Nearly half of U.S. cropland is planted with genetically engineered crops, say four USDA analysts, but the risk of cross-contamination of organic and non-GMO crops may rise with the approval of genetically modified apples and potatoes.
To date, a comparatively small number of organic farmers have reported losses due to genetic contamination, partly because there are few competing GMO and non-GMO crops grown near each other. Organic farmers have worried about cross-contamination since GMO crops were introduced two decades ago. “Co-existence may become more difficult for organic and conventional non-GE producers as more fruits, vegetables and other crops are genetically engineered,” says the Economic Research Service report.
The two most widely grown U.S. crops, corn and soybeans, account for 90 percent of GE acreage; all but a small part of corn, soybean, cotton, canola and sugar beets are GMO varieties. A much smaller portion of alfalfa, sweet corn, squash and papaya crops are planted with GMO seeds. The USDA approval of GE versions of potatoes, the most widely grown vegetable, and apples, the second-most-popular fruit among Americans, “may heighten issues related to GE/non-GE commingling of crops and products,” says the ERS report.
Organic farms operate 1 percent of U.S. cropland but organic food is 4 percent of U.S. grocery sales, says the Organic Trade Association. Organic farms hold a sliver of corn and soybean land. Conversely, GMO strains account for a statistical speck of produce output. More than 4 percent of fruit and vegetable land is certified organic and 10 percent of U.S. lettuce, carrots and squash are organic.
In a 2014 USDA survey, 1 percent of organic growers reported economic losses totaling $6.1 million from GE commingling between 2011-14. A spokesman for the Organic Trade Association said the measurement was “really a skewed perspective” because it included growers of crops with no GMO rivals.
“The percentage of organic farmers who suffered economic losses would be higher if calculated only for those organic farmers growing the nine crops with a GE counterpart,” said the USDA. In Illinois, Nebraska and Oklahoma, states where organic and conventional farms grow corn and soybeans, some 6-7 percent of organic farmers suffered losses.
The USDA said its figure for losses did not include expenses for preventive measures by organic farmers or for the testing of crops for contamination. Two common practices used by organic farmers to prevent contamination are planting buffer strips between their crops and neighboring land, and planting later in the season so crops will not pollinate at the same time.
“We know it does cost organic farmers to prevent contamination. They are the ones bearing the cost,” said Nate Lewis, senior crop and livestock specialist for the Organic Trade Association. Buffer strips mean less land in crop production and later planting often results in lower yields.
The USDA said it would enroll up to 20,000 acres of conservation buffers and other soil-conservation practices on organic farms into the long-term Conservation Reserve. The program pays an annual rent to landowners who idle land. The OTA’s Lewis said the buffers would help producers recoup some of their lost income. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said the buffers “can further enhance positive environmental outcomes by trapping sediment, creating habitat for pollinators, and reducing pesticide and genetic drift from neighboring farms.”
A specially created USDA committee is to meet March 14 and 15 to discuss two questions: “Is there an approach by which farmers could be encouraged to work with their neighbors to develop joint co-existence plans at the state or local level? If so, how might the federal government assist in that process?” The Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, known as AC21, was established in 2003 and suggested in a 2012 report that the USDA should facilitate joint co-existence plans and set up a pilot program to offer incentives for development of the plans. The USDA has no authority to offer the incentives, so it asked AC21 to weigh the two questions on the agenda for the March meeting in Washington