Who's Liable for Genetically Modified Crops?

by Danielle Knight

Because a neighboring farmer has planted Bt corn, Naylor harvested 100 rows off of each side of his fields to ensure that his crops will not be contaminated by cross-pollination, so he can still attract buyers seeking crops free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

But even with this precaution, Naylor is unsure whether or not his fields have been contaminated because seed companies now say a safe barrier is actually about 400 rows of crops.

To add to his burden, Pioneer Hybrid, which supplies Naylor's seed, would not guarantee that Naylor was only sold traditional seed, he says.

"This is really a nightmare," Naylor told reporters here. "We don't know what we are planting and I can't really be sure what is in my storage bins."

He says he also must travel far away to special grain elevators that handle non-GMO crops.

While Naylor does not blame his fellow farmers for planting biotech crops, he and a growing number of other farmers here and abroad think the companies that sell modified seed should be held responsible for this added economic burden.

"Monsanto should be held liable for what this is costing me," says Naylor, referring to the most prolific manufacturer of engineered seed.

But as large food companies in Japan, Europe and Mexico reject GMOs, U.S. farmers have decided to sow less acreage with GM seeds.

A recent study commissioned by the American Corn Growers Association, carried out among nearly 600 farmers in more than a dozen states, found they will buy 16 percent less GM corn this year than last year.

But as Naylor's case demonstrates, even if farmers choose not to plant GMOs, they can still sustain losses if these seeds are released into the environment.

"Monsanto has put these products out there and left farmers out to dry," says Elizabeth Cronise, an attorney with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfield and Toll, a Washington-based law firm which has filed a class action suit on behalf of Naylor and other farmers against the seed company.

She says farmers who want to produce GMO-free crops are seeing their expenses grow as they must travel farther to designated grain elevators or as they contemplate purchasing new equipment.

"All these costs are borne by the farmer," says Cronise. "It is our strong position that liability for these issues should rest with the manufacturers," she says.

The lawsuit accuses the St. Louis-based corporation of rushing genetically modified seeds into the market without adequate testing and of forming an international cartel to control the world's corn and soybean market.

The suit would make Monsanto financially liable for damages caused by its products. This includes damages to the environment or public health, as well as additional costs incurred by farmers and food manufacturers resulting from GMOs produced by Monsanto.

Organic food producers already have had to pay for crops contaminated by genetically modified seed. Chuck Walker, spokesperson for Terra Prima, an organic food producer based in the state of Wisconsin, says the company was forced to recall thousands of dollars worth of tortilla chips that had been contaminated with genetically engineered corn.

An organic farmer who supplied the corn to the company had not intentionally planted the modified seed, known as Bt corn, but the chips tested positive in a routine check made by organic food certifiers.

Risking its reputation as a reliable organic food company, Terra Prima was forced to pull the product from stores in seven European countries, costing the company more than $100,000.

"We were the first organic food company that has had to pull a product from our shelves from GMO contamination," says Walker. "I am sure we will not be the last. Unless Bt is withdrawn it will soon contaminate fields across the nation."

The European Union is beginning to discuss the possibility of holding seed manufacturers liable.

In the United Kingdom, Alan Simpson, a member of Parliament from the Labor Party, recently introduced a bill that would hold seed corporations accountable for the impact of their genetically modified products.

He says insurance companies in the UK will not insure farmers against the potential loss of land value from GMOs, nor will they cover losses of crops or revenue due to cross fertilization from modified crops planted nearby.

"We should require a compensation fund to be set up which is financed by the industry which proclaims to have such confidence in these products," Simpson told reporters here.

He adds that this new genetic technology, which has unknown long-term consequences on ecosystems and nearby crops, raises significantly different regulatory questions than other technologies.

"It is not like recalling a Mercedes that has a defect," Simpson says. "Once you start to mess about with genetic structures (and release them into the environment), there is no product recall."