Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!

Abstract In the literature spatial coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops is often regarded as a technical challenge, depending on spatial pollen dispersal and cross-pollination, temporal and spatial distribution and interaction of crops, separation distances and practical measures, but the interaction between economic incentives and costs of coexistence is poorly studied. Europe is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations in all EU Member States. Since the publication of the European Commission's guidelines in 2003, some Member States have developed, and others are still developing, a diversity of ex ante regulations and ex post liability rules on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. In this article, our attention is drawn to ex ante regulations. More specifically, we polarize two alternative ways of regulating spatial coexistence, i.e. rigid minimum distance rules, imposed on GM crop production, versus flexible segregation measures such as buffer zones, leaving more freedom of negotiation between neighboring farmers. We conduct simulations with the software ArcView® on a GIS dataset of a hypothetical case of GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape cultivation in Central France. Our findings show that rigid coexistence rules, such as large distance requirements, may impose a severe burden on GM crop production in Europe. These rules are not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence and hence not consistent with the objectives of the European Commission. More alarming, we show that in densely planted areas a domino-effect may occur, a theoretical possibility ignored in the literature. This effect raises coexistence costs and even adds to the non-proportionality of rigid coexistence regulations. Instead, we show that flexible measures would be preferable since they are proportional to the economic incentives for coexistence and, hence, less counterproductive for European agriculture.

[1]  Christian Damgaard,et al.  Gene flow of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) according to isolation distance and buffer zone , 2005 .

[2]  Dirk Reheul,et al.  Management of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: a case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. , 2004, Environmental biosafety research.

[3]  Justus Wesseler,et al.  Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union , 2006 .

[4]  Bernhard Streit,et al.  Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation , 2008, Transgenic Research.

[5]  J. Perry,et al.  Sensitive dependencies and separation distances for genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  W. H. Furtan,et al.  Landscape Clubs: Co-existence of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops , 2007 .

[7]  József Fogarasi,et al.  Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU , 2008 .

[8]  P. McVetty,et al.  Effectiveness of border areas in confining the spread of transgenic Brassica napus pollen , 2000 .

[9]  T. Haller.  Apples compared to Apples: Attitudes towards cisgenic and transgenic breeds , 2009 .

[10]  A. Messean,et al.  Persistence of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) outside of cultivated fields , 2001, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[11]  I. Broer,et al.  Coexistence Between GM and Non-GM Maize Crops – Tested in 2004 at the Field Scale Level (Erprobungsanbau 2004) , 2007 .

[12]  Justus Wesseler,et al.  Coping with ex ante Regulations and ex post Liability Rules for Planting Bt-maize – The Portuguese Experience , 2008 .

[13]  Antoine Messéan,et al.  New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture. , 2006 .

[14]  GianCarlo Moschini,et al.  Biotechnology and the Development of Food Markets: Retrospect and Prospects , 2008 .

[15]  M. Demont,et al.  GM Crops in Europe: How Much Value and for Whom? Les cultures génétiquement modifiées en Europe : quels avantages et pour qui? Genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in Europa: Welcher Wert und für wen? , 2007 .

[16]  F. Coléno,et al.  A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management , 2009 .

[17]  A. Dietz-Pfeilstetter,et al.  Pollen-mediated intraspecific gene flow from herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) , 2007, Transgenic Research.

[18]  Antoine Messéan,et al.  Management of transgenic crops within the cropping system , 1999 .

[19]  Justus Wesseler,et al.  Biodiversity versus Transgenic Sugar Beet: The One Euro Question , 2004 .

[20]  G. Schütte.  Herbicide resistance: Promises and prospects of biodiversity for European agriculture , 2003 .

[21]  Justus Wesseler,et al.  Coping with ex-ante regulations for planting Bt maize: the Portuguese experience , 2009 .

[22]  Peter W. B. Phillips,et al.  The Economic Impact of Herbicide Tolerant Canola in Canada , 2003 .

[23]  Eric Tollens,et al.  First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain , 2004 .

[24]  Peter W. B. Phillips,et al.  Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination , 2005 .