Position Statement on GMO’s, Adapted 3-2015

Approved as revised February 2023 Annual Meeting.

ORGANIC FARMERS SAY ‘NO’ TO GENETIC TRESPASS

It is the position of OFARM (Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing) that we continue to oppose any introduction of GMO’s, including the most recent versions of gene editing, including (CRISPER), into the production of organic field crops.  This has been a fundamental understanding of the Organic Food Production Act which needs to remain in place and enforced.

It also remains the position of OFARM, representing members who produce organic field crops, that the corporations who maintain the ownership and control of GMO technologies should be held accountable for economic losses incurred for, as they call it, the ‘adventitious presence’ of GMOs in certified organic crops.

It is long established that when use of new technologies becomes harm in any way, when it does not stay on the owner’s side of the property line, liability issues become apparent.  The difference with GMO technologies is that the farmer-user does not own the technology or processes but enters into a user agreement with the corporate owners who have patented the process and present very specific user agreements which clearly control the usage.  Such licensing in legal terms is “inherently dangerous” to the livelihood of organic farmers. (Defined as:  of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect. Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.)

As organic farmers we find ourselves in a precarious situation when dealing with the issue of the presence of GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms) in our organic production grown and marketed from our farms.  GMO’s are specifically disallowed in organic certification. Confirmed levels of GMO presence dramatically affect marketability of our crops.  As organic farmers we are experiencing significant economic losses as a direct result of rejected shipments due to GMO presence.  Organic price premiums are lost showing clear evidence of disrupted markets. GMO contamination is therefore, by its very nature, damaging to organic farmers.

As organic producers, we are generally skeptical that effective coexistence can be accomplished, and we hold the opinion that our choice of organic farming as a method of livelihood is being seriously threatened because of a powerless situation to avoid unintended presence.

We find it highly unfair and inequitable that we must bear the entire burden of mitigating risks of GMO drift while no responsibility is being leveled at GMO patent holders and users.  While organic producers subscribe to principles of good stewardship and communication, we are concerned that these actions alone are not enough to mitigate contamination.  

Organic farmers are at a serious disadvantage to pursue any recourse for loss compensation.  They fully recognize the futility of trying to pursue issues of decency and responsibility, and legal liability as well, against these corporate giants. 

It is the position of OFARM that the exercise of such an economically dangerous activity makes the corporations who own and license GMO varieties strictly liable for damages resulting from GMO contamination of organic crops, no matter how such GMO contamination occurred or what measures were taken to prevent it.  These corporations should therefore be required to assume the financial responsibility to fully compensate all losses to organic farmers resulting from GMO contamination.