THE WAY FORWARD - Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America - page 186

partnerships between companies to sell seeds with specific combinations of traits from multiple firms. This
high level of concentration is raising seed prices and could threaten access to and availability of food in the
future.
In the long term, we need a world where scientists do not tinker with our genetic commons and where
a handful of corporations does not control the seeds we depend on for survival. We should not be satisfied
until the genie is back in the bottle.
In the shorter term, the United States should enact a moratorium on new approvals of GE plants and
animals until the federal government develops a new regulatory framework for biotech foods. Congress
should establish regulations specifically suited to GE foods, and the federal agencies responsible should
adequately monitor the postmarket status of GE plants, animals, and food. Currently, most GE foods in the
United States are generally considered safe for consumption and the environment until proven otherwise.
A rigorous evaluation of the potentially harmful effects of GE crops and food should take place before
their commercialization.
At the same time, consumer and food organizations must continue to pursue a vigorous labeling cam-
paign at the state and federal levels. Momentum is building for labeling, especially since the Obama admin-
istration has legalized so many new GE foods, including beets, which are ubiquitous in the food supply as
a form of sugar. An affirmative label should be present on all GE foods, ingredients, and animal products.
Additionally, we must work to prevent the research funding and agenda set by the Farm Bill to benefit
the biotechnology industry. Far too much of past farm policy and the USDA's agenda has been skewed to-
ward encouraging and supporting genetically engineered crops. The research agenda, set through the Farm
Bill, provides federal money to private companies researching patentable biotechnology, and it provides
discounted crop insurance rates to farmers if they plant GE corn under the USDA's Biotechnology En-
dorsement program.
Future Farm Bills also needs to address the issue of liability that patent holders of GE seeds should bear
for the contamination of non-GE crops. Currently, if GE crops contaminate non-GE crops, the GE seed
company is not responsible for the damage. Certified organic farmers can face significant economic hard-
ship if biotech traits contaminate their organic crops or organic livestock feed. Many domestic and glob-
al markets for non-GE and organic products have zero-tolerance policies, which means that unintentional
contamination can cause farmers to lose their markets, and the company that created the GE seed remains
unaccountable. Future Farm Bills should include contamination-prevention policies to protect organic and
non-GE producers from losing their markets. The financial responsibility of contamination should be on
the patent holders of the GE technology, rather than on those who are economically harmed.
The Trade Myth
Another wrinkle in the debate about creating a new food system is the World Trade Organization (WTO),
which promotes international trade but also decides if domestic policies created by member countries are
serving as barriers to trade. When someone proposes a new idea for farm and trade policy, the question
arises, “But is it WTO-compliant?” In 2009 Canada and Mexico challenged U.S. country-of-origin labeling
(COOL) for meat as an illegal trade barrier under the WTO. This unaccountable international institution
found COOL to be a barrier to trade in 2011. A WTO panel also argued recently that labeling of canned
tuna as “dolphin safe,” which lets consumers know if dolphins were accidently harmed in fishing for tuna,
is trade-restrictive.
The WTO's Agreement on Agriculture actually prohibits member countries from adopting any farm
policy that affects the supply or price of crops. Instead, farm programs must be “decoupled” from price or
supply considerations. For years, U.S. lawmakers have tried to change U.S. farm policy to fit into the rules