Japan's "Organic" GMO Loophole Should Be a Wake-Up Call for the U.S. Industry

How Organic Insider operates: We accept no advertising, we have no paywalls, and we make our newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider supporting our work, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.

This is the first of a two-part series about organic-related developments in Japan — with real consequences for the U.S. market.

For years, the idea that genetic engineering technologies could find their way into organic agriculture was dismissed as unfathomable.

After all, genetically-engineered organisms — the antithesis of everything that organic represents — are prohibited under the USDA’s National Organic Program.

But what has unfolded in Japan shows it was not at all unfathomable.

In Japan, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) has determined that Akitakomachi R — a patented rice developed through heavy ion beam breeding — is eligible for JAS organic certification, the country’s national organic standard. Akitakomachi R was engineered to absorb less cadmium, a toxic heavy metal that accumulates in rice.

Unlike a conventional transgenic GMO, the technique inserts no foreign genes.

Instead, heavy-ion irradiation induces mutations across the plant’s own genome, from which breeders select the trait they want. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) characterizes this method as a new form of “targeted mutagenesis” — distinct from the gamma-radiation random mutagenesis breeding in use since the mid-20th century — and places it within the category of new genomic techniques (NGTs).

That classification is the heart of the dispute. IFOAM’s Global Safety & Risk Assessment Protocol treats NGTs as requiring full risk assessment before any environmental release, and its position is that such techniques do not belong in organic at all.

In a formal letter to Japan’s MAFF, IFOAM points to laboratory evidence of at least one significant unintended effect already discovered: the same change that lowers cadmium also lowers the plant’s uptake of manganese — an essential micronutrient for crops, livestock and human health. The change is also recessive, which IFOAM warns can cause “inbreeding depression,” making the variety hard to maintain and prone to losing the trait when crossbred — ultimately a crop that may fall short for farmers and consumers alike.

“With the knowledge we have now about targeted mutagenesis and the deficiencies of this new crop variety, Akitakomachi R rice shouldn’t even be allowed in the conventional food supply, let alone the organic one,” said Alan Lewis, vice president of advocacy and governmental affairs at the Colorado-based retailer Natural Grocers.

According to the Non-GMO Project, stakeholders have raised concerns about heavy ion beam breeding, and this technology is currently being evaluated by the organization’s standards and verification team.

Especially troubling to many organic advocates is that the variety is not required to be segregated or specifically identified within Japan’s supply chain. That creates uncertainty for certifiers, importers, food companies and consumers who expect transparency about how organic food is produced.

SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE U.S. MARKET

While Japan has its own organic regulatory body, the allowance of genetically-engineered rice in that country’s organic system carries direct consequences for the U.S. market.

First, any U.S. organic company sourcing ingredients from Japan could face reputational risk if consumers begin to associate Japanese-sourced organic products with these technologies. Even brands that maintain rigorous sourcing standards may face “guilt by association” if confidence in Japan’s organic supply chain erodes.

Second, Japan’s stance only bolsters the case made by pro-GMO regulators here, who have been advocating for genetic engineering in organic products for several years.

In 2019, Greg Ibach (above), the former USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, told a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing that:

“There is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies, including gene editing, to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production.”

During the Fall 2022 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting, NOSB member Rick Greenwood questioned whether organic should eventually reconsider genetic engineering as agriculture adapts to climate change, arguing that refusing to discuss the issue could leave organic “archaic.”

Fellow board member Jerry D’Amore similarly encouraged the evaluation of newer genetic engineering technologies as agriculture responds to changing environmental conditions.

PROHIBITED — FOR NOW

To be clear, nothing has changed in the United States. Genetic engineering is not allowed under the USDA’s National Organic Program.

But Japan has shown how fast the ground moves once a government starts redefining what counts as compatible with organic — and it has handed U.S. pro-GMO regulators the precedent they never had.

What was once unfathomable now has a working example. The line still holds. Whether it keeps holding is the open question.

With gratitude, Max Goldberg, Founder