GM opponents’ theory on co-existence “exaggerated” according to new report

Zaragossa, 14 October - Five key principles are all it takes to ensure the successful co-existence of GM, organic and conventional crops. This is according to a new research paper released today by PG Economics.

Co-existence is currently high on the agenda of opponents to GM technology who believe that GM crops cannot ‘co-exist’ along side their organic and conventional equivalents and are calling on EU governments to set up liability rules to protect non GM farmers from ‘contamination’. The research paper “Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: current experience and key principles” – highlights fundamental flaws in many of their ‘exaggerated’ arguments.

According to the report, on-farm experience in North America and Spain since 1995 has demonstrated that through the application of sensible farm level practices (e.g. the separation of crops by space and time, good communication with neighbours and the use of good husbandry practices) successful co-existence between GM and non GM crops has been possible, and without government involvement.

Speaking in Zaragossa, Spain, Graham Brookes, author of the report said:

“Like all good farm management practice, the co-existence of different agricultural production systems requires mutual respect and shared responsibly by all parties including both GM and non GM growers. If you apply the five key principles outlined in the report and adapt these to local circumstances on a crop by crop basis, effective co-existence practices can be achieved.”

The five key principles¹ are:

1.      Context: Determine the relative commercial and agronomic importance of different crop production systems based on planted area, production and economic value.

2.      Consistency: Producers should be consistent in dealing with the adventitious presence of all unwanted material, including GM, organic and conventional.

3.      Proportionality: All co-existence measures established should be proportionate, non discriminatory and science-based.

4.      Equity (fairness): Any economic liability provisions (that compensate non GM growers for adventitious presence of GM) should be equally applicable to GM growers for adventitious presence of non GM crops.  No one sector should be able to veto another – access and choice works both ways

5.      Practicality: All co-existence measures should be based on legal, practical and scientific realities.  

Co-existence is based on the premise that farmers should be free to cultivate the crops of their choice using the production system they prefer whether they are GM, conventional or organic. Despite claims from opponents, co-existence is not a crop safety issue but one that relates solely to the production and marketing of crops approved for use.

ENDS

For further details contact Graham Brookes:

t: +44 (0)1303 840958

e-mail: graham.brookes@pgeconomics.co.uk

The full paper is available on www.pgeconomics.co.uk