To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Farmers Fight to Save Organic Crops

Farmers Fight to Save Organic Crops
by Ben Lilliston
Progressive, Sept, 2001
http://www.progressive.org/0901/lil0901.html
edited

For the last four years, Nebraska organic farmer David Vetter has been
testing his corn for a new kind of pollution. Situated right in the middle
of corn country, all around him are farmers growing genetically modified
corn. And that poses a problem. Corn is an open-pollinating crop. Wind and
insects can carry pollen from a few yards to several
miles.  Last year, Vetter's organic corn tested positive for genetic
contamination.

Organic farmers are having an increasingly difficult time preventing
genetically modified organisms from migrating into their fields. Genetic
contamination can (also) come through the sharing of equipment like
combines, elevators, or trucks.

The costs associated with trying to keep organic separated from genetically
modified seed are mounting.

"A real issue at the moment for organic farmers is the increased cost
associated with testing," says Bob Scowcroft, with the Organic Farm
Research Foundation.

Organic is the fastest expanding sector of the domestic food
business--growing a whopping 20 percent every year since 1990.

Organic farmers are fighting back. Many family farm groups throughout the
country are interested in pushing for legislation that would clearly
identify the seed maker, rather than the farmer, as liable for
contamination.

Politicians have introduced bills in the U.S. Congress and more than a
dozen states that would require labeling of genetically modified foods and
stronger pre-market safety testing requirements. Some of the bills would
assign liability to seed companies for damages.

The Maine legislature passed a bill in May that would require manufacturers
or seed dealers of genetically engineered plants, plant parts, or seeds to
provide written instructions to all growers on how to plant, grow, and
harvest the crops to minimize potential cross-contamination. The Maine bill
is the first of its kind in the
country.

But the future integrity of organic products may well be decided in the
courtroom. There is no case law related to genetically altered crops, and
no laws have passed (although several have been introduced at themstate and
federal level) assigning liability. In the past, U.S. courts have ruled
against pesticide companies for pesticide drift. Farmers hope they would do
the same for genetic drift.

A class action lawsuit filed by farmers who did not grow StarLink seeks
compensation for lost export markets associated with the scandal. The
lawsuit, filed last December, alleges that StarLink's manufacturer,
Aventis, failed to follow the EPA registration for StarLink corn and
neglected to take other precautions to prevent StarLink corn from
entering the human food supply chain. As a result, the suit claims, there
has been widespread contamination of the U.S. corn crop with StarLink,
which has in turn resulted in a loss of export and domestic markets for
U.S. corn and a depression in U.S. corn prices. The suit, filed in
Illinois, seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
injunctive relief requiring Aventis to decontaminate all soil, farming
equipment, storage equipment, harvest equipment, transportation facilities,
grain elevators, and non-StarLink seed supplies to prevent further
contamination.

Another lawsuit, this one against Monsanto, charges, among other things,
that the company failed to test genetically modified seeds and crops
adequately before releasing them into the food supply. The lawsuit, filed
on behalf of farmers by the Washington, D.C., law firm Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld, & Toll, also charges that Monsanto, together with other
companies, formed a global cartel to fix prices on genetically modified
seeds and conspired to restrain trade in the GMO corn and soybean market.

"If U.S. courts allowed biotech companies to sue organic farmers for
selling their contaminated crops, organic farmers could be found liable to
pay damages to the contaminating companies. In essence, this would amount
to requiring organic farmers to pay for the nuisance caused by these
biotech companies," wrote San Francisco attorneys Robert Uram and Giselle
Vigneron in a recent analysis of the case.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the CONS-SPST-BIOTECH-FORUM list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]