Conversation with an organic grower

Shortly after “The Board of Pesticides Control has it backwards” was posted, I received an e-mail from an organic blueberry grower. I thought you might find our e-mail exchange interesting, so I’ve reproduced it below.

Dear Mr. Johnson

I've just read your blog and submission to the BPC regarding sweetcorn, and I find your logic alarming. You appear to be using the organic rule as a blanket justification for a perceived unlimited right to genetic or chemical trespass, and if a nearby organic farm isn't large enough to buffer the trespass that's just tough on the organic farm.

I don't understand this interpretation of "right-to-farm" which refuses to recognize any negative effects on adjacent land as being the responsibility of the farmer whose practice creates the negative effect in the first place. How can it be that your right to maximize private profit from your land by your preferred crop and management philosophy should trump my right to do the same?

There is only one rational, fair, neighborly - dare I say "Maine" - way to approach this problem. The two farmers responsible for their respective fields should negotiate the required buffer space and share it equally. And each should approach the other with mutual respect for the choices they make in their lives, not demonize them for their perceived ignorance, arrogance or unacceptable political slant. We are all Maine farmers. Our common interests should at least balance our conflicting ones!

Sincerely, Peter (I’ve deleted the rest of his name and address to protect his privacy.)

Peter,

You and I agree on at least one thing, the best way to resolve conflicts in agriculture is "over the fence," as they say. On the rest of your comment, I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye. First of all, you use the terms "genetic trespass" and "chemical trespass." These are terms cooked up by activists to advance their agenda. They have no foundation in science or law. And yes, an organic farm is required to provide a buffer against prohibited substances. That's the way the NOP rules are written (paragraph 205.202). You can't blame me for that.

Finally, I'm not advancing the notion of a "right to farm" that refuses to "recognize any negative effects on adjacent land." There is a well established body of common law that recognizes an individual's right to recover damages from harm caused by an adjoining farmer.The point in my Blog post is that the Maine Board of Pesticides Control is ignoring NOP rules, agricultural tradition and established law in their proposed rule for Bt sweet corn.

With your permission, I'd like to post your comment to the Blog.

Thanks for taking the time to comment,-- Doug Johnson

Hi Doug,

Well, we could substitute a less catchy phrase like "inadvertent cross-pollination of non-gmo crops by the drift of genetic material from gmo crops" for "genetic trespass", and a similar phrase about pesticides if you prefer. These things happen, even if the terminology was coined by "activists". You of course, being active in defense of your position, presumably are also an "activist" - it's not necessarily a bad thing to be.

So why is it a fair, neighborly and reasonable thing for your chosen system of agriculture to trump mine? I genuinely don't understand why this is felt to be "OK" on a personal level, never mind what the rules say. If you think it's fair and OK to pursue your style of agriculture at the cost of mine, then you are making a value judgment about my values and how I earn my living. Yet if I make such a judgment about you and yours I get to be labeled a luddite activist. Odd.

As a point of detail I'm not sure about your interpretation of the National Organic Rule. While I agree it says that I must provide a buffer, I don't think it cares who owns the land on which it sits. Thus if, whether by mutual agreement or in accordance with BPC rules, if some of that buffer is on your land, I am still "providing" the buffer between your crops and my crops. I think it's a red herring to assert that because my crops have to be buffered I have to own the land that does so!

And sure, post away. I would have done so direct except I was put off by the registration requirement.

Peter

Why don't we call it what it is -- outcrossing. And the problem is not unique to genetically modified crops. Outcrossing is a problem for blue corn growers and producers of plant seeds. Would it be reasonable for me as a blue corn grower to plant an acre of blue corn next to your corn field and ask you to put up buffers so your corn does not pollinate mine, causing white or yellow seeds to appear in my ears of blue corn? Or if I was growing squash for seed, could I plant squash next to your farm and ask that you not plant any squash that could pollinate my seed crop? The answer to both of these questions is no. The grower of the identity preserved crop is responsible for the purity and integrity of the crop. The reason for this is simple. IP crops fetch a premium price, which compensates the IP producer for the added cost associated with maintaining the crop's integrity. The USDA recognized this tradition when it crafted the rules for organic production and required the organic producer to maintain buffers. If you don't think the requirement for the buffer should reside with the organic producer, then ask the USDA to change the regulations.

Meeting YOUR buffer requirement by forcing your neighbor to give up land through a regulatory process is simply "rent seeking" -- using the government to gain an advantage in the marketplace (i.e. shifting your costs to your neighbor). What happened to working this out farmer-to-farmer as you first suggested. -- Doug

No response from Peter.