Questionnaire about the socio-economic implications of
the placing on the market of GMOs for cultivation
A diagnosis by Spanish organizations:
COAG, Ecologistas en Acción, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and CECU
Original document: December 2009
Translation to English*: January 2010
* translated by the undersigning organizations and with their own resources
Content:
1.Introduction……………………………………………………… 1
2.The impact of GM crops in non-GM farming (and therefore for
non-GM foodstuffs)….………………………………………….. 2
2.1.The loss of the market and lower prices for organic maize
due to GM contamination and extra costs for non GM maize
cultivation; thus: the gradual disappearance of organic maize
cultivation and increased difficulties for production of con-
ventional maize in some areas……………………………… 5
2.2.Damage to socially orientated initiatives such as rural devel-
opment and other sectors ……………………………………10
2.3. The loss of the market for gluten from conventional maize...11
2.4. The loss of organic feedstuffs ………….……………………13
2.5. Increased prices of organic feedstuffs ..……………………..14
2.6. The costs of analysing (conventional and organic) feedstuffs
to check for contamination …………………………………17
2.7. Contamination of conventional and organic seeds……...20
3.The impact of MG crops for those farmers that cultivate them….25
3.1. Practical data from the Spanish Member State ……………..26
3.2. The experience of farmers cultivating GMOs in Third Coun-
tries …………………………………………………………28
3.3. The development of resistance to agro-chemicals……………30
3.4. The failures of Bt technology ………………………………..32
3.4.1. Lack of knowledge concerning the concentration of the
Bt toxin in MON810 maize….………………………..32
3.4.2. The development of resistance to the Bt toxin ……….33
3.5. The implications of the current inability to draw up insurance
policies to cover the risks involved in GM farming …………36
4.Social conflict generated by the introduction of GM crops ………..37
4.1. In farming………………………………………………………37
4.2. In scientific circles …………………………………………….38
5.Implications for the right of consumers to GM-free food…………..38
6.Conclusions………………………………………………………….41
7.Summary of aspects of the European Commission questionnaire co-
vered in the present document……………………………………….41
7.1. Economic stakeholders considered in the present document…..41
7.2. Chapters of the European Commission questionnaire covered
in the present document………………………………………..42
8.References …………………………………………………………..43
- Introduction
Ever since the opening of the debate on the introduction of genetically modified (GM) varieties in farming in the Spanish Member State in the early 1990s, the farmer and social organizations that have drawn up the present document have called for the potential socio-economic implications of GM crops to be taken into consideration in the processes of drafting of relevant legislation, GM crop authorisation or rejection and monitoring of GM crops.
This demand has also been made by a wide range of farm and social movements across the European Union (EU) and for the following reasons:
- In the first place, for different reasons these movements reject the policy of basing all decisions concerning the introduction of a new technology such as genetic engineering on purely scientific information:
- As has been proven many times, science is not necessarily objective
- As has also been shown, particularly in the case of genetic engineering, science is open to the risk of manipulation by economic stakeholders (Robin, 2008)
- For reasons of ethics and justice, socio-economic criteria should prevail over the technological applications of science when it is thus decided by different peoples.
- Secondly, available information, both theoretical information from almost two decades ago and new data concerning the practical aspects of the commercial cultivation of GM varieties, confirms that the impacts of the application of genetic engineering in open, interrelated systems include inevitable flows of genetic information and alterations in the market.
The existence of not only physical but also socio-economic impacts in farm production systems that wish not to use genetic engineering has been confirmed. Thus, limiting authorisation processes of GM varieties to only their “technological” behaviour means analysis excludes other aspects of our daily lives that are more important than purely techno-scientific results for much of the population of the EU, including the majority of farmers.
- Thirdly, it has long been considered that the information given to farmers to try and encourage them to buy GM seed is clearly insufficient, partial and not subject to appropriate checks, a view now confirmed. This situation is also generating a whole series of socio-economic impacts for the minority of farmers that cultivate GM varieties in the EU (it should be borne in mind that the multiple problems generated by GM crops are caused by their cultivation on less than 0.2% of EU tilled farmland).
- Lastly, to date the legislative powers of the EU have not listened to calls for multidisciplinary analysis of GM crops for their authorisation or rejection. Apparently the EC can no longer ignore the numerous problems that the cultivation of GM varieties is causing in farming and, consequently, along the whole food-farm chain. These problems are agronomic, environmental, social, economic and ethical.
The farmer and social organizations that have drafted the present document thus applaud the initiative that the EC has now put in motion to identify the socio-economic implications of the introduction of GM cultivation in European farming, but wish to register their denunciation and deception for the late hour at which our European institutions have accepted the need to bear these implications in mind. We insist that the latter should have been incorporated in all analysis, decisions and legislation concerning GM crops from the beginning, even before the period of authorizing or rejecting the deliberate release of GM varieties.
Additionally, the farmer and social organizations that sign the present diagnosis consider that, when the European Commission analyses their document, it should bear in mind the huge difficulties, particularly for farmer and social organizations, that hinder identification and access to practical and verifiable data on, precisely, the socio-economic implications of GM cultivation. Once again this is due to a series of clear reasons that have been repeatedly denounced.
To start with, there is a serious lack of practical, sufficient, adequate and verifiable information concerning both experimental and commercial cropping with GM varieties. The type of information that is needed to adequately answer the EC questionnaire on the socio-economic implications of GM cultivation is simply not available to the public in general and we suspect that it is not even available to the relevant Institutions.
Equally, the lack of transparency that surrounds the bureaucratic procedure for the introduction and, particularly the control, observation and monitoring of GM crops, means that much of the information that the farmer and social organizations can offer in the present document is information gathered from studies financed by non-governmental sources or by Institutions that have only indirect powers in the area of GM cultivation. As such this also explains the lack of information.
Despite undertaking a series of initiatives to achieve transparency and appropriate monitoring of the impacts of GM crops, farmer and social organizations have received no efficient or democratic reply from the Spanish Government. Thus, the said organizations have had to use their own human, economic and technical resources to gather the little information they offer here. If they offer no other information it is because the Institutions are not collecting it or, if they are collecting it, they do not publish the results.
This situation has two clear consequences in the context of the present document:
- Farmer and social organizations do not always have access to all the practical information they need concerning the socio-economic implications of GM crops (for example, yields of GM crops per hectare or the degree of GM contamination of non-GM crops), but consider that, if they did, it would confirm their answers to the present EC questionnaire. In other words, if our Institutions adequately financed the monitoring, analysis and evaluation of the socio-economic impacts of GM crops in the Spanish Member State, a far greater negative socio-economic impact would be observed in farming and food systems that would like to be 100% GM-free. Additionally, the negative impacts of GM crops for those farmers that have decided to cultivate them, whether freely or due to GM contamination, would also be more clearly revealed.
- Information regarding both the socio-economic impacts of GM farming in other geographical regions and potential impacts that are not necessarily verifiable in the Spanish Member State will inevitably and indispensably be included in replies to the type of questionnaire that the EC has sent out. The motive is, clearly, the lack of information at a local level. This situation is considered to be the result of an inadequate situation characterized by a lack of transparency, itself generated by existing legislation and bureaucracy and is not due to the lack of effort by civil society to try and understand and analyse the reality of GM crops. Once again we insist that GM varieties should not be cultivated in the EU in this context.
Lastly, the farmer and social organizations that have drafted the present document have agreed to send copies in Castillian and English to their sister organizations in Europe, to given Member States of the EU, members of the European Parliament and members of the EC.
- The impact of GM crops in non-GM farming (and therefore for non-GM foodstuffs
The information offered here is of three types:
- real, quantifiable impacts of GM crops in non GM agriculture in the Spanish Member State
- References to information concerning real and quantified impacts of GM crops in non GM crops in other geographical areas
- References to abstract information for predictions of the socio-economic impacts of different GM crops when practical information is not available (with the intention of not having to denounce such consequences in the future).
We can offer the following practical quantified information concerning the socio-economic impacts of GM crops on conventional and organic (non GM) cultivation, livestock production and foodstuffs in the Spanish Member State.:
- The loss of markets for organic maize crops due to their contamination by GMOs and, consequently their sale at lower prices in the market for conventional maize; the extra costs for producing non-GM maize; the gradual loss of cultivation of organic maize and the huge difficulties to produce conventional maize in given areas.
- Damage to socially orientated initiatives such as rural development and other sectors, for example, the market for organic cereals for flour and bakery products.
- The loss of the market for gluten from conventional maize due to contamination by GMOs and sales at lower prices for animal feedstuffs
- The loss of organic feedstuffs due to contamination by GMOs and the costs of replacing them with feedstuffs that guarantee no contamination
- Increased price of organic feedstuffs due to both the extra costs of buying guaranteed GM-free organic maize and the rising prices of alternative elements. Implications for food sovereignty.
- The costs of testing for GM contamination of feedstuffs and seeds
- The contamination of conventional and organic seeds
In order to adequately gauge the economic losses that are quoted in this chapter of the present document, it is worth bearing in mind that the average annual income of farmers in the Spanish Member State is currently some 20.000 euros
2.1. The loss of the market and lower prices for organic maize due to GM contamination and extra costs for non GM maize cultivation; thus, the gradual disappearance of organic maize cultivation and increased difficulties for production of conventional maize in some areas
In 2006 Greenpeace, the Catalan farmer organization “Assemblea Pagesa” and the Catalan anti-transgene organization “Plataforma Transgenics Fora” presented a joint document entitled “Impossible coexistence”[1](“La imposible coexistencia”). Based on the results of extensive research this document revealed the true situation of transgene crops in the Spanish Member State, mainly in Catalonia and Aragon. The text provides real evidence that “coexistence” between transgene agriculture and non GM farm models is not viable. It is based on the testimonies of dozens of arable and livestock farmers and farm cooperative managers and the results of analyses of samples of maize gathered from farmers’ fields. The report clearly demonstrates that Public Authorities have taken no measures to separate, segregate and control GM and non-GM crops and harvests, lack of transparency in research, the presence of illegal GM varieties, unauthorized experimental plots of GM varieties and the absence of public registers of GM cultivation.
In 2008 Greenpeace wrote a new document entitled “Coexistence is still impossible”[2] (“La coexistencia sigue siendo imposible”) which presented the testimonies of farmers
whose fields had directly or indirectly been contaminated in 2007 by GM maize MON810 and whose socio-economic situation suffered due to the presence of this transgene in Spain’s countryside. The lack of systematic analyses by the public authorities to determine the extent of the problem means that the real dimension of the phenomenon is unknown: thousands of hectares of Bt maize have been cultivated in the Spanish Member State with absolutely no measures being taken by the Government to evaluate, and least of all, to avoid pollination of organic and conventional maize crops by these transgene varieties. For the same reasons there are no analyses of the socio-economic impacts of these problems.
In countries such as the United States, the pioneer in cultivation of GMOs, a high percentage of the conventional seed bank is already contaminated. A national report published in 2004 concluded that 50% of “conventional” maize and soy seed and up to to 83% of canola seed already contained genetic information from transgene varieties.
Below the cases of two of the many Spanish farmers that have suffered the agronomic and economic consequences of contamination of their non-transgene crops by GM elements are presented. It should be stressed that these reports had to be drawn up with funds provided by the social movements themselves in the face of the totally passive attitude of the relevant Spanish authorities.
Case Nº 1. In 2007 in the region of Aragon 75% of the samples taken by the Aragonese Council for Organic Farming (CAAE: Consejo Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica) were found to be contaminated with transgenes. One of these samples belonged to farmer Félix Ballarín, from Sariñena, Huesca:
This farmer had been cultivating organic maize for 6 years. He began to cultivate a local endangered “red” variety that is popular in local culinary dishes. In 2004 his crop was contaminated by two types of transgenes, one to a high percentage. “The incredible thing was that the Ministry for Agriculture blamed me, saying that I must have done things badly in the process of selection and reproduction of the local variety. In fact such an argument shows that, even respecting the distances proposed by the Ministry for Agriculture between GM and non GM crops to avoid contamination, in the last three years of selection (2000-2003) a local variety, the heritage of farmers, has disappeared”.
“Given that generations of farmers had undertaken the same process of selection, we had the possibility and freedom to use this maize variety. Now we cannot because the force of the law will fall on us if we now reproduce our seed (seed which belonged to all) as it now contains a gene and can become seed that belongs to a multinational”.
In 2007, the maize that Ballarín cultivated was contaminated yet again, in this case, a certified organic hybrid. The CAAE analysed the harvest and found GMOs.
As a consequence, despite being the unwilling victim of unwanted contamination, the yield of his 7.7 hectares of maize lost its “organic” status and had thus to be sold at a lower price in the conventional maize market. This situation arose despite the fact that, being aware of the presence of GM maize crops in the area, Ballarín forwarded sowing to prevent simultaneous flowering in the hope of reducing the probabilities that his crop would be contaminated by pollen from the GM varieties. However, new water rights for irrigation were given to his neighbours who then quickly sowed their own GM maize only one week after Ballarín and thus flowering partially coincided and contamination occurred.
Given that Ballarín had originally intended to sow later, he had chosen a short cycle maize variety (known as the “600 cycle”) to harvest dry and thus avoid sending his maize to a drier, given the risk of contamination due to the presence of residual GM maize grains left from drying previous harvests in the same driers. However, as his neighbours also forwarded their sowing, he had to sow too early for the type of variety he had chosen (the temperature was too low for the earliest phases of plant growth) and his yield was thus drastically reduced (from 9.000 kg/ha to 6000 kg/ha).
The loss of the crop’s organic status and its sale in the conventional maize market obliged Ballarín to sell his harvest at a much lower price (14 cents/kg less), an important economic loss.
Summary of economic consequences:
Forced untimely sowing date / 3.000 kg/ha x 7,7 ha x 36 cent/kg / 8.316 €Loss of organic status and sale in conventional market / -Price he would have received in the organic market: 36 cent/kg
-Price in conventional market:
22 cent/kg (14 cent/kg menos) / 6.000 kg/ha x 7,7 ha x 14 cent/kg / 6.440 €
Economic loss that can be directly attributed to problems caused by GM farming / 14.756 €
It is clear that this purely monetary valuation of damages does not adequately consider the worry caused by uncertainty throughout the growing season and the damage to the farmers’ good name amongst clients, nor the problems that contamination poses for the viability (or lack of viability) of organic maize cultivation in the area in the future.
“I am discouraged. I am not going to sow maize this year. I can take on a certain amount of risk on my capital, but not this much. Maize in Aragon is disappearing even though there is a potential for thousands of hectares of organic maize. This is also affecting organic livestock farmers… it is very difficult, if not impossible, to go into organic livestock farming here because of the risk of buying transgenic maize”.
The following Table shows the degree of the problem for Aragon as a whole, with both falling organic maize cultivation and high levels of contamination with transgenes:
Year / Ha. organic maize / % samples with GM presence2004 / 120 / 100
2005 / 37 / 40
2006 / 41 / 30
2007 / 42 / 75
Source: CAAE