GMOs Caught in Ag Groups' Language

December 16, 1999

The delicate issue of whether farmers should plant genetically modified crops next spring has gotten caught up in language that has led one farm association to suggest that the National Grain and Feed Association is calling for "legal safeguards to protect grain buyers from the crops being delivered by farmers." NGFA replies that the issue is not a call for legal safeguards but getting country elevator managers to make business and legal decisions based on the peculiar characteristics of their marketing area.

In what appears to be an issue of emphasis based on interpreting statements, the American Corn Growers Association says the safeguards could include language that would allow a grain elevator to reject purchasing any genetically modified crops. That "could send ripples of fear through farm country," says ACGA.

ACGA cites David Barrett, counsel for public affairs with the NGFA, saying disclosure statements and warranties may be required when a farmer delivers grain to an elevator. Also, contracts "will require farmers to state what varieties of seed they used to give elevators the right to reject GMOs altogether," ACGA adds.

NGFA says that conclusion reflects "inaccuracies and mischaracterizations." Barrett's remarks came during a feed industry conference in St. Louis earlier this month. He "presented a series of possible alternatives concerning different contract provisions that country elevators and other grain handlers could consider if they operate in a market area where their customers may encourage segregation or seek to originate grains and oilseeds that are substantially free of biotechnology-enhanced events during the coming crop year," says NGFA President Kendell W. Keith.

"Importantly, contrary to ACGA's statement, Mr. Barrett expressly stated that the NGFA was not recommending the inclusion of one or any of the potential contract provisions and stressed that this is a business and legal decision that country elevator managers need to make on their own based on their market area and the customers and buyers they serve."

Gary Goldberg, CEO, ACGA, says, "If there is the likelihood that grain elevators could reject deliveries of GMOs, it is obvious that farmers cannot afford to take the risk of planting them. With prices hitting historic lows, the last thing a farmer needs to occur is that both foreign consumers and domestic grain buyers refuse to purchase certain products. In this event, farmers need to think long and hard before planting GMO seeds."

Keith says Barrett "stressed that food produced from biotechnology-enhanced seeds and ingredients is considered to be safe under U.S. law (and) reminded buyers that neither party to a contract can unilaterally amend it through correspondence or certifications once the contract is consummated."

"We do not fault the National Grain and Feed Association for taking action to protect their members on the issue of GMOs," says Goldberg. "After all, that is exactly what the ACGA is doing as well when we encourage Congress to enact legislation to provide liability protection for production agriculture and for farmers to examine alternatives to planting genetically modified crops."

In contrast to most other commodity groups, the ACGA has consistently been skeptical of GMOs and critical of the companies that develop them.