Tuesday, May 31, 2011

"These are landrace chiles, grown here by the Herrera family for more than 160 years," said Sandoval, 51, a chemist, biologist and horticulturist. A landrace is a variety of a plant species developed largely by natural processes and adapted over time to a particular place.

Sandoval has been growing these particular landrace peppers and saving seeds for four years. Now she's conducting field studies under a grant from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.

She is among the certified organic farmers who see genetically modified seeds - ones created in a laboratory and patented by the producer - as a threat to her farm and the chiles she's studying.

Companies like seed giant Monsanto and growers who buy such products say genetically modified organisms - GMOs - decrease the use of herbicides, increase crop yields and boost farm revenue. They have enough believers to make genetic engineering a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry. Even Congress believed in the technology, allowing companies to patent new living, replicable engineered organisms the same way you patent a new machine. Each year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture deregulates a few more genetically modified crops for farmers to grow.

But the impacts of GMOs, known and unknown, worry organic-food advocates and consumers - and farmers like Sandoval. They say genetically engineered crops threaten organic growers, risk changing landrace seeds forever and potentially put the food supply under the control of a few corporations.

Better harvests, fewer weeds

More than 20 million farmers worldwide have planted 2 billion acres with genetically modified biotechnology crops, according to Ab Basu, managing director of state government relations for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Some 275,000 U.S. farmers use Monsanto's seeds alone. "This would not be happening if there wasn't a huge demand for it," Basu said.

Farmers who use patented GMO crops can't save the seed and must buy it new each year from the company.

Estancia Valley farmer Andy Otis believes genetically engineered crops are safe and beneficial for farmers. For a half-dozen years, he and other Estancia Valley farmers have used corn genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand applications of the company's Roundup weedkiller.

"It is definitely a benefit to farmers," he said before heading out to plow another field. "I think most farmers in the valley are using Roundup Ready corn. I think it is 100 percent safe."

Otis sides with Monsanto and other biotechnology companies, who believe GMO products help farmers deal with ongoing challenges from pests, diseases, weeds and drought without harming the environment. The companies, which have done their own research, say GMOs won't impact organic or other field crops if farmers take proper precautions.

Sandoval flat out disagrees.

"They haven't proven they've done enough research," she said as she walked between rows in her study plot. "As a scientist, I look at empirical data. They haven't done enough field trials long enough to prove there aren't impacts. More releases of GMOs without those studies have the capacity to wipe out our seed banks."

Confusing standards

Under the law, certified organic growers cannot use any GMO in any food labeled "organic" or "made with organic" - or they risk losing their hard-won organic certification. For the person spending the extra cash to buy and eat organic, the distinction is critical.

But the federal agency overseeing the nation's certified organic program is the same one regulating GMO, and the rules seem at odds.

While the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency decide when newly created genetically engineered crops can be sold in the commercial market, the Organic Foods Production Act and the organic program managed by USDA aren't clear on what to do when GMO pollen drifts and ends up combining with non-GMO crops.

In April, National Organic Program Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy tried to address concerns from organic growers by reissuing a 2004 memo about organic standards and GMOs.

He confirmed "the use of GMOs is prohibited in organic production and handling."

Yet, McEvoy's memo confirms a "trace amount" of GMOs in organically certified fields won't automatically hurt a farmer's certification. Trace is not defined in the federal organic food act or by the federal Organic Standards Board, and "no federal agency ... has established tolerance levels for the inadvertent presence of (GMOs)," according to the memo.

"We're verifying the farmer is doing everything correctly, such as not using chemical pest control," said Brett Bakker, chief certifier for the New Mexico Organic Commodities Commission, "but when we get into the issue of GMO (pollen) drift or contamination, unfortunately the rules are gray. It is a very controversial subject to open up."

And Bakker thinks the issue will only grow more complicated as more GMO crops are allowed on the commercial market. "I think it can have the effect of eroding confidence in what the 'organic' label means," he said.

Bakker said there are ways to isolate organic fields from fields using GMOs, but that's no guarantee there won't be contamination - especially in New Mexico, where many growers still rely on interconnected irrigation ditches. "In short, it is a big mess," he said, "and we don't really know how it is going to play out."

Deregulating GMOs

Federal deregulation of GMO crops is being challenged in court.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the first case involving GMO seed - Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa - and ruled earlier this year that the USDA could proceed with deregulating it.

The ruling prompted a firestorm of protest from food-safety and organic-farming organizations. Alfalfa is a crop that spreads along roadsides from seed blown out of hay bales as they are being transported. In New Mexico, alfalfa seed can easily drift along irrigation ditches into fields.

Otis, the Estancia Valley farmer, said Roundup Ready alfalfa could help hay farmers prevent the spread of noxious weeds that are plaguing the West. "If you bale hay with weeds and haul it, you can end up spreading weed seeds," Otis said.

The Center for Food Safety and some Northwestern U.S. organic sugar beet farmers filed a lawsuit in 2008 challenging USDA's recent deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets because of concern about contamination of table beets and chard. By then, more than a million acres were already planted with the Roundup Ready sugar beets.

On May 20, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the USDA must conduct a more thorough review of the GMO sugar beet and halt commercial sales until then.

GMO opponents point to LibertyLink rice as a glaring example of why they fear the technology's long-range impact. In 2006, agriculture inspectors discovered the GMO rice had "escaped" before field trials were finished and contaminated the U.S. long-grain rice supply. Several countries banned U.S. rice imports that year, costing growers an estimated $254 million in lost revenue.

On the heels of the LibertyLink incident, Congress approved changes in the 2008 Farm Bill that require the USDA to improve oversight of GMO field trials to prevent accidental "escapes."

GMO crops are required to undergo field testing, but there are no hard and fast rules dictating how many years of testing are required or total number and location of test plots.

Monsanto's website has extensive information regarding the company's stand on GMOs. It says a "good seed company" will conduct multiple-year field testing and meet regulatory requirements before selling seeds with stacked, patented traits. "Irresponsible stacking could harm farmers," according to the website.

Other companies, such as Dow, Syngenta, Bayer and DuPont, also are patenting GMO products.

Shouldering the burden

Farmers who choose to plant GMO crops have everything to gain. Farmers who don't want to plant them, especially certified organic farmers, have everything to lose.

New Mexico has 199 certified organic farmers and livestock operations. The $70 million-a-year industry is growing, according to Jeff Witte, the new secretary of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.

Certified organic growers already have to meet stiff growing and processing standards to get the little USDA organic label on their products. Vendors at farmers markets can't claim their products are "certified organic" unless they meet the standards.

"Once genetic and field contamination has occurred, organic growers must bear the cost of testing, eliminating and preventing further contamination," said Charles Martin, a former researcher with the New Mexico State University Sustainable Agriculture Research Center in Alcalde. "Once released, patented genetic contamination cannot be retrieved."

Bakker said no one in New Mexico has lost organic certification due to contamination from patented GMO crops because they are not widely grown across the state yet. But in Canada, the organic canola industry is being knocked out by the growth of GMO canola, which easily cross-pollinates.

Industry representatives say there has never been a case where an organic farm lost its certification because trace amounts of GMO were found in the field or crop. But organic farmers think it's only a matter of time.

Fighting for protection

A New Mexico bill to protect farmers who don't want GMO in their fields died this year for the third consecutive legislative session. "All it did was protect people from liability if their fields end up accidentally with genetically engineered plants," said state Rep. Paul C. Bandy, a Republican rancher from Aztec, one of two sponsors of House Bill 46. "The heart of the issue is whether you can be held liable for having something in the field without your knowledge."

The agriculture community remains divided over the legislation, called the Farmer Protection Act, which is likely to be reintroduced next session. Basu, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the group's lobbyists met with the New Mexico Farm Bureau, dairy producers, New Mexico State University and chile farmers. "None of them were in favor of this bill," Basu said. "The chile growers thought this bill could be really destructive."

The bill would have discouraged companies from selling genetically engineered seeds in New Mexico, and that would be bad for chile farmers trying to stop diseases like chile wilt, said Jaye Hawkins, administrator for the 31-member New Mexico Chile Association. "We don't think a law like this is in the best interest of research and development," she said. "You want to have all avenues of research and development open for any crop in New Mexico."

Those who supported the Farmer Protection Act included the New Mexico Acequia Association, the New Mexico Farmers Market Association, Farm to Table and small-scale growers around the state.

Isaura Andaluz, who co-founded the nonprofit Cuatro Puertas traditional seed bank in Albuquerque and helped write the legislation, said it was unfair to not offer some liability protection to farmers, many of whom wouldn't have the financial resources to fight a lawsuit by a company such as Monsanto.

Basu said the biotechnology crowd was surprised when Bandy, a known conservative, carried the bill. But Bandy has followed the GMO debate for a long time as former manager of a pinto bean and wheat cooperative. He believes the liability problem is real. "We always saved our seed," he said of the cooperative. "We cleaned it, processed it and gave it back to the growers. If there is (GMO) seed in the mix, the seed can't be saved."

And if GMO seeds are found commingled with organic seeds, the entire batch would have to be processed as conventional seed, and the farmer loses money.

How real is the risk? "It has happened all over the country," Bandy said.

He said the GMO problem can be traced to Congress' decision to make GMO seeds subject to patent law. "I don't think they thought it through very well," he said. "A computer or a machine is not going to replicate itself or move itself. Genetic material can."

Tom Bagwell, who was acting director of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture until a few weeks ago, agreed with Bandy. The Farmer Protection Act, he added, could have created a conflict between federal and state law.

Taking on Monsanto

Biotechnology companies have sued numerous farmers for patent infringement, claiming they illegally save genetically engineered seeds or have the crops in their fields. Monsanto has filed suit against 11 farmers a year during the last decade for wrongful use of patented seeds, according to the company. Only nine cases have gone to trial, and the company has yet to lose one. The company also recently sued DuPont for patent infringement and violating a contract over GMO seed.

But on March 29, a coalition of 60 organic growers, seed producers and trade organizations across the country sued Monsanto in federal District Court in New York. Among the plaintiffs are three New Mexico farmers.

They're asking the court to invalidate 23 of the company's GMO patents, including Roundup Ready corn and a modified cotton. The lawsuit also asks the court to find Monsanto's patents "unenforceable."

"Farmers have been fighting against aggressive and abusive tactics used by Monsanto over the company's transgenic seeds for years," said Sabrina Hassan of the Public Patent Foundation in New York, which filed the case. "We feel this is long overdue."

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the lawsuit's allegations that the company goes after farmers when trace amounts of patented GMO are found in their fields "is simply not true."

"It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto's policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are inadvertently present in farmers' fields," he said.

The issue is not about organic farmers being right and GMO farming being wrong, said Joshua Cravens, an organic farmer in Monticello, N.M., who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "This is about a company controlling, patenting and forcing its product on an agriculture system even when farmers don't want to use it. This is about some serious concerns with GMO crops that need to be questioned and debated."

Cravens, 36, also manages the Arid Crop Seed Cache, a project of the nonprofit Cuatro Puertas in Albuquerque. He is growing and collecting heirloom seeds - more than 1,000 varieties so far - and field-breeding crops highly adapted to the drought-prone Southwest. He's concerned that as more Southern New Mexico farmers plant GMO crops, the risk of GMO pollen mixing with heirloom seeds in fields increases.

How far GMO pollen can travel depends on terrain, crop, wind, moisture and other factors, Cravens said. The range that corn pollen can travel, for example, is up to three miles, he said.

Cravens claims farmers in some parts of the country where GMO crops are common have stopped growing certain types of crops to avoid potential contamination. "They can't grow in isolation anymore, so they end up not planting," he said. "You just don't roll the dice. At some point, it is not worth the risk."
"There is a place for genetic engineering in this world, just not in our food supply and not by a corporation that patents and controls it," Cravens said.

No going back

A report on the impact of GMO crops on farm sustainability, released in 2010 by the National Academies, essentially says arguments on both sides are right. The report found Roundup Ready crops had reduced the use of more dangerous herbicides by farmers, but it also noted a rise in weeds resistant to Roundup. Farmers planting GMO crops in the U.S. have made more money, but the potential risk of GMO traits contaminating non-GMO fields may increase as more patented, engineered crops are introduced, the report found.

The economic impact of GMO farming on non-GMO farms isn't well understood, and more research is needed to understand the consequences of only a few companies supplying seed to farmers, the report said.

Sandoval, a certified organic farmer for five years, helps other local growers through the arduous process of becoming organic. It is a different philosophy of farming, she said. Biotechnology companies believe that by changing a few things about the genetic code they can resolve crop problems. Organic and traditional farmers understand strong crops adapt to a place over time, and diversity helps protect against the risk of losing an entire harvest.

Sandoval says all it would take is one farmer planting GMO chile near her test plot in this tiny valley sandwiched between cliffs to change the chiles that have evolved during 160 years. "We might never be able to (cull out) the GMO," she said.

In the end, though, says Martin, the former NMSU agriculture researcher, it is the non-GMO farmer who stands to lose the most in this battle. "Once released, patented genetic contamination cannot be retrieved. The organic growers will simply have to face the inevitability of some GMO contamination in their crop," he said. "Monsanto's definition of co-existence is 'surrender.' "

Contact:

Staci Matlock
986-3055
smatlock@sfnewmexican.com.

©2011 The Santa Fe New Mexican and MediaSpan.