LETTER TO MRS VENDE AND MR KALB
Re: GM Contamination and Organic Agriculture

Web version of a letter sent on 9th September 2003 by Eva Novotny, SGR

Mrs Vende: vvende@europarl.eu.int

Mr Kalb: gkalb@europarl.eu.int

Dear Mrs Vende and Mr Kalb,

I am writing on behalf of Scientists for Global Responsibility, an organisation of some 600 British scientists dedicated to the socially ethical and environmentally sustainable use of science and technology. We are concerned that a question of GM-contamination thresholds in organic agriculture is to be discussed by the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament, on 11 September.

Present organic standards do not permit any contamination whatever by genetically modified organisms in organic food or feed. This zero threshold is not an arbitrary figure, subject to revision. It is a reflection of the fundamental principle on which organic agriculture is based, namely, to work with Nature and thus to avoid as much as possible any artificial input or practice. GMOs are very unnatural, as they could never occur except by the manipulation of geneticists in the laboratory. The interaction of GMOs with the natural environment, or with the human or animal body, cannot be predicted over the long term.

The merit of the strict standards of organic farming was made clearly manifest during the BSE crisis. While tens of thousands of cattle across the country fell ill and had to be slaughtered, not a single animal born and bred on an organic farm contracted the disease.¹ This lesson must not be lost on regulators of farming practices.

Co-existence between organic crops and GM crops is not a realistic option. Observations reveal that pollen can travel for many kilometres on the airflow and in the higher atmosphere during the time the pollen remains viable.² Computer simulations³ show that the distribution of deposited pollen is patchy, exhibiting long ‘fingers’ and also isolated islands of high density amid surrounding low-density areas at some distance from the source. Thus an ear of maize, for example, growing well beyond the statutory separation distance from a field of GM maize, might contain a large fraction of kernels pollinated by the GM maize. Even a conventional farmer could not be certain that a portion of his maize did not exceed the legal threshold for GM contamination.

A great worry with GM crops is that, because of the novelty of the new gene sequences, unforeseen and detrimental consequences might occur, especially in the long term. One such possible consequence is an alteration in the functioning of soil micro-organisms. It is already known that GM genes can leak into the bacteria and fungi in the soil.⁴ But plants, soil and the organisms inhabiting the soil have, over the aeons, developed into a balanced ecological system. In the natural world, and in organic agriculture, plants obtain their nutrients from organic matter. In order for these nutrients to become available to plants, however, organic material must first be broken down in a chain of processes, in which micro-organisms provide a vital link.⁵ If their functioning were disrupted or impaired by acquiring GM genes, the soil would become less fertile. Over time, as the genetically modified organisms multiplied, the soil would become ever less fertile and the area of soil affected would gradually spread outwards. Far from producing abundant harvests, GM crops could eventually be the instrument leading to famine. This outcome is only hypothetical, as it is not known whether the processes involved would operate at a significant level.⁶ Nevertheless, the possibility of its occurrence is very real. While it may be argued that the risk of this worst-case scenario is small, the consequences would be so enormous that legislators must ask themselves whether the risk is worth taking.

Once begun, there does not appear to be any way to stop, let alone reverse, the process. No one can be certain that damage resulting from GM genes, even if allowed only at some threshold level, will not escalate in time to produce these effects.

It is far more important that Europe should have organic farms that can guarantee continued production of high-quality food indefinitely into the future than it is to introduce an altogether new type of crop, namely, genetically modified, that has a chequered case history in terms of producing the claimed benefits⁷. Furthermore, GM technology, despite the hyperbole from the marketing companies, has not yet been proved to be safe either for the environment or for health, and there are proposals for continued monitoring of both the environment and human health, especially children’s health, after commercial growing of GM crops is introduced.⁸ In any case, chemical farming, which includes most if not all GM farming, will no longer be a sustainable form of agriculture after several more decades. Minerals in the soil are removed with every harvest and only a few are put back in artificial fertilisers. Already, farming soils suffer a severe depletion in minerals, as revealed by studies comparing levels in 1991 and 51 years earlier.⁹ Soil structure suffers from lack of organic matter. Oil needed to produce the chemicals is gradually declining in supply. It would be better to support organic farming, with its strict standards intact, which has proved its sustainability over four millenia.

Public opinion on the issue of including GMOs in organic standards is likely to be strong. In America several years ago, the Food and Drug Administration considered introducing legislation for this inclusion. It was flooded with a quarter of a million letters of protest and decided to retreat.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Eva Novotny

Co-ordinator for GM Issues