GLYPHOSATE

Adopted 2026/03/03

OFARM Position Statement Opposing Government Actions That Shield Glyphosate and Agricultural Chemical Manufacturers From Accountability

OFARM opposes the recent Executive Order signed by President Trump that uses federal authority to support domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides while directing federal implementation in a way that protects the corporate viability of producers and confers immunity tied to compliance under the Defense Production Act.

OFARM also opposes state and federal efforts to grant expanded legal protections to agricultural chemical manufacturers, including proposals that would limit failure-to-warn and related claims by treating federally approved labels as a broad defense in state law actions. These proposals are being advanced at the same time Bayer continues seeking legal certainty in ongoing Roundup litigation.

As a farmer-led organic organization, OFARM believes public policy should protect farmers, farm workers, rural communities, and marketplace integrity, not provide special legal advantages to multinational chemical manufacturers.

Why OFARM Opposes These Actions

1. Accountability is a core principle of fair markets

No company should receive special protections that weaken the ability of injured parties to seek recourse through the courts. Limiting accountability damages trust in agriculture, regulation, and the rule of law.

2. Farmers need choices, not deeper dependence on one chemical system

Public policy should expand farmer options and resilience. Prioritizing and protecting one herbicide-dependent model moves agriculture in the opposite direction.

3. Rural communities carry real risk

Farmers, applicators, workers, and neighbors are often the first to bear the consequences when agricultural chemical policy gets it wrong. Their rights should not be narrowed to solve a corporation's litigation problem.

4. Government should not tilt the playing field toward chemical manufacturers

If policymakers want to strengthen U.S. agriculture, they should invest in farmer-centered solutions such as diversified weed management, public research, and practical transition support, not legal shields for chemical companies.

5. Organic and regenerative systems deserve equal or greater support

Organic farmers are already proving that resilient production systems can reduce dependence on synthetic inputs while protecting soil health, water quality, and long-term farm viability.

OFARM Calls For:

●        Preserving the legal rights of farmers, workers, and consumers to pursue valid claims under state law.

●        Rejecting federal and state liability shield proposals that limit failure-to-warn and related pesticide claims.

●        Increasing investment in independent agronomic research, non-chemical weed management, and farmer-led innovation.

●        Supporting policies that strengthen farmer choice, market fairness, and rural health.

OFARM stands for fair markets, farmer independence, and accountability. We urge policymakers to reject efforts that shield agricultural chemical manufacturers from responsibility and instead support agricultural systems that are resilient, transparent, and in the public interest.

Dicamba

Adopted 2025-08-05

As an alliance representing organic grain and livestock producers across the Midwest, the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM) strongly opposes the continued use and the expanded registration of dicamba-based herbicides.

 Dicamba poses a direct and documented threat to both organic and non-organic farming operations, particularly those who rely on diversified cropping systems, pollinator habitat, and sensitive broadleaf crops including many fruits and vegetables and long-standing woodland stands. The volatility and drift potential of dicamba—even under label-compliant use—has led to widespread and costly crop damage, disrupted market access, and legal uncertainty for producers who strive to meet the highest standards of environmental stewardship and food integrity.

 Organic producers, unlike non-organic growers, have no recourse to herbicide rescue treatments. Damage from dicamba drift can result in the total loss of certified organic status for affected fields, devastating years of investment and threatening farm livelihoods.

 OFARM supports a regulatory framework that prioritizes co-existence, fairness, and science and ecologically based safeguards for all farming systems. Dicamba has repeatedly demonstrated it cannot be used without imposing unacceptable risks on neighboring farms, ecosystems, and rural communities.

 We urge the EPA and state regulatory agencies to immediately revoke approval for dicamba use and to take decisive action to protect the integrity of all crops and especially organic and specialty crop agriculture.

GMO

Adapted 3-2015; Approved as revised February 2023 Annual Meeting.

 ORGANIC FARMERS SAY ‘NO’ TO GENETIC TRESPASS

 It is the position of OFARM (Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing) that we continue to oppose any introduction of GMO’s, including the most recent versions of gene editing, including (CRISPER), into the production of organic field crops.  This has been a fundamental understanding of the Organic Food Production Act which needs to remain in place and enforced.

 It also remains the position of OFARM, representing members who produce organic field crops, that the corporations who maintain the ownership and control of GMO technologies should be held accountable for economic losses incurred for, as they call it, the ‘adventitious presence’ of GMOs in certified organic crops.

Long established that when use of new technologies becomes harm in any way, when it does not stay on the owner’s side of the property line, liability issues become apparent.  The difference with GMO technologies is that the farmer-user does not own the technology or processes but enters into a user agreement with the corporate owners who have patented the process and present very specific user agreements which clearly control the usage.  Such licensing in legal terms is “inherently dangerous” to the livelihood of organic farmers. (Defined as:  of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect. Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.)

 As organic farmers we find ourselves in a precarious situation when dealing with the issue of the presence of GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms) in our organic production grown and marketed from our farms.  GMO’s are specifically disallowed in organic certification. Confirmed levels of GMO presence dramatically affect marketability of our crops.  As organic farmers we are experiencing significant economic losses as a direct result of rejected shipments due to GMO presence.  Organic price premiums are lost showing clear evidence of disrupted markets. GMO contamination is therefore, by its very nature, damaging to organic farmers.

 As organic producers, we are generally skeptical that effective coexistence can be accomplished, and we hold the opinion that our choice of organic farming as a method of livelihood is being seriously threatened because of a powerless situation to avoid unintended presence.

 We find it highly unfair and inequitable that we must bear the entire burden of mitigating risks of GMO drift while no responsibility is being leveled at GMO patent holders and users.  While organic producers subscribe to principles of good stewardship and communication, we are concerned that these actions alone are not enough to mitigate contamination.  

 Organic farmers are at a serious disadvantage to pursue any recourse for loss compensation.  They fully recognize the futility of trying to pursue issues of decency and responsibility, and legal liability as well, against these corporate giants. 

 It is the position of OFARM that the exercise of such an economically dangerous activity makes the corporations who own and license GMO varieties strictly liable for damages resulting from GMO contamination of organic crops, no matter how such GMO contamination occurred or what measures were taken to prevent it.  These corporations should therefore be required to assume the financial responsibility to fully compensate all losses to organic farmers resulting from GMO contamination.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

OFARM stands opposed to any development of a Commodity Futures Trading platform for Certified Organic grains.

 The ongoing production of Certified Organic field crops exists and thrives as an alternative to, and not a clone of, the conventional industrial crop production model.

OFARM, through the contracting processes employed by its member marketing groups, develops marketing arrangements, overseen by professional marketers, who foster sound business relationships between producers and buyers.

Through cooperative action, which is defined in OFARM’s Mission and Vision Statements, producers are given a personal voice in marketing decisions and provide an opportunity to enhance market levels that generate fair and equitable returns.

This collaborative relationship marketing process provides a farmer-friendly reasonable and viable marketing platform rendering commodity futures trading obsolete and irrelevant.

Hydroponics

OFARM (Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing) remains solidly committed to the basic principle of all organic crops being produced from growing in soil. 

The OFPA (Organic Foods Production Act) requires, as a basic principle, that crops be produced from soil with an emphasis on soil improvement to provide proper plant nutrition.

Hydroponics and any other forms of crop production that do not require soil and soil improvement should be specifically prohibited.

Certifiers who allow certification of such processes should be held accountable to this violation of basic organic production principle.

voluntary check-off initiatives

The grain producers who hold participating membership in the Marketing Cooperatives that comprise the membership of OFARM are largely, and with unanimous consent, opposed to any organic check-off initiative.

Current commodity check offs have been shown to be principally unsuccessful in keeping family farm producers (organic or conventional) in business.   Even with current check off programs, declining family farm numbers of more than 50% and the ongoing concentration in agriculture, including organic, clearly demonstrate that check offs have failed to work for the benefit of producers.  

In the past voluntary check-offs have inevitably evolved into legislated policy through questionable democratic referendums and numerous reported administrative abuses leaving farmers highly skeptical of any benefits, immediate or long term.  Our farmers prefer continuing to channel their resources to selected internal initiatives within their individual coops, which they already do, resulting in more direct positive outcomes on their behalf.