Exploring Coexistence

							Exploring Coexistence
PIFB-NASDA Workshop 2006

      Presentation to AC-21
       December 6, 2011
        Washington, D.C.




                Michael Rodemeyer
                University of Virginia
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

 BACKGROUND

 • 2001-2007
 • Project of the University of Richmond funded by the Pew
   Charitable Trusts
 • Focus on U.S. regulatory system for agricultural
   biotechnology, with a focus on emerging issues
 • Reports, workshops and conferences, public opinion polling
 • Partner with USDA, FDA, NASDA, others
 • Purpose: to be a “honest broker” in a contentious space;
   place to bring together all viewpoints
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology

 MIXED LEGACY

 • Stakeholder Forum failed to reach consensus on
   regulations
 • Reports and workshops on issues contributed to
   understanding, setting stage for continuing debates and
   emerging issues
 • Comprehensive report on Coordinated Framework in 2004:
   strengths and weaknesses
 Peaceful Coexistence Workshop


• Partnered with NASDA
• March 1-2, 2006
• Fifty Participants:
   • Federal and state governments
   • GE, conventional, and organic farmers
   • European Union
   • Seed companies
   • Food processing and marketing companies
   • Academic experts
   • Biotechnology companies
• Workshop report available online
 Peaceful Coexistence Workshop

Workshop Purposes
• Develop understanding and definition of issues relating to
  “peaceful coexistence”;
• Examine existing and potential roles of the public and
  private sectors in achieving coexistence;
• Explore what coexistence means for NASDA and state
  agricultural agencies;
• Identify and discuss key components for advancing
  “peaceful coexistence” in marketplace
    Peaceful Coexistence Workshop


• No consensus (but that
  wasn’t the goal)
• Highlights for AC-21
  consideration
• Has not been updated since
  2006
                      Highlights

Food Producers, Retailer Perspectives
• Gerber, Whole Foods
• Science is not enough
• Must pay attention to values of market – rational or not (not
  their job!)
• Gerber does not make GM label claims, but sources non-
  GM to avoid controversy
• Whole Foods sources non-GM, labels private-label
  products as “formulated to avoid”
                      Highlights

Europe
• European Commission
   • Guidance Documents on peaceful coexistence
       • No authority for binding rules; governed by liability
         at member state level
       • Not a safety issue
       • Research on gene flow
       • Potential for conflict with trade
       • GMO-free zone could be consistent with guidance
                      Highlights

Europe
• Ireland’s Coexistence Policy
    • Establishes fund and independent arbitration to settle
       disputes from GM cross-contamination
    • Covers economic losses arising from cross-
       contamination above legal threshold
    • Establishes mandatory and voluntary “good farming
       practices”
        • E.g., GM crop farmers have to sign agreement if
            neighbor’s land to be used as buffer
    • Fund initially covered by government, but ultimately
       will be paid for by GM producers and users
                      Highlights

Distributors and Seed Producers
Cargill:
• Specialty crops must work within the bulk commodity grain
   system (e.g., white corn)
• It’s the responsibility of farmers of specialty crops to do
   whatever it takes to deliver that product
• Isolation and reasonable tolerances needed; so is a
   premium price!
Pioneer Hi-Bred
• Not a new issue (Federal Seed Act 5%)
• Seed corn as specialty product; isolation, other
   management, required to deliver
                     Highlights

Growers (Organic, GE, Conventional)
• Freedom to choose for supplier and customer
• Processor contracts: “zero GM”
   • Organic: can’t be met
• Need for education, articulation of liability
• Possible state role for mediating coexistence disputes
• Insurance
   • Too easily abused?
   • Takes responsibility off producers?
   • Best if funded by community that benefits
• Gene use restriction technology
                     Highlights

Academics (Bryan Endres)
• Fencing-in vs. fencing-out
• Who is responsible for the buffer zone?



         GM Crops                Non-GM

                                Buffer Zone




          GM Crops                 Non-GM

   GM-Free Buffer Zone
                    Highlights

Academics (Bryan Endres)
• US: market places burden on conventional / organic where
  GM in common use (but not judicially tested)
• EU actions placing burden on GM producers and users
• Ideas:
   • Grower districts
   • State intervention
       • Growing restrictions
       • Changes in liability to allow tort claims
   • State oversight of seed purity
   • State oversight of Field Trials
   • Federal preemption?
              Discussion Topics

Science vs. Values
• Science is not enough; market and consumer values have
  to be taken into account
• Economic loss is a consequence of both inconsistent
  regulation and marketplace demands, not safety
• Government role to use science to ensure safety
    • Who has responsibility to educate the consumer?
    • USDA also has marketing role
        • Do thresholds imply a safety problem?
        • Or can thresholds be used as a product-
           differentiating market standard
• Distinction between AP of approved traits and unlawful
  presence of unapproved traits
Who pays?
Who decides?
Questions?