USDA-Appointed Committee proposed “co-existence” policy which would harm conventional growers, endanger U.S. organic industry.
This article is posted with permission from Center for Food Safety.
Congress Steps In
Congress Steps In April/May 2000 Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has introduced the “Genetical…
Gardening, Lead Contamination, and Children
The health threat posed by toxic metals was recently brought only too close to home when a group of…
A Family Takes Action After PCB Contamination
A homesteading family begin taking grassroots action after learning that their property was contami…
Ground Contamination Destroyed a Family’s Dream
One family’s experience with PCB contamination on their small homestead. Originally published as “P…
The Center for Food Safety (“The Center”) issued a position paper today critical of proposals made by the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21), a group appointed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to recommend action on organic and non-genetically engineered (GE) crop contamination issues. The Center’s sharp response comes as concerns mount over AC21’s proposed “co-existence” recommendations, which would institutionalize an allowable level of transgenic contamination in crops across the U.S. If implemented, the proposal would infringe upon the rights of farmers to grow non-genetically engineered crops and require the victims of contamination – organic and conventional growers – to buy insurance or pay into a fund to compensate themselves for unwanted contamination, lost markets and other damages.
The Center submitted its paper to AC21 Chairman Russell C. Redding, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and committee members in advance of the group’s meeting next week.
“Co-existence isn’t protection, it is forced genetically engineered contamination,” said Center for Food Safety’s organic policy coordinator Lisa J. Bunin, Ph.D. “The only reasonable protection for organic and non-genetically engineered farmers is for USDA to mandate a moratorium on the planting of new genetically engineered crops until it can demonstrate that contamination can be prevented.”
At the heart of the AC21 committee’s draft report is the recommendation to prioritize “good neighbor-to-neighbor relations as the key to minimizing transgenic contamination.” Claiming that farmers prefer “voluntary innovation and incentives,” the committee sidestepped the need to directly protect farmers through mandatory contamination prevention practices and regulations. While better relations between neighbors can help, they provide no legal, binding or reliable assurances that concrete prevention measures will be taken by the genetically engineered technology users when disagreements arise and a compromise cannot be reached.