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.