Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering

Abstract

The objections of organic agriculture against genetic engineering as presented in the 2002 Position Statement of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) are analysed. The objections can be grouped into three categories: risks to human health and the environment, socio-ethical objections, and incompatibility with the principles of sustainable agriculture. As to threats to human health and the environment it is argued that scientists contradict each other. Socio-ethical objections indicate that farmers should also be free to choose for or against genetic engineering and therefore the free-choice criterion needs to be specified. The argument of violating the independence of the farmer depends on the present economic situation (e.g. power of multinationals) and does not seem to be a consequence of genetic engineering as such. But as genetic engineering is mainly practised by multinational organizations the argument cannot be seen separate from the economic situation. Genetic pollution is a serious issue, but only because the organic movement is against genetic engineering on principle. Once the philosophical and ethical principles behind the organic concept of sustainability are specified (the third category), almost all the objections listed in IFOAM's Position Statement can be reformulated into good reasons for rejecting genetic engineering. The basic principles are: a holistic methodological approach to living nature, the self-organization (self-regulation) of living nature, and the integrity of living organisms.

Concepts and Strategies of Organic Plant Breeding in Light of Novel Breeding Techniques

“…The conceptualization of this argument of integrity of life was elaborated some years later [36], and further discussed in Section 2.2. Verhoog [37] further analyzed the arguments of the organic sector and summarized them in three categories: (i) environmental and health risks; (ii) socio-economic and legal aspects; and (iii) values and principles of sustainability of the organic sector.…”

“…With respect to the first category of arguments concerning environmental and health risks, the organic sector feared the unpredictability of undesired side effects such as environmental and health risks considered from the organic holistic view as inherent to the reductionist approach of GM, supported by the fact that many scientists were not agreeing on the risk-analyses and the interpretation of those data [37]. While the risk of GMO plants might have been overestimated, their claimed benefit was also exaggerated [10].…”

“…With respect to the second set of arguments (socio-economic aspects), the organic sector was concerned about the freedom of choice for the farmer and consumer due to contamination of GE and non-GE products as not every country has clear coexistence rules [37]. Another aspect in this category is the concern about the intellectual properties rights through patenting and the loss of independence of farmers in their choice of seeds and their ability to save their own seeds.…”

Cisgenesis Does Not Solve the Late Blight Problem of Organic Potato Production: Alternative Breeding Strategies

“…The third reason can be formulated in terms of the concept of naturalness which includes the aspects of non-chemical and ecological approaches, and of respecting integrity of life as described by Verhoog et al (2003) and Verhoog (2007). So the objections against genetic engineering of organic agriculture go well beyond the risks of the gene technology.…”

The role of molecular markers and marker assisted selection in breeding for organic agriculture

“…These principles are also related to the field of plant breeding and provide guidelines for future development (Lammerts van Bueren et al 2007;Wolfe et al 2008;Dawson and Goldringer 2009;Grausgruber 2009;Luttikholt 2009). As a result, three types of questions are often raised in debates to argue why GMOs are not compatible with organic agriculture: (a) the supposed health and environmental risks, (b) the socio-economic threats of the dominance of multinationals controlling the agro-food industry and (c) the fact that GMOs are considered to be a product from a reductionist approach of life (Verhoog 2007). Although molecular markers are a diagnostic tool for selection and therefore not directly interfering or altering the genome at DNA level, still aspects related to the above mentioned aspects (b) and (c) play a role in the question whether molecular markers are an appropriate tool in breeding programme for organic agriculture (Lammerts van Bueren et al 2005).…”