If there is one truism in food production on which nearly all participants and observers concur, it’s the notion that organic farming and biotechnology will always remain firmly planted on opposite sides of the ideological fence.
Organic production is low tech, labor-intensive, eco-friendly, (seemingly) less efficient and certainly not, at this point in time, able to price its products within the household budgets of most Americans.
Commodity production based on genetically engineered crop varieties, on the other hand, tends to be capital-intensive, highly productive and according to some very serious scientists who’ve crunched the numbers, an apparently more sustainable method for feeding the billions of people dependent on agricultural surpluses originating in North America.
As if that dichotomy isn’t harsh enough, the past few years have witnessed an raft of litigation aimed at curtailing the deployment of GM crops on the basis of their potential to cross-pollinate organic fields and thus, in the minds of organic farming’s most vocal proponents, destroying the purity and value of their harvests.
A collaborative confeence
Can a peaceful co-existence between the groups be achieved? Sure, right around the time that Red Sox and Yankees fans agree that maybe their rivalry has gotten a little too personal, skeptics would suggest.
But don’t be so quick to dismiss the notion of cooperation. This October - 26 through 28, to be exact - Vancouver, Canada, is hosting an international conference titled, “Coexistence 2.0: Achieving Coexistence of Biotech, Conventional & Organic Foods in the Marketplace ”The event is focused on strengthening the coexistence of organic producers and biotechnology proponents, especially economic and trade issues. The promotional copy reads: “Join world-class academic and industry experts, regulators, policymakers and other key stakeholders from around the world to discuss the challenges and opportunities in managing the growth of different types of foods in the global marketplace.”
Yes, with an emphasis on “challenges” and a double underlining of “different types of foods.”
But the truth is that both biotech and organic specialty crops have experienced significant growth over the last 20 years. Even as transgenic corn, soybeans, canola and cotton have been widely embraced in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, China and India, organic food production has undergone a rapid expansion in North America, Europe and elsewhere.
In the end, surging global demand for food mandates that all farmers and producers need to be as productive as possible. In the developed world there is real value in catering to the preferences of consumers who prioritize purity, environmental sensitivity and unique flavors and quality aspects in the foods they purchase. If a thriving organic sector keeps more land in production and recruits more producers to the profession, that’s a huge positive.
Of course, to strike even a tentative truce, both biotech and organic proponents need to be open to some significant modifications.
For farmers growing transgenic crops - or using GM feeds to finish livestock - the most important move would be a voluntary labeling program to undercut the most contentious aspect of genetically engineered crops production. If food products made from GM ingredients (and that represents nearly 80% of all staple foods these days) carried a label statement to the effect that, “This product uses patented bioengineering to reduce weed control herbicides by X%, reduce fossil fuel use by X% and control potential erosion by minimizing soil disruption,” I believe within a few years much of the phony fear-mongering over GM foods would dissipate.
At the same time, the organic industry and its key players need to stop with pretending that minute traces of transgenic materials that might appear in organic grains and other foodstuffs are somehow dangerous and life-threatening.
Basically, both camps need to take a step forward and acknowledge that parallel food production systems make sense in terms of efficiently utilizing smaller farms and isolated acreage that are currently under-producing, while adding diversity to food production and added choice to the marketplace. Some version of peaceful co-existence would also ensure that each camp could benefit from collaboration on best practices beneficial to all farmers and producers.
Is that too much to ask?
Copyright 2011 Vance Publishing Corp.
