'Real world experiences' show coexistence does work, claims researcher
As evidenced by the successful experiences of growing genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops side by side in Spain and North America, a new report by a British agricultural economist concludes that the tools already exist to ensure effective co-existence in commercial agriculture. Graham Brookes' report draws its conclusions from four of his own previous studies on co-existence, and claims to be based on 'real world experiences' of co-existence management practices in North America and Europe. He presented his paper to journalists during a visit to the GM growing region of Aragon in Spain, organised by the biotech industry group Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (ABE). 'The report is bringing together and summarising material from four other papers - identifying the key principles of good co-existence practices, which, if well applied, can deliver workable co-existence,' Mr Brookes told CORDIS News. He acknowledges that funding for all these studies was provided in part by the biotechnology industry, but says that the reports are independently and objectively compiled without influence from sponsors. The first point made clear in the report is that co-existence relates to 'the economic consequences of adventitious [or accidental] presence of material from one crop in another,' be it GM, conventional or organic crops. 'The issue is, therefore, not about product/crop safety, but relates solely to the production and marketing of crops approved for use,' it states. Mr Brookes also stresses that co-existence only becomes an issue when there is a definite demand for non-GM crops. For example, while much of the corn used in the animal feed industry is non-GM, the amount of GM corn used in its production ensures that all corn-based animal feed in Europe must be labelled as GM, so therefore there is no need for co-existence measures during cultivation. According to the report, the adventitious presence of unwanted material in crops can happen for a variety of reasons, including seed impurities, cross pollination, volunteers or self-sown plants, or from the planting, harvesting, storage and transport of crops. While GM technology may be relatively new, Mr Brookes explains that effective farm level co-existence practices such as the separation of crops by space and planting time, communication with neighbours, and the use of good husbandry, planting, harvest and storage practices have been in use for many years. To show how effective such practices can be, the report points to the example of North America, which it claims is probably the most relevant market to examine modern co-existence strategies. It concludes that in 2003 only four per cent of organic farmers experienced any loss of sales or downgrading of their product due to the adventitious presence of GM material in their crops, and that areas with the greatest concentration of organic crops are often those with an above average penetration of GM crops. In Spain, meanwhile, where GM maize has been commercially grown since 1998, Mr Brookes says that there have been 'isolated instances' of GM presence in organic maize crops, but that these have mainly been attributable to the poor implementation of good co-existence practices. All of which leads the report to conclude that: 'The evidence to date shows that GM and non GM crops (including organic) have successfully co-existed without causing economic/marketing problems since GM crops were first grown commercially in 1995. Specifically in relation to organic crops, which are most frequently cited as the type of production perceived to be most likely to experience co-existence difficulties with GM crops, the evidence is also clear - successful co-existence has been possible.' According to Mr Brookes, there are five key principles to good co-existence practice: context, consistency, proportionality, equity and practicality. In relation to consistency, for example, he argues that thresholds for the adventitious presence of unwanted materials should reflect the risk attached to those materials. In the case of GM material that has been approved as safe by the regulatory authorities, he argues, it is inconsistent for some organic certification bodies to demand less that 0.1 per cent of GM material in organic products when at the same time they allow higher thresholds for dirt and stones. With regards to equity, Mr Brookes believes that GM growers should have equal access to compensation for any negative economic consequences arising from the practices of neighbouring conventional or organic farmers. 'No one sector should be able to veto another - access and choice work both ways,' he says. However, Mr Brookes is concerned that these five principles are being overlooked by the national governments responsible for regulating co-existence strategies. 'There are early signs that the co-existence strategies being drawn up by EU Member States are not good, and that they fail on all five of these principles,' he said. Mr Brookes revealed to CORDIS News that he would prefer to see the European Commission regulating co-existence rather than leaving it to individual nations, and that Spain could be held up as an example of how it should be done. In a debate more often characterised by conflict than by cooperation, Mr Brookes concluded by saying: 'Successful co-existence of different agricultural production systems requires mutual respect and shared responsibilities by all parties. Responsibility for implementation of co-existence measures should involve both GM and non-GM growers communicating amongst themselves and implementing appropriate management practices.'