PG Economics Ltd today announces the release of its latest research paper on GM and non GM crop co-existence – Co-existence in North American agriculture: can GM crops be grown with conventional and organic crops? 

The key findings of the report are:

1.   GM crops have been, and continue to co-exist with conventional and organic crops in North America (where GM crops account for the majority of plantings of important arable crops like soybeans, oilseed rape and maize), without causing any economic or marketing problems to non GM or organic growers.

2.   Claims by anti GM groups that GM and non GM crops cannot co-exist in North America are greatly exaggerated, given the on-farm experiences since 1995.

3.   The market has developed practical, proportionate and workable co-existence measures without government intervention.  These have been delivering effective co-existence for nearly nine years. 

These conclusions are based on the experiences of North American arable farmers in successfully implementing and managing the co-existence of GM and non GM crops, as well as specialist crops with other crops, for many years.

Impact on organic farmers

Survey evidence amongst US organic farmers (2003) shows that the vast majority (96%) have not experienced any loss of organic sales or downgrading of produce as a result of GM adventitious presence having been found in their crops.  Where a small number (4%) report some losses/downgrading this has been due to a marketing decision taken by their certifying body or customer rather than any requirement under national organic regulations.

Growth of the GM crop area has not impeded the development of organic crops

The US organic areas of soybeans and corn have increased by 270% and 187% respectively between 1995 and 2001*, a period in which GM crops were introduced and reached 68% and 26% shares of total plantings of soybeans and corn.  Also, the states with the greatest concentration of organic soybean and corn crops are often states with above average penetration of GM crops (eg, Iowa and Minnesota). 

In the case of canola (oilseed rape), the organic area has historically been very low (under 0.1% of total canola plantings)**.  This very low level of planting essentially reflects agronomic and husbandry difficulties in growing organic canola and the limited nature of the market – it is not related to any co-existence problems with GM canola.

A pdf version of the paper is available on www.pgeconomics.co.uk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper examines the issue of co-existence1 of GM and non GM (including organic) crops, with specific applicability to the main arable crops grown in North America.

Current crop context
In 2003, GM crops accounted for 60% of the total plantings of soybeans, corn and canola in the USA and Canada
 combined (80%, 41% and 70% respectively of soybean, corn and canola plantings). This compared with an organic share of less than 0.22% (0.05% in canola, just over 0.1% in maize and 0.24% in soybeans2). The balance (of 39.78%) was accounted for by conventionally grown crops, some of which3 were to speciality types (eg, nexera canola, waxy corn).
 

Have the different crops managed to co-exist ?

The evidence to date shows that GM crops have co-existed with conventional and organic crops without significant
economic or commercial problems:

a) Co-existence of GM and non GM crops has, to date, only been an issue of relevance to farmers where their crops are/have been sold to some users in the human food sector and/or for export to some markets where there is a distinct market for non GM products. Within the context of the total markets for these crops (domestic North American and exports onto world markets), the non GM market accounts for a small share. For example, the non GM market is probably largest in soybeans/derivatives, and within this, in the EU – the level of non GM demand in the EU soy market was equal to about 2.6% of global soy oil use and 6.2% of global soymeal use in 2002/03;
 

b) North American farmers have been successfully growing specialist crops (eg, seed production, nexera canola, waxy corn) for many years, near to crops of the same species (including GM crops), without compromising the high purity levels required;

c) North American farmers have also been successfully growing and channelling some GM and non GM crops of the same species into different markets (usually differentiating between domestic and some export destinations);
 

d) Survey evidence amongst US organic farmers shows that the vast majority (92%) have not incurred any direct, additional costs or incurred losses due to GM crops having been grown near their crops. Only 4% had any experience of lost organic sales or downgrading of produce as a result of GM adventitious presence having been found in their crops (the balance of 4% had incurred small additional costs for testing only);

e) A small number of instances of adventitious presence of GM events have been found in non GM and organic crops (and resulted in possible rejection of deliveries by buyers or imposition of contractual price penalties):

• Often this has been due to deficiencies in segregating/channelling crops once harvested, in storage or transport;

• The only crop/sector where there appear to be disputes about the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non GM/organic crops4 is canola, in Canada. However, the lack of publicly available information on key issues (eg, levels of adventitious presence of GMO material found in organic canola, frequency of testing of organic crops, location of crops relative to GM crops, origin of seed, measures taken to minimise adventitious presence occurring), means it is not possible to fully assess whether there have been, or may be co-existence problems between organic and GM canola in Canada.

Has the growth of the GM crop area impeded the development of organic crops?
 

Examination of trends in the planting of GM and organic crops suggests that the growth of the GM crop area has not impeded the development of the organic sector in North America:

f) The US organic areas of soybeans and corn have increased by 270% and 187% respectively between 1995 and 2001, a period in which GM crops were introduced and reached 68% and 26% shares of total plantings of soybeans and corn;
 

g) States with the greatest concentration of organic soybean and corn crops are often states with above average penetration of GM crops. For example, the leading organic corn growing states are Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Of these, Iowa and Minnesota have above average penetration of GM crop plantings (32% and 36% respectively of total corn plantings relative to the US average of 26% in 2001);
 

h) Given the historically low area planted to organic canola5 and the current existence of some organic plantings (about 2,000 hectares in Canada), this suggests that GM and organic canola can and is co-existing without causing significant economic and commercial problems for organic growers. These organic growers may have made some changes to farming practices in order to successfully co-exist (eg, ensuring reasonable separation distances, testing seed prior to use, operating rigorous control of volunteers and sowing brassica rapa varieties).
 

i) Some in the organic sector perceive that there is a lack of defined GM crop co-existence stewardship conditions, which if applied, would minimise the risk of neighbouring organic crops being down-graded due to the adventitious presence of GM events. It should however, be noted that some GM crop stewardship conditions (notably for corn) specifically provide GM crop farmers with ‘coexistence type’ recommendations for minimising the chances of adventitious presence of GM crop material being found in non GM crops of the same species. Also, farmers of GM herbicide tolerant crops are provided with weed (volunteer) management practice guides. It is therefore probable that some changes to farming practices by some GM growers have already been made to facilitate improved co-existence with non GM growers.

Concluding comments
 

Overall, co-existence of GM and non GM, including organic, crops has been occurring in North America. The market has effectively facilitated this without government intervention since GM arable crops were first introduced in 1995. In effect there has been recognition that if producers wish to avoid GM events in their production systems the onus for implementing measures to facilitate this falls on the speciality producers (including organic) which are, in turn rewarded via price premia, for incurring costs associated with meeting the requirements of their customers and certification bodies.
 

In the organic sector, the onus placed on (organic) growers to implement measures to facilitate co-existence also reflects the lack of clarification by the organic certification organisations on what constitutes a violation of organic principals where adventitious presence of GM events is detectable at very low levels even though the crop has been cultivated in accordance with organic principles. Also, there appears to be recognition that any policy relating to acceptance or rejection of organic crop status (ie, its right to be labelled and sold as an organic crop) because of GM adventitious presence is a marketing issue and that, under organic regulations, organic producers should not be penalised for adventitious presence of GM events, if this occurs through no fault of their own. This practice is consistent with the practices and principles, applied by the organic sector, in relation to the adventitious presence of other unwanted materials and is proportionate to the perceived negative impact on the environment and the perceived risks to human health.

1 Co-existence as an issue relates to ‘the economic consequences of adventitious presence of material from one crop in another and the principle that farmers should be able to cultivate freely the agricultural crops they choose, be it GM crops, conventional or organic crops. The issue is, therefore, not about product/crop safety, but, about the economic impact of the production and marketing of crops cultivated for different markets

2 Organic shares based on canola in Canada, and soybeans and corn in the USA

3 These speciality crops tend to account for 3%- 5% of total plantings of each crop
4 This refers to presence of GM material being found that may impact economically on the grower. In other words, GM material may be found in non GM crops grown on adjacent land to a GM crop, but is not of relevance to the non GM farmer if the market the crop is sold into (or its use) is indifferent to whether it is GM derived or not, or the level of GM presence is below a contractual or labelling threshold (eg, 0.9% in the EU)

5 This essentially reflects difficulties in growing organic canola and the limited nature of the market – see section 5.2

The report is in PDF format at www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/CoexistencereportNAmericafinalJune2004.pdf