{"id":25371,"date":"2019-08-05T00:00:31","date_gmt":"2019-08-05T04:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=25371"},"modified":"2019-08-05T09:45:16","modified_gmt":"2019-08-05T13:45:16","slug":"remind-usda-that-genetic-engineering-is-not-acceptable-in-organic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2019\/08\/remind-usda-that-genetic-engineering-is-not-acceptable-in-organic\/","title":{"rendered":"Remind USDA that Genetic Engineering Is NOT Acceptable in Organic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, August 5, 2019)\u00a0The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appears to have forgotten the lesson learned 20 years ago when it was forced to ban genetic engineering (GE) in organic regulations. At a July 17 hearing called by the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research on \u201cAssessing the Effectiveness of the National Organic Program,\u201d Greg Ibach, the USDA’s Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, stated, \u201cThere is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies, including gene editing, to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production.”<\/p>\n

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a draft rule that would have allowed GE, irradiation, and sewage sludge (the \u201cBig Three\u201d) in organic production, which was met by the second largest number of comments the agency had ever received\u2014well before the days of internet advocacy\u2014overwhelmingly opposing the inclusion of the \u201cBig Three.\u201d \u00a0The prohibition of gene editing falls under the \u201cexcluded methods\u201d provision of the organic regulations. The law prohibits “a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes, and are not considered compatible with organic production.” (7 CFR 205.2) These prohibited methods include cell fusion, micro- and macro-encapsulation and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).<\/p>\n

Ask Members of Congress to Remind USDA that Genetic Engineering Is NOT Acceptable in Organic!<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

There are many problems with GE, and consumers trust the organic label to provide food free of GE. USDA has long promoted GE, but has avoided pushing it in organic since the run-in with organic producers and consumers over the Big Three. Former Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, for example, promoted a policy of \u201ccoexistence\u201d between GE and organic producers. In this regard, organic producers are joined by others who choose not to grow GE crops because they limit export sales.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, even USDA’s \u201ccoexistence\u201d policy threatens the genetic and chemical integrity of organic food. In practice, \u201ccoexistence\u201d means that those who develop and use GE technology are not held accountable for the damage they cause. The damage includes that arising from both\u00a0genetic<\/a>\u00a0drift\u2014which can make organic crops unsaleable in the organic marketplace\u2014and\u00a0chemical<\/a>\u00a0drift arising from the increased use of chemicals in GE-chemical intensive cropping systems. Any standard of acceptable use of technology would require control over the consequences. If the technology cannot be controlled, it should not be used.<\/p>\n

Organic systems are modeled on natural ecosystems. GE organisms belong in neither:<\/p>\n