|
|
 
|
Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture (May 23, 2002 – CropChoice news) – The following is a report from the European Commission Joint Research Centre on the issue of organic and genetically modified crops co-existing.
To see the report, go to http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/default.asp?sIdSz=our_work&sIdStSz=focus_on
Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic
crops in European agriculture.
What does co-existence of genetically modified (GM), conventional and
organic crops mean?
Co-existence means that farmers should be able to freely adopt the
agricultural production system they prefer. Production systems can be
differentiated into conventional systems including GM crops, conventional
systems using non-GM crops and organic farming systems using exclusively
non-GM crops.
Of course, different types of agricultural production are not naturally
separated. The cultivation and use of GMOs is strictly regulated in the
European Union. However, the adventitious presence of GM crops in organic or
in conventional crops cannot be excluded during cultivation, harvest,
transport, storage and processing.
Why has the Commission carried out a study on the problem of co-existence?
If GM crops increase their share in EU agriculture, the question arises as
to whether adventitious presence of GM crops in organic or in conventional
crops at farm and at regional level could significantly increase if current
farming practices are maintained.
In the Communication on "Life Sciences and Biotechnology - A strategy for
Europe", the Commission has committed itself to take "initiatives to
develop, in partnership with Member States, farmers and other private
operators, research and pilot projects to clarify the need and possible
options, for agronomic and other measures, to ensure the viability of
conventional and organic farming and their sustainable co-existence with GM
crops".
This study is a first step towards addressing these issues and trying to
assess the consequences of the introduction and possible increase of GM
crops, and to identify appropriate measures at the farm level to minimise
the adventitious presence of GMOs below the thresholds laid down in
Commission legislation (for labelling of GM food).
The study also aims at developing possible monitoring systems needed for
verification, and at estimating the costs of relevant changes in farming
practices, monitoring systems and of potential insurance systems to cover
possible financial losses due to adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM
crops.
What is the basis and significance of the study?
The report, as co-ordinated by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, is a
prospective study, based on different hypothetical scenarios. These
assumptions should not be taken as an anticipation of future developments.
This applies especially to the hypothetical GMO shares of 10% and 50% and
the selected thresholds of 0.1%, 0.3% and 1%. An increased GMO share would
certainly require a corresponding demand and would result in a different
price structure. These aspects have not been included in the study. The
scenarios presented, focus on the actual demand and supply situation and the
identified costs cannot be used to predict future prices.
To estimate on-farm levels of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM
crops and to compare the effects of changing farming practices a combination
of expert scientific opinion and computer models was used. Computer models
are useful for comparisons of different farming practices. The absolute
values provided by the models (e.g. when considering if a particular
threshold can be respected) have to be taken into consideration with care,
since the models are not yet fully validated.
A set of farming practices, referred to as "current farming practices" in
the study, needed to be defined for each crop to estimate a "baseline" level
of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops. These current farming
practices are obviously a compromise given the variability existing in EU
farms in this regard. Therefore, when the results indicate that changes in
farming practices are needed to respect a certain threshold (and the costs
of these changes are properly assessed), a significant number of farms could
already be applying proposed or similar agronomic practices (especially in
the case of seed production). Overall data interpretation needs care,
because of the limited on-the-field evidence available and the consequently
limited validation of the modelling methods employed. Basic hypotheses and
subsequent quantitative results should also be tested on experimental fields
of adequate size before drawing more general conclusions.
The unique feature of the study is the multi-step approach of identifying
the sources and levels of adventitious presence of GMOs, proposing suitable
changes of agricultural management practices to comply with defined
thresholds, and the subsequent calculation of associated costs. Thus, the
study addresses socio-economic implications rather than simply estimating
risks of adventitious presence of GM crops in semi-quantitative terms. The
study will be one of many inputs into the Commission's deliberations on the
issue of co-existence between conventional, organic and GM agriculture, a
subject which requires further research.
What are the implications of the results of the study for production of
conventional farming and for organic farming?
Three arable crops were selected as case studies representing different
biological features but also the likelihood of a future introduction of
their GM varieties in the EU: oilseed rape for seed production, grain maize
used for feed production and potato for direct consumption and food
processing.
Several farm types (both organic and conventional) were defined to cover the
variability present across EU farming infrastructure. For all crop-farm
combinations, a hypothetical share of GM crops of 10% or 50% in the region
was considered. A share of 50% mimics the situation in countries that have
already adopted GM crops (for instance the share of GM oilseed rape in
Canada is currently 54%), while the 10% figure represents a scenario of slow
adoption of GM crops.
The estimated levels of adventitious presence of GM crops do not change
dramatically between the two scenarios of GM crop share (10% or 50%). A
practical consequence is that measures to prevent adventitious presence of
GM crops may have to be implemented in the early stages of adoption.
On the other hand, the estimated levels of adventitious presence of GM crops
in non-GM crops - assuming current farming practices - vary significantly
depending on the crop and farm type (for example, as much as 2.2% for a
conventional intensive maize farm or as low as 0.1% for an organic potato
farm). In general there is a trend to expect lower levels of adventitious
presence of GM crops on organic farms, because of segregation systems
already in place, but there are relevant exceptions. In seed production of
rape, organic farms will face higher probability of adventitious presence of
GM crops due to problems in controlling volunteers with organic practices.
Sources of adventitious presence of GM crops are well known, and can be
divided into four main origins (seed impurities, cross-pollination,
volunteers and harvesting-storage practices). The relative importance of
each source for the final level depends on the crop and farm type.
Volunteers are a key source of adventitious presence of GM crops for
rapeseed farms (especially organic) but are of low importance in maize
farms, where seed impurities and cross-pollination account for most of the
adventitious presence of GM maize.
What are the implications of the results of the study for production of
non-GM seeds?
The report examines only the case of oilseed rape for seed production. Out
of more than 2 million hectares devoted to oilseed rape production in
Europe, only about 3000 hectares are devoted to seed production. Cultivation
of oilseed rape dedicated to seed production is carried out under completely
different conditions: certified seed producers are assumed to grow seeds
according to certified production standards (e.g. for hybrid seed: isolation
distance of 300 m and a 6 year rotation; careful post-harvest segregation).
Farms using farm-saved seeds are assumed to be about three times larger. The
conventional farm applies a short three-year rotation, exchanges seeds and
shares machinery with its neighbours or uses contractors.
The GENESYS computer model was used, as well as experts' opinions, for
estimations of adventitious presence of GM seed crops. GENESYS has been
developed by INRA ("Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique") in
France to rank cropping systems according to their probability of gene flow
from herbicide tolerant winter oilseed rape to rape oilseed volunteers both
in time via seeds and in space via pollen and seeds. The model integrates
various input variables: field plan of a region, crop rotations, cultivation
techniques for each crop, type of the transgene, etc. It is suitable for
both seed and crop production.
Applying current practices' levels of adventitious presence of GM crops are
estimated to range from 0.42% to 1.05% depending on the farm type, in the
case of the 50% GM oilseed rape for seed production scenario. All farm
types, organic as well as conventional, could achieve a hypothetical 0.3%
threshold for GMOs in seed production by changing farming practices. For
farms using farm-saved seeds costs would however be disproportionately high.
These farms would most likely stop saving seeds and instead use certified
seeds.
A 0.1% threshold would be more difficult to reach.
Theoretically, levels of adventitious presence of GM crops could be reduced
to very low levels (( 0.1%) by reinforcing the changes in farming practices.
The only exception would be conventional farms using farm-saved seed, where
achieving such low levels seems not to be feasible without completely
changing the post-harvest farming strategy.
What are the possibilities for reduction of the adventitious presence of
GMOs in conventional or organic crops?
The different possibilities depend on farm-crop combination. The theoretical
thresholds used in the analysis are 0.3% for seed production of allogamous
species (rape) and 1% for maize and potato crops (for food-feed uses). All
farm types producing oilseed rape seed or conventional maize will need
significant changes to meet their thresholds. In some cases (dependent on
farm type) changing farming practices at the individual farm level will be
insufficient. In these cases changes may involve co-operation between
neighbouring farms. Examples are the introduction of flowering date
differences between GM and non-GM varieties, or region-wide border
management. In contrast, all potato farm types and some maize farm types
(organic) could meet these thresholds with current farming practices (with
all the reservations for the value of absolute figures).
The possibility of changing practices to meet very low thresholds for all
crops, near the analytical limit of quantification (~ 0.1%) is also
considered in the report. This reflects the situation in organic farming
where the use of GM varieties is not permitted (Council Regulation (EC)
1804/1999), setting a de facto threshold. The report concludes that a 0.1%
limit will be extremely difficult to meet for any farm-crop combination in
the scenarios considered (10% and 50% GMOs in the region), even with
significant changes in farming practices. Some farm types producing seed of
oilseed rape could approach such thresholds, but only with significant
changes of farming practices.
What are the implications for the 1% threshold currently in place in EU food
legislation?
Compliance with the 1% threshold is possible, however in some cases only
through changes in farming practices. This also means setting up monitoring
systems as well as insurance needs. It may result in additional costs of 1
to 10% of current product price for the farm-crop combinations studied (in
the 50% scenario of GM crops in a region).
Costs reductions might be possible with segregation becoming an integrated
part of agricultural practices and with decreasing costs of GMO analysis. In
general, organic farms face higher costs, especially indicative insurance
cost, than conventional farms. However, when relating costs to product
prices, the price premium for organic crops may reduce this difference in
percentage terms. Cultivation of GM and conventional or organic crops on the
same farm might be an unrealistic scenario, even for larger farms.
Do we need further analyses on this issue?
The study provides the first results on the issue of co-existence. The
Commission's Joint Research Centre will keep working on this topic.
One of the conclusions of the study is, as far as the likelihood of
adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops is concerned, additional
research is necessary to provide experimental data on gene flow for oilseed
rape, maize, potato and other crops not taken into account in this study.
More information on actual levels of seed impurities in the lots marketed in
the EU is key for simulations like the ones presented in this study. It is
also necessary to undertake the same work for maize seed, to better
understand how co-existence will impact on seed production and to provide
information for an adaptation of seed production standards.
Regarding economic data, the study lacks the cost estimation of some of the
proposed agricultural changing practices. To assess the real costs of, for
instance, introducing large isolation distances, the alternative use of
agricultural land has also to be analysed. Changing post-harvest management
could include changes of the logistics at the next step of the supply chain,
again making a very complex analysis necessary. This points out to the need
for further studies, focusing on economic aspects and probably going into
more detail with a reduced number of cases and considering the complete
economic structure of a farm.
| |
