Turning over a New Sprout: Promoting Agricultural Health by Fostering the Coexistence of Organic and Genetically Modified Crops in the Wake of Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms and the Deregulation of Modified Alfalfa

ABSTRACTAccording to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agricultural health of the United States requires the concurrent feasibility, or coexistence, of organic crops and genetically modified crops. Both types of crops offer separate environmental, economic, and health benefits. Modified crops, or crops infused with beneficial genes to increase yield or decrease the need for chemical applications, are ubiquitous in U.S. farming. Similarly, organic crops, or crops grown without modified genes, are gaining popularity. Unfortunately, the coexistence of organic and modified crops is threatened by the phenomenon of gene flow. Damaging gene flow occurs when modified crops spread their genes and contaminate the genes of nonmodified crops. This contamination threatens the organic status and marketability of organic crops and can thus cause economic damage to organic programs. The current legal and regulatory system is unable to control contamination and thus cannot ensure the vitality of organic-farming operations. To fulfill coexistence goals for the agricultural health of the nation, domestic farm programs must ensure the continued viability of organic farming.The current regulatory system is unable to protect organic farms from the risks of contamination, and its inability deters and undermines organic farming. Recent deregulation decisions confirm this inability. Similarly, recent cases demonstrate that the technical litigation stemming from contamination confuses general courts and leads to inadequate remedies. This Comment argues that the regulatory and adjudicatory systems must protect organic farms from contamination to ensure their economic viability. When organic programs are economically viable, organic farms can beneficially coexist with modified-crop farms.This Comment offers two possible solutions to the current regimes' inability to foster coexistence. The Comment contends that changes in agency policy could better encompass the economic interests of organic programs and therefore encourage coexistence. However, limits on an agency's ability to change policy hinder the efficacy of this solution. This Comment argues that a revised statutory framework is required to protect organic crops from the damaging genetic driftassociated with widespread genetically modified crops. The revised framework requires the USDA to consider the economic impacts of contamination when deregulating modified crops. The revision also mandates agency adjudication for contamination disputes to prevent general courts from handing down inadequate remedies. The revisions will ensure the continued viability of organic farms, foster coexistence, and secure the agricultural health of the nation.INTRODUCTIONThe United States enjoys a rich tradition of agricultural prosperity. The country led the world in the development of genetically modified (GM) crops and continues to be a world leader in GM-food production.1 The domestic planting of GM crops grew at an unprecedented rate from 1996 through 2005.2 Today, over 80% of the country's corn, cotton, and soybeans contain genetically engineered genes.3 Modified crops offer benefits, such as increased yields, decreased labor costs, and decreased chemical applications.4 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) advocates GM-crop research because the crops may help solve potential issues related to global food security, energy security, and climate change.5Like GM-crop farming, organic farming is a growing industry.6 Organic crops are crops grown without the aid of genetic alterations, pesticides, or herbicides.7 Organic crops tout benefits, such as the absence of food additives, the absence of pesticides and herbicides, and increased sustainability.8 Organic crops can also offer an absence of genetically altered elements and resistance to harm stemming from monocropping, or the widespread use of a single variety.9 The USDA suggests that farmers are changing to organic-crop production at an increasing rate to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-value markets, and boost farm income. …