What Role Can The Combination Of GM Technology And Organic Farming Methods Have In Sustainable Agriculture And Protecting The Environment?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was active from November 2000 - February 2001. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

1. Genetically - modified plants are considered to be the opposite of organic crops: This discrepancy exists because of the fear that GMOs will interact with the existing ecosystem, namely the indigenous species, say through cross fertilization to give rise to strains of crops whose characteristics may not be human or environmentally friendly. On the other hand organic crops are not known to cause any such damages, if they so exist.

2. Simultaneous use of GM technology and organic farming methods in protection of the environment: Though the option to combine GM technology with organic farming sounds very attractive, more time is still required to study the impact of GMOs on the environment. Let us not rush!

Specioza Kiwanuka
Uganda
specioza.kiwanuka@veco-uganda.org

Home gardens are an ancient system of agriculture believed to have been invented by women in her role of caring for the health of her family. Home gardens are highly efficient systems of land use. (refer to G. Conway "The Doubly Green revolution"). Home gardens can be managed without the need for cash. They provide essential fatty acids, minerals, vitamins, proteins and energy for the family diet. Seed and produce can be swapped with other households. Traditional home gardens contained many perennial species. Perennials sequester much more carbon dioxide than annual crops. Thus, the traditional home garden helps to reduce global warming.

Genetic engineering is not economically or ecologically efficient when compared to a traditional biodiverse home garden.

Margaret Dwyer
Sydney, Australia
margaretdwyer@bigpond.com.au

Scientists, farmers, the church, MP's, and the majority of people in the UK do not want GM foods, yet we are still eating them. From the start Monsanto, Aventis, John Innes etc have been telling lies. My mother's food course had a module written by John Innes on GM food. Their biased, and somewhat dated text was somehow being openly taught as fact to British people. In my area of England GM trials were tested in open countryside, how can any intelligent person deny the stupidity of this? Scientists have recently slammed Aventis's research as "inadequate" and said that certain suspicious results.

Why on earth should we trust you monsanto, you're record is the blackest of all. One thing the whole GM issue has taught me is the power of money. Big companies can lobby government so easily, which doesn't say much about our Polititions in Britain. Monsanto, you are so obviously in it for the money, and because of this you let yourselves down by not really considering the concequences.

Sam Witton
Norfolk
samwitton@disinfo.net

I think that it is very good that you can be blunt and tell it how it is and your site is very informative.

John
London
Spacejunky@skyhigh.co.uk

Once organic methods of farming combine with techniques from biotech companies they cease to be organic. So there is your answer. Is this a desperate attempt by Monsanto to gain some credibility amongst organic food consumers, thinking people or caring people? Sorry but it just won't wash guys!

Matthew Rochford
UK
matt@devontaichi.co.uk

I have always believed that GM technology is now one of the most powerful ways that organic farming could move definitively ahead, if the rules that govern the definition of organic can be re-evaluated. However, in the present climate in UK, the Organic movements aqre more like extremist religious cults than logical realists. The Soil Association, the leading proponent of strict rules for organic, actually practices a kind of farming fascism or agricultural apartheid, completely seeking to debiologise the concepts of GM as used in crops. These people are happy to use toxic materials such as copper salts for fungus control, or spray Bt toxin over crops, but have adopted a doctrinaire antagonism to modified crops that repel fungus attack, with its potential for mycotoxin poisoning, or insect damage. And if there is a farmer who wants to avail themselves of this modern technology, any nearby 'organic' grower is likely to lose their label.

Agricultural insurers are now excluding farmers who grow GM crops from insurance cover. People are agitating about 'genetic pollution' from GM crops in all kinds of completely non-scientific ways including direct damage to GM crops, that are akin to whiteys smashing up schools with black or asian kids, because they fear their ideas or these people will contaminate their own. This cannot be a humane or moral way to behave.

It will not be a good future for people if the organic movement does not reassess its dog-in-the-manger attitude to GM.

Meredith Lloyd-Evans
Cambridge UK
mlloydevans@biobridge.co.uk

The shocking naivete of supporters of the organic food industry in this country probably stems from a well-meaning itch to be nice to their planet. However, any agriculture has ecological consequence, and they are fools who delude themselves that there is one, easy answer. It is also foolish to believe that there is no commercial motive in organic food production so that a moral high ground can be taken against the likes of Monsanto.

The reality is that organic food is a business industry, just like any other, and populated by exactly the same people who seek commercial advantage. It may seem an anachronism to many that the commercial activity of certifying organic food in the UK is dominated by a company that is owned by a charity. That company sets out every day to maintain its dominance in the market and to reduce the share of its competitors. In what is a fuzzy area, the owners of that company can use their position to change organic standards if it sees a commercial advantage opened up. The example of the inclusion of the use of sodium nitrite in the standards so that organic bacon could appear on Sainsbury's shelves is part of this fuzzy area.

This argument that biotechnology is incompatible with organic just shows what a nonsense it is to claim superior or absolute truths, or that it is impossible for others to have a different understanding of what sustainable agriculture is. Jeremy Rifkin was the scourge of Monsanto for many years and a leading campaigner against biotechnology, and yet his experience and intellect led him to conclude that "genetic science could be used for developing a sophisticated organic-based agricultural production for the 21st century". James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia theory and the inspiration for many seeking a sustainable life (and years before the organic movement clothed themselves in sustainability rhetoric) has recently expressed his despair with environmentalists for their ignorance and hatred of science. He wished they "would grow up" and see biotechnology as one more tool in meeting the challenges of our world, and which does not necessarily end in "destroying the habitats of other creatures".

Dr Mark Fisher
Baildon, W. Yorks UK
mark.fisher@care4free.net

Yes, plants derived through biotechnology will give a cleaner and safer environment provided that the plants are not involving any micro-organisms. Plants without the use of any strain of microbes will be accepted by the farmers and will be extensively used. But care must be taken that these plants do not have any hazardous effects on the soil structure.

Dr. Abhay thosar
Valsad
abhay_thosar@usa.net

Very soon we will learn of the dangers of GM foods, by then it will probably be too late. Nature is a fine balance. Okay it can adjust to many of the pressures we put on it, but GM foods pose an unlimited threat, unlike anything we've done before.

John Jones
Aberystwyth University
jjo0@aber.ac.uk

Have you convinced yourselves that you are working in the interests of mankind? I understand this is you're job, but the issue here is far bigger than you're life, my life, my families life etc etc. What could result is a world of even less bio diversity than we have now. Already the situation is past redemption, can you not see the dangers of GM technology?

Its true, we cannot feed 6 billion people with organic-style agriculture, but surely lowering population should be our target, not seeking further ways to borrow time from nature. I am not truthfully blaming people in Monsanto for being harsh, selfish or even evil. Its just that people don't think for themselves. If you weren't so tied up in this debate and could take a neutral standpoint, I am sure you would share my fears. As it stands you will probably dismiss me as crazy, clueless or something so you don't have to seriously reconsider you're views. I have no history of activism, I have absolutely nothing to gain from anti-GM protest.

Sam Witton
Aberystwyth University
smw0@aber.ac.uk

Genetically modified wheat sold to farmers in the LEDC's that is designed not to produce seed that germinates cannot, by any stetch of the imagination, be seen to be better for those people. What this actually does is make the farmers unable to re-sow any of their crop, forcing them to BUY their seed from the respective biotech company - every year its a purely money making scheme.

The whole concept of GMO's is an economic and short term one that gives no consideration to the effects upon the gene pool and the fact that life has evolved over billions of years to reach the point it is at now and CONTINUES to do so. No-one can claim to know that the mish-mashing of genes from completely different organisms will have no adverse effects and therefore the only WISE option would be to stop genetic modification. The perpetual cry that GMO's are the solution to feeding the worlds growing population are naive at best. The appropriate course of action is increased standards of living and gender equality across the globe as inequality and poor living standards are recognised as the main causes for population growth. The notion that the human race is more intelligent and therefore more important than other species so that THEY must be made to accomodate US is equally naive.

For once is it possible for a business to do the right thing, not for their bosses and shareholders, but for the rest of the world? I doubt it! I also doubt that this will be posted on the web site!

Ian Sharman
Aberystwyth University
ias0@aber.ac.uk

I have not seen any 'authoritive' evidence to suggest that the above statement is correct, I would be interested to see any evidence that would do this. The Soil Association is collecting evidence to support their stance against GMO's - it may be worth reviewing their findings.

Ian Sharman
Aberystwyth University
ias0@aber.ac.uk

The two are totally incompatible and any combination would be a travesty of justice. Organic farming promotes and always has promoted a totally natural and sustainable way of farming without artificial methods alien to nature, such as GM seeds which often require more pesticide use.

Laragh Neelin
Dublin, Ireland
laragh@chose.org.uk

It's been interesting reading the many comments on the issue. Good discussion always results in a greater understanding. I hope this continues.

It has been most interesting to watch and be a part of agriculture and food production as it has evolved over my 50 + years. I've worked with open pollinated corn and saved the largest and best ears from the crib for seed next year. This was a small thing, but it was a part I played in the genetic evolution of the corn plant. Research that brought us hybrids must have been exciting, the results were sure exciting to farmers who used them.

I know there is a difference between the greation of hybrids and genetically modified, but I believe it is all a part of the ever changing evolution of agriculture and food production. As we pose more questions and seek improved alterenatives to the way we are going to do things in the future, we must expect that more answers will be found. We must acknowledge that surely there will be some answers that we don't want to hear or will not try to understand.

There will always be those who would like to stop the world so they can get off. There will also always be those who will get excited and challenged by the next question because it allows them to go exploring.

I believe that as long as we make no atempts to stifel man's mind that we will continue to find the right answers to all sorts of questions. The answers in turn will lead to more questions, therefore we can expect this evolutionary process to continue, future generations can look forward to excitement.

As was pointed out to me once in regards to my perception of an issue, I was advised to ask myself two questions. I'll pass them along and hope that this civil discussion continues.

1. What if I'm wrong?
2. What if they are right?

Tom Guthri
Delton, MI USA
guthrie7@msu.edu

"The use of genetically-modified seeds have lead to the reduction of chemical inputs and to more environmentally friendly crop production".

I have not seen any 'authoritive' evidence to suggest that the above statement is correct, I would be interested to see any evidence that would do this. The Soil Association is collecting evidence to support their stance against GMO's - it may be worth reviewing their findings.

Colin Patrick
Aberystwyth University
csp9@aber.ac.uk

The public does not want GM foods that still pollute the Earth with pesticides etc. We want clean, safe Organic foods that truly protect the environment. There is no public appetite for GMO's, and there just isn't one single thing in common between them and Organic crops. This is why I will be voting for the Green Party when I get to excercise my right/duty to vote for the first time.

Enda Crowley
Dublin, Ireland
enda.crowley@online.ie

What if some enterprising young scientists in one of the large seed companies came up with plants that just stop growing at a predetermined point in their life?

Farmers could have hairy vetch and rye that stopped growing at flowering. These could be used as cover crops that the farmer would not have to worry about controlling in the spring. Perhaps in dryer areas, where you wanted to control the cover crops before flowering, the plants could be engineered to die when exposed to a harmless plentiful substance (what, I don't know) that the farmer would spray on the crop.

In row crops these plants could be used as planned designer weeds. Sown between the rows or as a mixture with the main crop these weeds would cover the soil for awhile, add diversity to the field for awhile, and then die. They would have to be competitive like weeds, provide high leaf area, and then have some allelopathic effect when they died. The point when they died could be controlled genetically or through a trigger substance that the farmer would apply.

Would this be a good thing to have? The genetically altered plants would not become food, at least for humans. They would not be able to spread their genetic alterations if they were killed before pollination. And they would serve, in the case of cover crops, to improve soil fertility, and in the case of planned weeds, to decrease herbicide use.

This is just an idea I had and I have not thought long and hard about it. I was wondering what everyone else thought. A few months ago I sent the idea to a large seed company asking them if they thought it was possible but received no response. Maybe they thought it was silly. Maybe they are working on it?

Andy McGuire
Ephrata WA
amcguire@wsu.edu

In Organic Agriculture no artificial biocides (chemicals) are applicated at all. So there is no chance to spare them. You are liars. I don't want to help you with my opinion so that you can process it in your lying marketing maschine to lull the public any further: GM crops run intrinsicly counter the systems approach of OA. Sorry for you. Tip: Meet consumer demand with a changed policy of your company. Support Organic Agriculture in the oldfashioned, pure SA-style and forgetr about the rest (to alter it)

Andreas Kirch
Aberystywth
ank0@aber.ac.uk

I think that these developments may work well in theory but we cannot be certain they are safe in practice, therefore before any trials etc. are carried out more laboratory research is nescessary. I hasten to add, however, that I personally am not in favour of going down the Americian route of Genetic Modification but, as this technology is with us now, we must excercise extreme caution.

John Tobin
Aberystywth
jot0@aber.ac.uk

No I do not believe GM crops can "protect the environment." GM crops still use synthetic pesticides and herbicides. For example, those GM crops which constantly emit Bt will be very harmful to the environment as this will render Bt ineffective and resistance will be quick to develop. Therefore stronger pesticides will have to be developed. We need to get off the pesticides treadmill. I believe that the aim of GM crops for biotechnology companies is to have a monopoly over farming from seed to plate. They have not been developed by biotechnology companies to enhance the environment.

Catherine Fookes
UK
foo@tesco.net

No, You have missed understood organic. It is about much more than pesticide reduction. Trangenics is the opposite of the very concept.

Elbert van Donkersgoed
Guelph
elbert@terracoeur.com

Could the discrepancy exist because organic farming does not use chemicals, works in harmony with agroecological systems and utilizes genetic resources that have co-evolved with those systems over millions of years. GM production is the opposite to all of this. Come on Monsanto, don't try and fool the world with your spin about GM being environmentally friendly. GM has nothing in common with organics.

Alexander Kasterine
Kent
a.kasterine@ic.ac.uk

A growing number of scientists and environmentalists agree that the use of genetic engineering in agriculture is too great a risk to take and therefore has no place in the production of safe and healthy food. Organic farming systems have been designed to produce food with care for human health, the environment and animal welfare. The use of genetically engineered crops is not compatible with this aim. This position is shared by the organic movement worldwide and the majority of the public. It is therefore quite clear that if companies like Monsanto want to stay ahead in this very competitive field they must invest in other forms of agricultural technology that are acceptable to consumers.

Opposition to GM crops and foods is escalating even in the US as all sane observers recognize. The promotion of GM food production is, and will continue to have, a negative affect on the demand for American crop exports. It is therefore, in my mind extremely unpatriotic of any company to continue to push this technology that will only damage American trade.

It is time for companies like Monsanto to get real and forget about GM seeds and instead invest in other forms of agricultural biotechnology that are less dangerous and will therefore gain the support and trust of the consumer.

Harry Hadaway
UK
hhadaway@soilassociation.com