FoE Europe - GMOs

Co-existence – looking for a real solution?

Introduction

Co-existence is the term used to describe the growing of GM and non-GM crops in close proximity to each other. If the present GM cultivation area is expanded in the future, some major decisions will have to be made in order to keep GM and non-GM crops separate and to maintain farmer and consumer choice.

Co-existence therefore will significantly increase the risk of contamination of non-GM crops. In addition the issue has serious implications for seed and crop production, honey production, liability and food traceability.

On 2nd July 2003, the European Parliament adopted an amendment to Directive 2001/18/EC placing the responsibility of ensuring coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the hands of the Member States. The new Art.26a Directive 2001/18 foresees that: " Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products". This amendment gives Member States a legal basis to impose restrictions on the cultivation of GM crops in order to protect the interests of conventional/organic farmers, and to ensure consumer choice. Until now, the Deliberate Release Directive only allowed Member States to impose restrictions to protect the environment and health.

The European Commission has already announced that the co-existence question should be resolved at Member State level. This was confirmed when the Commission published its Recommendation on guidelines (1) for co-existence on 23rd July 2003. The Commission Recommendation is not legally binding and it is up to Member States to decide how to use the advice of the Commission.

Friends of the Earth believes that co-existence between GM crops and conventional/organic crops should be treated within the EU legislative framework, whereas the Commission has chosen to shift the responsibility to Member States.

There are several Member States that have already initiated the process to develop measures for co-existence (see FoEE Biotech Mailout from September 2003 onwards ). If measures to deal with co-existence are very different between Member States, it is clear that there will be repercussions for the internal market.

The positive elements of the Commission Recommendation are:

• GM farmers and operator would have to bear the burden of implementing measures for co-existence.

• Measures of a regional dimension could be considered.

On the negative side:

• National strategies and best practices for co-existence should refer to the legal labelling thresholds and to applicable purity standards for GM food, feed and seeds.

• No solution has been given for liability in case of contamination. According to the European Commission, the Member States should "examine existing civil liability laws". However, recently a legal opinion commissioned by the U.K.'s Soil Association showed that, under existing liability laws, it would be increasingly difficult for non-GM farmers and operators to prove who caused GM contamination (2).

Furthermore, in December 2003 a very large majority approved a resolution on co-existence in the European Parliament. They called for an initiation of new regulations at Community level under the co-decision procedure, thus including the European Parliament in the process. Ultimately the final decision lies with the Commission, but given the fact that there was a large majority of 350 MEPs who voted in favour of this new resolution, the Commission should meet the expectations of the European Parliament.

Co-existence of GM and non-GM farming: not an easy task

Only a small quantity of GM crops are grown in Europe. However, if the area under cultivation were expanded, there would have to be some major decisions about how GM and GM crops are kept separate if consumer and farmer choice is to be maintained.

Discussions are now starting on how - or even if - GM and non-GM crops can be grown together. Different options are being considered, including:

• Establishing large separation distances around GM fields,

• Zoning of areas into GM and non-GM (regionalisation),

• Banning certain types of GM crops in some countries,

• Developing new GM plants with modified fertility/sterility traits.

Some of these options would require agreement between the EU Member States, e.g. if some countries chose to become a GM or non-GM "zone".

Crop production

To maintain high standards of crop purity, farmers will need to take serious steps to avoid contamination. What preventative actions need to be in place to ensure GM crops do not contaminate conventional crops? Similar to seed production , an extensive bureaucratic system would be required. This would involve planning (and dispute resolution) with neighbouring farmers, adequate separation distances and buffer zones, effective cleaning of machinery, control of seeds, control of 'volunteer' plants and possible wild relatives, and appropriate segregation in storage and transportation.

The Joint Research Centre - an official agency of the European Union - underlines in a report published in July 2002 (3) the difficulty of managing the co-existence of GM and non-GM fields because it will require both a change in farming practices at an individual farm level, and the cooperation between neighbouring farms.

A Danish Expert Report, requested by Mariann Fisher Boel - former Danish Minister of Agriculture and now EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development - , studied the consequences to organic farming of any increased application of GM crops. According to the Danish study, some GMO crops such as maize, wheat, potatoes and peas could grow alongside other GMO-free crops if expensive preventive measures are taken (such as separations distances and buffer zones, cropping intervals, etc.) (4). However, in the case of GMO crops such as oilseed rape, grass seeds, clover seed and vegetable seed, the problem of co-existence is so extensive that no conclusions could be reached. Another important section of the Danish report concerns the costs of coexistence. These costs result from the implementation of measures that should ensure GM contamination of conventional and organic crops stays below the assumed threshold. These extra costs can rise to 21% of the production costs excluding measures that need to be taken further on in the food chain, such a labelling and segregation.

The report of the EU's Joint Research Centre concluded that the cost increase in the case of organic oilseed rape would be as high as 41%.

Honey production

Honey is perceived by consumers as a pure and natural product. Contamination of honey supplies near outdoor test sites has already been found by FoE in the UK. As a result, UK beekeepers moved their hives 10 km from large GM crop test sites. Beekeepers are already facing economic difficulties as a result of increased imports and the effects of the bee disease 'veroa' that has spread throughout Europe. To supply uncontaminated honey in the future, retailers may have to purchase honey from countries that do not grow GM crops, further damaging the economic interests of Europe's beekeepers. FoE Austria has also found GM contamination in honey bought from Canada where GM oilseed rape is grown on a wide scale.

Gene stacking

There is no legislation that prevents companies from producing their own traits in the same crops that other companies have modified. In fact, there are already many applications for crops with resistance to different herbicides (so called round-up ready technology). Some of these crops, e.g. oilseed rape, not only survive well as volunteers (weedy weeds) if seeds are dropped/dispersed, but also cross with native European plants. Crops like beet can also cross with wild relatives. The result could be that wild plants end up incorporating many traits - such as tolerance to several different herbicides.

As more GM crops are authorised, farmers could, therefore, face increasing problems with weed control. How can this be avoided? The EU's Scientific Committee on Plants has suggested that more stringent weed control will be needed. However, the area where the weeds are likely to need controlling is in field margins and headlands - the exact areas that are useful to provide refuge for wildlife. Moreover, as underlined by the U.K. government agency English Nature, the ecological impacts are "poorly understood" and could lead to the creation of Genetically Modified (GM) super-weeds which "may lead to farmers using more herbicides...potentially resulting in increased damage to Biodiversity." Furthermore, GM crops could cross with wild plant species, which "could lead to disruption of native ecosystems or the gradual development of weedness in native species." (5)

Future GMOs, which incorporate fungal or disease resistance, will exacerbate the situation and may even lead to more resistant weeds. The use of GMOs is a potential risk to biodiversity because of gene flow and the toxicity of some GM crops that are pesticide-tolerant. The use of pesticides has already had a devastating effect on biodiversity associated with agricultural systems during the last 50 years. Cultivation of GM crops, which encourage a medium-long term increase in the use of stronger pesticides, further endangers biodiversity.

Monitoring

EU law calls for post-marketing monitoring of GMOs. However, as mentioned above, if gene stacking took place, monitoring would become increasingly difficult and, with the absence of clear liability laws, working out who is responsible for what traits found in wild plants or crop weeds would become increasingly complex.

Land values

The new EU Deliberate Release Directive requires public registers for all sites where GMOs are grown. While this is needed for post-release monitoring, it would probably have a detrimental effect on land values, as well as affecting what purpose land could be used for in the future (e.g. a new seeds proposal recommends a 5-year break between growing GM and non-GM oilseed rape on the same field.). The U.K.'s Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has publicly stated that land values may drop for fields where GM crops are grown.

Liability

Somehow, priority will need to be given to different types of farmers and this will need to be set into law. A seed producer may need to have precedence over a GM grower of the same crop in a given area. An organic farmer may also have to take precedence over a GM farmer. Currently there is no legal framework to establish this and once a crop has Part C marketing consent under the Deliberate Release Directive, there is no obligation to consult with neighbouring farmers. Considering the distances that pollen can travel, and the irreversible aspects of GMOs, this will inevitably lead to conflicts between farmers. Crops that are contaminated by neighbouring fields may result in economic losses for farmers. Similarly, beekeepers may need compensation for moving hives or accepting contamination. New proposals for an EU Environmental Liability Directive are severely lacking with regard GMOs, so most countries are left without any specific legal system in place. This is likely to lead to lengthy and expensive legal battles between farmers.

Food traceability and consumer choice

Currently most major food producers avoid GM ingredients in order to satisfy public demands for GMO-free food. Some companies have even switched ingredients away from soya or maize to Europe-grown crops such as oilseed rape. Companies such as Cargill in the UK have allegedly stopped buying Spanish maize altogether because Spain grows a small quantity of GM maize. However, if cultivation of GM crops increases in Europe, it will be increasingly difficult to supply non-GM foods to consumers.

In addition, some foods are treated as commodities or processed in bulk. Milk, for example, is often collected from different farms in tankers and then driven to processing factories where it is mixed with milk from other tankers. If retailers wanted to supply milk from cows that had not been fed GM feed, traceability in such a system would be impossible. To be able to meet the demands of the consumer, food prices may be forced up, as more complex segregation systems are needed. These would not be required if GM crops were not permitted in the first place.

The EU's Scientific Committee on Plants has already stated that it will become increasingly difficult to produce seeds that have a low level of contamination if GM crop production increases in Europe. They suggested that the 0.9% threshold level for food and feed may "have to be revised". It is clear that GM crop production will make it increasingly difficult to ensure consumer choice.

The European Commission has dropped the idea to forbid the marketing of seeds with the 'adventitious' or 'technically unavoidable' presence of GMOs above a certain threshold (0.3, 0.5, 0.7%) (6). Within the European Council, the debate is contentious, that is between the experts of the Member States in the Seed Committee.- Some would prefer that no certification and marketing is allowed when these thresholds are exceeded, while others think it is sufficient to label the commercialised seed if it contains more GM seed than the upper limit allows. It will be impossible in the future to maintain a GM-free supply (including in organic agriculture) if genetic contamination is allowed in seeds.

The North American way

GM crops are being grown commercially on a wide scale in North America and it is clear they are causing legal and logistical problems. It may still be many years before the full extent of the danger to health or the environmental becomes clear. It is increasingly difficult to get organic seeds that are not contaminated with GMOs. There is also the ghastly situation of an Aventis GM maize called Starlink, which is not approved for human consumption -but which got into human food and seed supplies anyway Company officials have admitted that it may be impossible to completely rid future seeds of this GMO.

On the legal front, hundreds of litigation cases have been filed, farmers accusing biotech companies of crops not working properly; and biotech companies suing farmers over alleged patenting infringements. The organic farming sector in Saskatchewan, Canada, has taken legal action because it can no longer guarantee if they are able to supply organic non-GM oilseed rape. In Canada there are even reports of weeds with triple tolerance to three different herbicides.

In September 2002, the U.K.'s Soil Association published a report demonstrating that farmers are not achieving the increased profits promised by the biotech industry (8). Among the reasons cited were the higher cost of GM seeds, the increase of herbicide use, the lower market prices paid for GM, the collapse of the EU export market, and the unfulfilled promise of improved yield crops for most GM crops.

Conclusions

It is clear that Europe is approaching a cross roads on the issue of GM crops. So far, the EU's policy proposal gives the wrong answer to the right problem. Any system, which could be considered in order to ensure that GM and non-GM can grow alongside each other, appears to be full of complexities. The logistical, bureaucratic and legal situation is far from clear and needs resolving before widespread growth of GM crops is permitted in Europe. If not, consumer and farmer choice will be severely undermined.

Notes:

(1) Communication Recommedation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.

(2) Soil Association evidence on legal liability to the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. 26 November 2002

(3) Scenario for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture. A synthesis report prepared in May 2002 by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/GECrops

(4) Report from the Working Group on the coexistence of Genetically Modified crops with conventional and organic crops - Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming.
The text is available in Danish on http://www.foejo.dk/ . It may also be obtained by contacting the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming, phone: +45 89 99 16 75 or e-mail: foejo@agrsci.dk

(5) DEFRA Consultation 02/03-165 Commission proposals on the thresholds for the adventitious presence of approved GMOs in seeds. Response on behalf of the British Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies,prepared by the Biotechnology advisory Unit, English Nature, August 2002

(6) At the beginning of July 2002 the European Commission presented a draft revised directive concerning the presence of GM seeds in conventional seed lots. (For further information see the FoEE Biotech Mailout, Volume 8, Issue 4 August 2002)

(7) http://www.soilassociation.org/gm

See coexistence legislation here.