What Happens When Pollen Moves from Genetically Engineered Crops to Organic Crops?

Organic farming is a production system in which, among other restrictions, synthetically produced fertilizers and pesticides are not permitted; control of biotic pests is accomplished by biological pest control and nonsynthetic pesticides such as copper, rotenone, and Bt (1). Although some GE crops are engineered to produce Bt, use of GE crop varieties in certified organic farming is specifically prohibited (1). To be sold or labeled as 100% organic, the product must be produced and handled without use of excluded methods that include “. . . recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).” Excluded methods “do not include traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization or tissue culture” (2). Despite this ban onGEtechnology, some argue that GE crops could fill a niche in organic farming (3).

In the United States, organic production is a process, not a product certification, and thus does not specify the nature of the food or ingredient. Although organic farmers are not required to test for pesticides (4), AP of certain excluded materials, such as synthetic pesticides, are permitted (5). Presence in an organic product of a particular pesticide at levels <5% of the EPA’s tolerances can be labeled and sold as organically produced (6). Presently there is no policy on acceptable thresholds for the unintended presence of GE materials in organic foods or products. Problems of gene flow to organic fields are similar in some ways to pesticide drift to organic farms from aerial spraying. The USDA set specific limits for pesticide presence and minimal distances between fields and a similar approach could be developed for GE crops if zero tolerance is not the goal (see “Can Organic, Conventional and Genetically Engineered Cropping Systems Coexist?“).

Because of the ban on GE crops in organic farming, some believe an organic farmer will automatically lose his/her accreditation if the crop is unintentionally mixed with a GE crop (1). The presence of detectable levels of GE material in a crop does not constitute a violation of National Organic Program (NOP) regulations nor is it reason to lose accreditation, as long as the grower has not intentionally planted GE seed and has taken reasonable steps to avoid cross pollination (1; for specific wording of NOP standards, see Reference 7). The USDA-NOP informed state agricultural departments that up to 2005 no organic farmer had lost organic certification because of AP of GE material (8, 9). However, the organic farmer might lose income from GE presence, if the product is being provided under a personal contract guaranteeing a 100% GE-free product. This is not an NOP rule but a private agreement between grower and buyer (10).

Some consumers, however, expect foods labeled as organic not to contain GE ingredients and have zero tolerance for their presence. Achieving 100% purity for any agricultural commodity is a practical impossibility given the nature of our food system, the reproductive biology of plants, and the highly sensitive detection methods available to identify GE traits (11). These latter methods include PCR assays, which require knowledge of the DNA sequence introduced (12), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), based on antibodies specific for the introduced protein. These testing methods establish GE presence and can result in extra costs to the producer; however, not conducting such tests could mean also extra costs because of rejection at the point of sales.

References:

1. Ronald P, Fouche B. 2006. Genetic engineering and organic production systems. Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Resour., Agric. Biotechnol. Calif. Ser., Publ. 8188

2. Natl. Org. Program (NOP). 2008. Sect. 205.105. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=79118d9dbc584aa41edd1f825f589429;region=DIV1;q1=205.105.;rgn=div8;view=text;idno=7;node=7%3A3.1.1.9.32.2.354.6. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

3. Ronald PC, Adamchak RW. 2008. Tomorrow’s Table. Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

4. Agric. Mark. Serv. 2008. U.S. Natl. Stand. Org. Agric. Prod. Handl., Subpart A: Definitions. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3003490&acct=noprulemaking. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

5. Agric. Mark. Serv. 2008. U.S. Natl. Stand. Org. Agric. Prod. Handl., Subpart G: Residue Test. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3003539&acct=noprulemaking. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

6. Natl. Org. Program (NOP). 2006. NOP regulations and guidelines. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3f34f4c22f9aa8e6d9864cc2683cea02&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr205_main_02.tpl. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

7. Natl. Org. Program (NOP). 2006. Applicability—Preamble. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nop/standards/applicpre.html. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

8. Kershen DL, McHughen A. 2005. Adventitious presence: Inadvertent commingling and coexistence among farming methods. CAST Comment. QTA2005-1, July

9. The Natl. Assoc. State Dep. Agric. (NASDA). 2004. Letter on unintended traces of biotech crops identified in certified organic crops. http://www.nasda.org/NASDA-Pew/Letter%20on%20unintended%20traces%20of%20biotech%20crops%20identified%20in%20certified%20organic%20crops.txt. :ast accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

10. Kershen DL. 2004. Legal Liability issues in agricultural biotechnology. Crop Sci. 44:456–63

11. Shoemaker R, Harwood J, Day-Rubenstein K, Dunahay T, Heisey P, et al. 2001. Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology. USDA Econ. Res. Serv. Info. Bull. No. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib762/. Last accessed 2011-12-2. PDF

12. Crop Life Int. 2008. Detection methods in plant biotechnology. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=crop%20life%20int.%202008.%20detection%20methods%20in%20plant%20biotechnology&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.croplife.org%2Fview_document.aspx%3FdocId%3D411&ei=BSfdTvL6EqjciAKI1pnkCQ&usg=AFQjCNG5lkfVEB7q9a56N46pfjqyuQz5hg&sig2=Y0eCmT1gVRzbo40JdpLJmw. Last accessed 2011-12-5. PDF

Updated 2/16/12