Information.

July 11-29, 2005 - Online course: Ethics and Biotechnology:
Modern biotechnology is as controversial as it is promising. Teaching the associated ethical issues can help engage students to learn the relevant science concepts and to learn the skills necessary to contribute to ongoing social dialogue about science and society. Information.

How to join the weekly Bioethics-related events email list
The Bioethics Program of Iowa State University in cooperation with the ISU Office of Biotechnology compiles a list of upcoming Bioethics-related events, which is sent out to interested parties each Monday. If you are interested in receiving this information or if you have events you would like to make known, you are invited to email the list manager, Katy Reader, at bioeth1@iastate.edu

Published four times per year
by the ISU Office of Biotechnology
and the Bioethics Program.
To subscribe, call 515-294-7356.
Editor: Camie J. Stockhausen

Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, disability or status as a U.S. Vietnam Era Veteran. Any persons having inquiries concerning this may contact the Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, 3680 Beardshear Hall, 515-294-7612.

In the March 2005 Issue:

Co-existence of Biotech and Organic Crops

Upcoming Bioethics-Related Events