Abstract
This paper begins by describing recent controversies over cross-contamination of crops in the United States and European Union. The EU and US are both applying the principle of freedom of cropping to resolve these conflicts, which is based on an individualistic philosophy. However, despite the EU and the US starting with the principle of freedom of cropping they have very dissimilar regulatory regimes for coexistence. These contradictory policies based upon the same principle are creating different sets of winners and losers. In the US the organic industry claims the system of coexistence is unfair and in the EU the biotech industry claims the system is unfair. It seems that states, despites claims to neutrality and freedom of choice, are prejudicing one system of agriculture over another in resolutions to the conflict over cross contamination. In this paper I will argue that if states cannot remain neutral in coexistence policies, there are conditional reasons for favoring the organic industry over the biotech industry in coexistence policies based in communitarian moral philosophy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Ramessar et al. (2010, p. 135) assert that, “The scientific process appears to have been discarded by the EU and its member governments in the case of GM agriculture. Not only are the thresholds for adventitious presence far stricter than for conventional crops, but the isolation distances implemented to achieve such thresholds are arbitrary, excessive and appear to be politically motivated rather than to reflect scientific reality”.
Importantly, the report affirms the principle of substantial equivalence as a foundational premise for regulation, stating that, “the presence of genetically engineered crops does not create risks that are novel in agriculture” (USDA 2012). Several committee members in the comment section objected to this premise and referred to the precautionary principle instead.
Perhaps, the major focus of the report was to make a recommendation for how organic and non-GM farmers might be compensated for economic losses due to cross-contamination. While all but one committee signed the consensus report, there was widespread disagreement on the compensation mechanism. The consensus report recommended that, “compensation mechanisms should be modeled on existing crop insurance” (USDA 2012). This means organic and non-GM producers would bear the burden of buying crop insurance to be protected from the risk of financial loss due to GM adventitious presence. The report also recommends that the government take steps to keep the insurance affordable. In reaction to this recommendation, one member of the report commented that,
The grossly inequitable division of costs and benefits inherent in the AC21’s crop insurance recommendation will be hard to defend in this era of shrinking public resources and will likely assure that gene flow, and resulting economic costs on non-GM farmers, will persist, and indeed grow, exacerbating tension associated with GE crops.
In general, the reaction to the AC21 report from the organic industry was largely negative. There was a feeling the both the coexistence recommendations and the compensation mechanisms favored the biotech industry and GM growers.
Norman Wirzba writes: “Food, for the most part, is now an industrial product. As such its character and quality, as well as the conditions under which it is produced are determined by the demands of industrial and market efficiency. While this might make good economic sense, the effects of treating food as an industrial rather than as a natural and cultural product has been the abuse of land, animals, and human communities” (Wirzba 2003, p. 11).
As Paul Thompson notes, “food habits are the material practices in which implicit and philosophically complex conceptualizations of community reside” (Thompson 2010, p. 152).
References
Bell, D. A. (2005). A communitarian critique of liberalism. Analyses and Kritik, 27, 215–238.
Bellah, R., et al. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berry, W. (1992). Sex, economy, freedom & community. New York: Pantheon.
Devos, Y., Demont, M., & Sanvido, O. (2008). Coexistence in the EU—Return of the moratorium on GM crops? Nature Biotechnology, 26, 1223–1225.
European Commission. (2010). Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Official Journal of the European Union, 200/01.
Gilbert, N. (2013). Superweeds? Suicides? Stealthy genes? The true, the false and the still unknowns about transgenic crops. Nature, 497(2), 24–26.
Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hanson, V. D. (1995). The other Greeks: The family farm and the agrarian roots of western civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mill, J. S. (1993). On liberty and utilitarianism. New York: Bantam Books.
National Organic Coalition. (2009). Position paper: GMO contaminating prevention and market fairness, what will it take? http://www.nationalorganiccoalition.org/positionpapers.html Accessed February 3, 2013.
Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R. M., & Chrisoue, P. (2010). Going to ridiculous lengths—European coexistence regulations for GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 133–136.
Schaack, D., Lernaud, J., Schlatter, B., & Willer, H. (2014). The organic market in Europe 2012. In H. Willer & J. Lernaud (Eds.), The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends 2014 (pp. 207–213). Switzerland: FIBL and IFOAM.
Thompson, P. B. (1990). Agrarianism and the American philosophical tradition. Agriculture and Human Values, 7(1), 3–8.
Thompson, P. B. (1994). The sprit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics. London: Routledge.
Thompson, P. B. (2010). The agrarian vision, sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2012). Advisory Committee on Biotechnology & 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=AC21Main.xml Accessed September 9, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2013). Consumer demand drives growth in the organic food sector. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=35003 Accessed September 9, 2015.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). Coexistence factsheets, best practices. http://www.usda.gov/documents/coexistence-best-practices-factsheet.pdf Accessed June 24, 2015.
Verhoog, H. (2007). Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. NJAS, 45, 4.
Walzer, M. (1990). The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory, 18(1), 6–23.
Wirzba, N. (2003). Why agrarianism matters—Even to urbanites. In N. Wirzba (Ed.), The essential agrarian reader: The future of culture, community, and the land. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, D. Freedom of Cropping and the Good Life: Political Philosophy and the Conflict Between the Organic Movement and the Biotech Industry Over Cross-Contamination. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 837–852 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9570-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9570-y