Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

Demont, Matty; Devos, Yann

doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.03.006

Cited by 67 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As yet, very few studies have acknowledged that coexistence is only relevant if there are economic incentives for farmers to supply both GM and non-GM maize (Demont and Devos, 2008). Economic incentives for coexistence consist either of (i) the adoption of GM maize as a way to capture 'GM gains' or (ii) the identity preservation (IP) of non-GM crops as a way to capture 'IP gains'.…”

Section: Economic Proportionality Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

Self Cite

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) raises questions on the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops. Regulations to ensure that different cropping systems can develop side-by-side without excluding any agricultural option are currently implemented or developed by member states. The aim of this review is to explore whether nationally or regionally proposed coexistence strategies comply with the general principles established by the European Commission that ask for science-based and proportionate coexistence measures. In the first part, existing legal requirements and potential sources of adventitious mixing are reviewed. It is discussed what type of coexistence measures might be necessary to keep GM inputs below the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%. Concentrating on cross-fertilisation as the major biological source of adventitious mixing in maize, it is then assessed to which extent available scientific data on cross-fertilisation can explain the diversity of currently proposed isolation distances by several member states. In the second part, it is analysed whether currently proposed isolation distances reflect contending policy objectives towards GM crops that largely exceed the economic scope of coexistence. It is investigated how coexistence is intersecting with a wider debate about the role of GM crops in agriculture. Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and (iv) not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence. Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein.adventitious mixing / Bt-maize / coexistence / cross-fertilisation / flexible measures / genetically modified (GM) crops / isolation distances / liability / fixed measures / sustainable development

show abstract

Section: Economic Proportionality Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

Self Cite

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Horizontal gene transfer is not considered (f. ex. to bacteria) (Bartsch and Schmidt 1997;Reim et al 2006;Demont and Devos 2008;Granado et al 2008;Speiser et al 2013;Melé et al 2015) Persistence Influence of transgene (s) attribute are summarised on the model structure (Figs. 2 and 3).…”

Section: Buying Pricementioning

confidence: 99%

Genetically modified crops in Switzerland: implications for agrosystem sustainability evidenced by multi-criteria model

Wohlfender-Bühler

Feusthuber

Wager

et al. 2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Switzerland, genetically modified (GM) crops have been banned in 2005 and have never been used in agriculture. The relevance and sustainability of genetically modified crops for agrosystems have been assessed following a mandate from the Swiss Parliament defined by the Federal Act on Agriculture (187d al.1). For that, an ex ante study based on a multi-criteria decision analysis model that summarises literature and the opinion of experts has been done.The impacts of genetically modified crops on both environmental and socio-economical sustainability in Switzerland have been assessed. Here, we review four model crops for Swiss agriculture: maize, sugar beet, potato and apple. Each crop was compared for both conventional and genetically modified farming systems that contain a specific trait, namely insecticide production (Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)), herbicide tolerance (HT), fungal resistance (FR), or bacterial resistance (BR). Results show that six out of seven scenarios showed a lower socio-economical sustainability for genetically modified compared to the conventional systems, whereas a slight improvement in the environmental component, mostly resources use, was observed in all scenarios. In conclusion, our work indicates that only carefully tailored and designed genetically modified crops would meet the high standard of requirements of Swiss agrosystems. Our model has thus allowed a quick diagnostic on the impact of genetically modified cultivation on sustainability.

show abstract

“…Flexibility in ex-ante coexistence measures must be coupled with flexible ex-post liability measures, such as the option of buying a neighbor's corn crop if the AP is beyond the threshold (Demont et al, 2010a, Devos et al, 2014. Authorities may be reluctant to adopt flexible ex-ante regulations because of administrative challenges (Demont and Devos, 2008;Demont et al, 2009Demont et al, , 2010b, including the inability to measure outcomes. On the other hand, giving more decision-making authority to farmers would help reduce coexistence administration costs.…”

Section: Room For Compromise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological and Agronomic (Non) Sense of Ex‐Ante Coexistence Measures

Beckie

Hall

2015

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological and agronomic sensibility of ex‐ante coexistence measures used in different parts of the world is reviewed. These measures need to be commensurate with the biology of the crop and the genetically modified (GM) adventitious presence (AP) labeling thresholds imposed by government or industry. Excessive and inflexible measures or establishment of artificially low thresholds are not consistent with the intent of recommendations, namely to provide growers and consumers with practical choices. In the case study of Portugal, few ex‐post liability claims have been made and GM thresholds have rarely exceeded 0.9%. Giving farmers more flexibility or decision‐making ability in the ‘who, what, where, and how’ of implementing coexistence measures has been successful. Knowledge and experience gained in coexistence worldwide should inform and strengthen future measures or policies. As such, regular monitoring, analysis, and reporting of the efficiency and effectiveness of coexistence measures worldwide would be a useful mechanism for iterative learning and adaptation. Excessive and scientifically unjustifiable measures need to be weeded out.

show abstract

Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

Cited by 67 publications

References 45 publications

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Genetically modified crops in Switzerland: implications for agrosystem sustainability evidenced by multi-criteria model

The Biological and Agronomic (Non) Sense of Ex‐Ante Coexistence Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About