PG Economics Ltd today announced the release of its latest research paper on GM and non GM crop co-existence – Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: case study of the UK 

The key findings of the report are: 

1.       GM crops can co-exist with conventional and organic crops in the UK without causing any economic or marketing problems;

2.       Claims by anti GM groups that GM and non GM crops cannot co-exist are exaggerated.

These conclusions are based on the context of the crops in which GM crops are being developed and the extent to which non GM demand exists, and the experiences of UK arable farmers in successfully implementing and managing the co-existence of specialist crops with other crops for many years. 

Context and demand

·          the GM traits being commercialised in the next few years are in crops for which there is limited demand for non GM products (with the possible exception of sugar beet);

·          the sector with the most prominent demand for non GM status, the organic sector is very small.  The organic areas of the three relevant crops (oilseed rape, sugar beet and forage maize) are extremely small - only 0.24% (1,650 hectares) of the area planted to these crops in the UK; 

·          The organic area of these crops (and other combinable crops) is likely to continue to be a very small part of the total arable crop areas (even if there was a tenfold increase in plantings), with a very limited economic contribution relative to the rest of the UK arable crops.  The likelihood of these (organic) areas expanding is limited due to adverse agronomic factors (eg, the nutrient demanding nature of crops like oilseed rape), limited demand, and market preference for competing (imported) produce (eg, cane sugar). 

Co-existence experience and measures available

·          UK arable farmers have been successfully growing specialist crops (eg, seed production, high erucic acid oilseed rape) for many years, near to other crops of the same species, without compromising the high purity levels required;

·          some changes to farming practices on some farms may be required once GM crops are commercialised.  This will however, only apply where GM crops are located near non GM or organic crops for which the non GM status of the crop is important (eg, where buyers do not wish to label products as being GM or derived from GM according EU labelling regulations).  These changes are likely to focus on the use of separation distances and buffer crops (of non GM crops) between the GM crops and the nearby non GM/organic crop and the application of good husbandry (weed control) practices.  GM crop planting farmers in the FSEs have already adopted these practices as part of applying the SCIMAC guidelines.  Few GM planting farmers are however, likely to find themselves located near to non GM/organic crops for which the non GM status is of marketing importance.  Hence, the need to apply all of these guidelines rigorously may not be necessary.  For example, if a farmer planted GM forage maize next to a non GM forage maize crop and the non GM forage maize was fed to dairy cows whose milk produce was sold into markets where the buyers were not differentiating their milk sold according to the GM or non GM status of the feeding regimes used.   

It is also important to emphasise the issue of proportionality.  If highly onerous GM crop stewardship conditions are applied to all farms^[1] that might wish to grow GM crops, even though the vast majority of such crops would not be located near to organic-equivalent crops or conventional crops for which the non GM status is important, this would be disproportionate and inequitable.  In effect, conventional farmers, who account for 99.76% of the current, relevant UK arable crop farming area could be discouraged from adopting a new technology, that is likely to deliver farm level benefits (yield gains, cost savings) and provide wider environmental gains (reduced pesticide use, switches to more environmentally benign herbicides, reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions). 

The different certification bodies in the UK organic sector can also take action to facilitate co-existence by: 

·          applying a more consistent, practical, proportionate and cost effective policy towards GMOs (ie, adopt the same policy as it applies to the adventitious presence of other non organic material).  This would allow it to better exploit market opportunities and to minimise the risks of publicity about inconsistent organic definitions and derogations for the use of non organic ingredients and inputs damaging consumer confidence in all organic produce.  This latter point is important given that the organic crops perceived to be affected by the commercialisation of GM traits in the next few years account for only 0.22% of the total organic farmed area in the UK; or

·          applying the same testing principles and thresholds currently applied to GMOs to impurities (eg, introduce a de minimis threshold on pesticide residues and apply a 0.1% threshold on the limit for acceptance of all unwanted materials and impurities); and

·          accepting that if they wish to retain policies towards GMOs that advocate farming practices that go beyond those recommended for GMO crop stewardship (eg, buffer crops and separation distances that are more stringent than those considered to be reasonable to meet the EU labelling and traceability regulations), then the onus for implementation of such measures (and associated cost) should fall on the organic certification bodies and their members in the same way as current organic farmers incur costs associated with adhering to organic principles and are rewarded through the receipt of organic price premia.   

PG Economics Ltd is at www.bioportfolio.com/pgeconomics/