Farmers Face Economic Loss

The financial burden associated with contamination is

significant. Some of the costs to farmers include loss of
market access (especially exports to sensitive markets like
the European Union), long-term investments associated
with the crop or one type of production and preventative
measures put into place to avoid contamination. Preventa-
tive measures that non-GM and organic farmers put in
place include using bufer zones that result in less crop
yield, record-keeping, testing and surveillance of a crop,
and segregation, maintenance and cleaning in all steps of
the supply chain. Additionally, consumers interested in
buying non-GM foods know that they can rely on organic
and non-GM labeled food products, but the threat of con-
tamination reduces the confidence that consumers have in
those products. The undermining of consumer confidence
is yet another cost of contamination, or even just of the
threat of contamination.
U.S. farmers who intentionally grow GM crops are not
required to plant non-GM bufer zones to prevent contami-
nation unless this is stipulated in the farms permit from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
7
Yet even the
use of bufer zones has proven inefective because these
areas are usually not large enough to prevent contamina-
tion.
8
Data gathered by the Organic Trade Association illus-
trates that some grain buyers reject loads with more than
0.9 percent GM presence, resulting in 0.25 percent of non-
GM soybean and 3.5 percent of non-GM corn loads being
rejected. A rejection by the loads intended buyer means
a lost premium for that non-GM product. The estimated
loss from market rejections alone is $40 million annually.
9

/V^.4*YVWZ/\Y[-HYTLYZ
G
enetically modied (GM) crops now dominate commodity crop production in the
United States. GM varieties make up 88 percent of corn, 94 percent of soybean
and 90 percent of cotton acres planted in the country.
1
With the rise of GM crops,
coexistence between organic, non-GM and GM production has become more dicult
due to the potential for gene ow and commingling of crops at both the planting
and harvesting levels. n ocial government |argon, this mixing is referred to as
adventitious presence, but what it means is that GM crops can contaminate non-
GM and organic crops through cross-pollination in the eld or through seed or grain
mixing after harvest.
2
Not only does GM contamination aect seed purity, but it also
has serious ramications for organic and non-GM farmers that face economic harm
due to lost markets or decreased crop values.
Fact Sheet February 2013
Paths of Contamination
Gene ow: Cene ow is a natural process
that fosters biological diversity in a plant
population by shuing genetic information
from the pollen or seeds of closely related
individuals.
3
n crops of the same species,
CM crops can outcross or cross-pollinate
non-CM crops through wind dispersal or
pollinators.
4
Some self-pollinating crops can
still be cross-pollinated, like canola, which
can outcross with nearby plants up to 55
percent of the time.
5
CommingIing: After a crop is harvested,
there are several steps during which CM
and non-CM seeds or grains can become
mixed. This can happen during handling
or transport if machinery is not properly
cleaned, or due to a quality-control
failure or human error during storage or
processing.
6
Organic dairy farmers in the United States already face
dificulty securing organic feed, and this challenge will
only worsen if GM alfalfa begins to contaminate organic
alfalfa.
10
The USDAs approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa
in 2010 highlights the significant ramifications that con-
tamination can have for organic producers. Alfalfa is the
most important feed crop for dairy cows.
11
Organic dairy
farmers receive a price premium for their milk, but they
also have production costs of $5 to $7 more per hundred
pounds of milk 38 percent higher than conventional
dairies.
12
If GM contamination eliminates this premium
that is mostly taken up by higher organic production
costs, these farms could be unprofitable.
Growers of non-GM and organic sugar beets and related
species such as table beets and chard also face
the possibility of contamination from nearby Roundup
Ready sugar beet growers and the potential economic
efects associated with a tainted harvest.
13
Over 50
percent of U.S. sugar beet seed production occurs in
Oregons Willamete Valley, also home to about half of
swiss chard seed production.
14
The Willamete Valley
Specialty Seed Association requires that GM plants
remain three miles away from non-GM chard and beet
seed producers, yet sugar beet pollen has been known to
travel as far as five miles.
15

If contaminated, non-GM and organic farmers can also
lose access to international markets. Many other coun-
tries have stricter GM regulations and labeling require-
ments than the United States. Despite the advanced
grain-handling system in the United States, GM grains
have contaminated non-GM shipments and devastated
U.S. exports. The Government Accountability Ofice
identified six known unauthorized releases of GM crops
between 2000 and 2008.
16
In 2000, Japan discovered GM StarLink corn, which was
not approved for human food, in 70 percent of tested
samples, even though StarLink represented under 1
percent of total U.S. corn cultivation.
17
Afer the StarLink
discovery, Europe banned all U.S. corn imports, costing
U.S. farmers $300 million.
18
In August 2006, unapproved
GM Liberty Link rice was found to have contaminated
conventional rice stocks.
19
Japan halted all U.S. rice
imports and Europe imposed heavy restrictions, costing
the U.S. rice industry $1.2 billion.
20

The United States is aggressively seeking to force its
trading partners to overturn their stringent rules on GM
products. The U.S. Trade Representative is lobbying trad-
ing partners, including the EU, to remove unjustified
import bans and restrictions to U.S. biotech products,
and is even pressing countries to eliminate GE labeling
requirements.
21
By May 2010, no more than 66,000 tons
of all EU soya imports used as livestock feed (less than
0.2 percent of the 32 million total) were found to contain
EU non-approved GM soya.
22
Asynchronous approval
was used as a pretext to remove Europes zero tolerance
for unauthorized GMOs in animal feed in 2011,
23
and in
2012, the European Commission announced its intention
to table proposals to remove zero tolerance for unau-
thorized GMOs in food as well.
24

Unintended consequences of GM contamination continue
to arise. In September 2011, the European Court of Justice
ruled that honey contaminated with GM pollen falls
under normal GM authorization regulations, meaning
it must go through the full food safety assessment and
authorization process, and it must carry a GM label.
25

In October 2011, Food & Water Europe wrote to the
European Commission asking for information on how
this ruling was being implemented. The Commission
responded in November 2011 saying it is actively
working on this issue.
26
The Commission has tabled
a proposal to change the definition of pollen from an
ingredient of honey to a constituent, but it is unclear
if or how this honours the leter or the spirit of the Euro-
pean Court of Justice rulingor how it helps beekeepers
or consumers.
27
Legal Implications of
Patented Gene Contamination
Besides the threat of economic harm from contamina-
tion, farmers who unintentionally grow patented GM
seeds or who harvest crops that are cross-pollinated
with GM traits could face costly lawsuits by biotechnol-
ogy firms for seed piracy. By 2007, Monsanto had filed
112 lawsuits against U.S. farmers for patent infringe-
ment, recovering between $85.7 and $160.6 million.
28
At
least onefarmer contendsthat he was sued when his
canola fields were contaminated with GM crops from
neighboring farms.
29

Recommendations
GM contamination of non-GM and organic fields is a
growing problem in the United States that will only
intensify with the approval of more GM crops. In order
to preserve diferent agricultural production methods,
agricultural biodiversity and consumer choice, a full
regime of strict economic and environmental liability
should hold biotechnology companies that patent GM
seeds accountable for any harm caused by the presence
of their patented technology in non-GM and organic
crops or the wider environment.
Right now, if farmers, food companies, retailers or
consumers are harmed by contamination or loss of their
markets, it is virtually impossible for them to recover
from these damages. Neither the U.S. federal govern-
ment nor EU authorities have dealt with this burden,
even as the USDA continues to approve a steady stream
of new GM crops for cultivation. Regulating authorities
must address the issue of liability for contamination by
GM crops and require that the costs of GM contamina-
tion be borne by the biotech companies that created the
technology and hold the patents on these seeds.
Endnotes
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Ser-
vice (ERS). Adoption of Cenetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.
From Corn and Soybean spreadsheets. Available at http:llwww.
ers.usda.govlDatalBiotechCropsl. Updated |uly 1, 2011. Accessed
|uly 6, 2011.
2 Cealy, David R. et al. Council for Agricultural Science and Technol-
ogy. mplications of Cene Flow in the Scale-up and Commercial
Use of Biotechnology-derived Crops: Economic and Policy Consid-
erations. ssue Paper No. 37. December 2007 at 11.
3 Ibid. at 3, Creene, Stephanie L. mportance of Cene Flow to
Cermplasm Conservation and Development. Proceedings from
a conference on the Science of Cene Flow in Agriculture and ts
Role in Co-existence, Washington, D.C. September 78, 2011 at
20.
4 Cealy, 2007 at 3.
5 Creene, 2011 at 21, Cealy, 2007 at 11.
6 Cealy, 2007 at 3.
7 7 CFR 205.2, Conner, David S. Pesticides and Cenetic Drift: Alter-
native Property Rights Scenario. Choices. First Quarter 2003 at 5.
8 Conner, 2003 at 5.
9 Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agricul-
ture (AC21). Meeting Summary. March 56, 2012 at 3-4.
10 Dimitri, Carolyn and Lydia Oberholtzer. USDA ERS. Marketing
U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers.
Bulletin Number 58. September 2009 at Abstract.
11 Mallory-Smith, Carol and Maria Zapiola. Cene ow from glypho-
sate-resistant crops. Pest Management Science, vol. 64. 2008 at
434.
12 McBride, William D. and Catherine Creene. USDA ERS. A Com-
parison of Conventional and Organic Milk Production Systems in
the U.S. Prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural
Economics Association Annual Meeting (Portland, OR). |uly 29Au-
gust 1, 2007 at 13, 17, Food & Water Watch analysis of average
consumer price data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Consumer Price ndexAverage Price Data. Farmgate prices from
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Prices
Annual Summary.
13 Charles, Dan. A Tale of Two Seed Farmers: Organic vs. Engi-
neered. National Public Radio. |anuary 25, 2011. Available at
http:llwww.npr.orgl2011l01l25l133178893la-tale-of-two-seed-
farmers-organic-vs-engineered. Accessed November 30, 2011.
14 USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Clyphosate-Tol-
erant H7-1 Sugar Beets: Request for Nonregulated Status, Draft
Environmental mpact Statement. October 2011 at v and 166.
15 Ibid. at 45 and 202.
16 U.S. Covernment Accountability Oce (CAO). Cenetically Engi-
neered Crops: Agencies Are Proposing Changes to mprove Over-
sight, but Could Take Additional Steps to Enhance Coordination
and Monitoring. Report to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutri-
tion, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. (CAO-09-60). November 2008 at
14.
17 EPA. Draft White Paper. Concerning dietary exposure to CRY9C
protein produced by Starlink corn and the potential risks associ-
ated with such exposure. October 16, 2007., Pollock, Kevin. Aven-
tis Cives Up License to Sell Bioengineered Corn. New York Times.
October 13, 2000, CAO, 2008 at 16, Carter, Colin A. Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University
of California, Davis. Statement before the Domestic Policy Sub-
committee of the U.S. House Oversight and Covernment Reform
Committee. March 13, 2008 at 2.
18 Leake, Todd. Dakota Resource Council Statement before the
Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House Oversight and
Covernment Reform Committee. March 13, 2008 at 2.
19 Howington, Harvey. vice President, U.S. Rice Producers Associa-
tion. Statement before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of
the U.S. House Oversight and Covernment Reform Committee.
March 13, 2008 at 1.
20 Ibid. at 3.
21 Oce of the U.S. Trade Representative. 2010 Report on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures. 2010 at 20.
22 Answer from the Cerman Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture
and Consumers Protection to requests No. 7l266 and 7l267 from
Member of Cerman Parliament Ulrike Hfken, August 6, 2009,
Friends of the Earth Europe. No link between animal food crisis
and EU zero tolerance policy. April 2010 at 6.
23 European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No
619l2011 of 24 |une 2011 laying down the methods of sampling
and analysis for the ocial control of feed as regards presence
of genetically modied material for which an authorisation pro-
cedure is pending or the authorisation of which has expired.
Dcidl journdl oj the Furopedn Union. |une 25, 2011 at L 166l9 and
166l11.
24 U.K. Parliament. Daily Hansard - Written Answers. |uly 2, 2012
at c518W. On le at Food & Water Watch and available at http:ll
www.publications.parliament.uklpalcm201213lcmhansrdl
cm120702ltextl120702w0005.htm#12070315000487.
25 Court of |ustice of the European Union. Press and nforma-
tion |udgment in Case C-442l09 Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v
Freistaat Bayern. (Press release). September 6, 2011. Available at
http:llcuria.europa.eul|cmsluploadldocslapplicationlpdfl2011-
09lcp110079en.pdf.
26 Food & Water Watch correspondence with the Head of Cabinet
of Commissioner Dalli. November 18, 2011, European Commis-
sion. Roadmap: Proposal for a Directive of the EP and the Coun-
cil amending Council Directive 2001l110lEC relating to honey.
September 2012. On le at Food & Water Watch and available at
http:llec.europa.eulgovernancelimpactlplanned_ialdocsl2012_
sanco_040_honey_en.pdf.
27 European Commission. Proposal for a Directive of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council Amending Council Directive
2001l110lEC Relating to Honey. Explanatory Memorandum. Sep-
tember 21, 2012 at 2.
28 Center for Food Safety. Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers. November
2007 at 1 to 2.
29 Farmers Legal Action Croup (FLAC). Farmers Cuide to CMOs.
February 2009 at 29-31, Ellstrand, Norman. Coing to Creat
Lengths to Prevent the Escape of Cenes That Produce Specialty
Chemicals. Plant Physiology. August 2003.
For more information:
Rue dEdimbourg 26
1050 Brussels, Belgium
T: +32 (0)2 893 10 45
E: europe@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwatereurope.org
Copyright February 2013 Food & Water Europe