Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:59:12.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organic and conventional Washington State farmers' opinions on GM crops and marketing strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2007

Leland L. Glenna  and
Raymond A. Jussaume
Leland L. Glenna*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA.
Raymond A. Jussaume
Affiliation:
Community and Rural Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 1999 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy on organic certification excluded the use of genetically modified (GM) crops. The decision remains controversial because it provokes debate over the fundamental meaning of organic agriculture. Some scholars, farmers and activists claim that organic agriculture represents a value orientation that is opposed to trends in industrial agriculture, of which GM crops are the latest product. Because organic farmers are a significant constituency in this debate, we examined their values and practices related to marketing, environment and GM crops. From a survey of 1181 Washington State farmers, we created a sub-sample of 598 crop farmers (fruits, vegetables and grains), of which 109 described themselves as organic (certified organic, moving towards organic certification and non-certified organic), and we analyzed organic and conventional farmer responses to a number of issues to discern comparative commitment to self-seeking economic interests. Results reveal differences among conventional and organic farmers on GM crops and several marketing and environmental values and practices, suggesting that there is some validity to portraying organic agriculture as an alternative vision to industrial agriculture.

Keywords

organic agriculturefarmer attitudesgenetically modified crops
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 118 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Greene, C. and Kremen, A. 2002. U.S. Organic Farming: a decade of expansion. Agricultural Outlook November:31–34.Google Scholar
2 Guthman, J. 2004. The trouble with ‘Organic Lite’ in California: a rejoinder to the ‘Conventionalisation’ debate. Sociolgia Ruralis 44(3):301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Michelson, J. 2001. Recent development and political acceptance of organic farming in Europe. Sociologia Ruralis 41(1):3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Greene, C. and Kremen, A. 2003. U.S. Organic Farming in 2000–2001: Adoption of Certified Systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780. Washington DC, USDA.Google Scholar
5 Pfeffer, M.J. 1992. Sustainable agriculture in historical perspective. Agriculture and Human Values 9(4):4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Harwood, R.R. 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA. p. 3–19.Google Scholar
7 Guthman, J. 2004. Room for manoeuvre? (in) organic agribusiness in California. In Jansen, K. and Vellema, S. (eds). Agribusiness and Society: Corporate Responses to Environmentalism, Market Opportunities and Public Regulation. Zed Books, London. p. 114–142.Google Scholar
8 Barham, E. 1997. Social movements for sustainable agriculture in France: a polanyian perspective. Society and Natural Resources 10(3):239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Enriquez, J. 2001. Technology, gene research, and national competitiveness. In Solbrig, O.T., Paarlberg, R., and di Castri, F. (eds). Globalization and the Rural Environment. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. p. 225–256.Google Scholar
10 Busch, L., Lacy, W.B., Burkhardt, J., and Lacy, L.R. 1991. Plants Power and Profit: Social Economic, and Ethical Consequences of the New Biotechnologies. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
11 Kloppenberg, J.R. Jr. 1988. First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492–2000. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
12 Nelson, G.C. and DePinto, A. 2001. GMO adoption and nonmarket effects. In Nelson, G.C. (ed.). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
13 Burros, M. 2000. U.S. Planning Tough Rules for Growing Organic Food. New York Times, March 4. Available at Web site: www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar
14 Kaufmann, M. 2000. New Organic Rules Ban GE. The Washington Post, March 4. Available at Web site: www.washingtonpost.comGoogle Scholar
15 Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2005. Issue Paper: Agricultural Ethics. November (29):1–12.Google Scholar
16 Thompson, P. 1997. Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Blackie Academic & Professional, London.Google Scholar
17 Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
18 Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of a diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41(1):40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Little, A.G. 2005. O Brother, Where Artificial Thou? Grist Magazine September 30. Available at Web site: www.grist.org.Google Scholar