DEFRA CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR MANAGING THE COEXISTENCE OF GM,
CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC CROPS THE ORGANIC RESEARCH CENTRES RESPONSE.
1.
INTRODUCTION.
1.1.
We welcome the long awaited consultation and will
address the specific issues/questions set out in the consultation
document. However we have overarching
comments which we do not believe are addressed amongst the plethora of questions
asked.
1.2.
Although we welcome any attempt to reduce red tape
and for a “light touch” to be used by government we believe that using these as
a driver for any coexistence regime is misguided and cavalier. With so much unknown about the consequences
of growing GM crops in the
1.3.
The consultation says that it specifically
addresses those crops likely to be first commercialised in the
1.4.
We accept that the interest of farmers is at the
heart of the document and that a co-operative rather than an adversarial
approach is the best way forward. This
assumes that there is give and take on both sides and the document does not
reflect much give from the GM industry.
1.5.
Paragraph 28 is the hub of our problems with the
coexistence consultation document. The interpretation and application of the
meaning of the word “adventitious” within the context of the consultation is
disingenuous. Our understanding of adventitious and the Oxford English
Dictionary definition is “accidental”.
1.6.
We believe the target should be zero. Why is it
unrealistic to strive for zero contamination?
There are methods of avoiding detectable levels of GM presence so any
level can no longer be described as adventitious. We believe that a threshold
of 0.9% for truly adventitious presence should be set for labelling
purposes. However, this is not a target
that should be worked towards but threshold that is rarely approached.
1.7.
Paragraph 30 explains how the normal operation of
the market will decide whether GM crops are successful or not. The British
Retail Consortium in August 2006 stated that the
2.
DO STAKEHOLDERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE
COEXISTENCE REGIME?
2.1.
We do not accept the scope of the coexistence
regime. We believe that a tighter regime
is needed. We have the following specific comments.
2.1.1.
We believe that non-GM production should aim for a
non-detectable level of contamination and procedures and processes put in place
to assist this. However, labelling level
of 0.9% for truly adventitious presence is required to protect producers.
2.1.2.
This raises the issue of accepting the proposed
seed contamination levels. Accepting
these levels of between 0.3 and 0.5% would result in an extremely limited
margin for error to meet a 0.9% final level in product. The seed levels must be
set as undetectable to allow product to leave a farm gate with as low as
feasibly possible GM presence.
2.1.3.
The coexistence regime presented chooses to
disregard any part of the food chain after the farm gate. In addition it works to a GM level of near to
0.9% at the farm gate. This allows no
margin for any additional presence once the product has left the farm
gate. In the first years of GM
production this may be a reasonable assumption to make as dilution with non-GM
product could occur. However, if GM
production was to increase then the availability of non-GM to dilute
contaminated product will be rapidly reduced making it increasingly difficult
to maintain 0.9% or less in end product.
2.1.4.
The proposed regime excludes contamination of crops
grown for own use ie fodder maize or crops on allotments
or domestic gardens. This is not
acceptable. These consumers and their
crops should enjoy the same protection as all others. Many allotment and back garden growers
produce their own food for the reason that they know what has been done to it and
what is in it. This proposed coexistence
regime removes this opportunity from them.
2.1.5.
This proposed regime (or whatever regime is
adopted) must not be seen as a template that other crops would just be dropped
into. A full risk assessment must be
undertaken on all other GM crops that are brought to the market in the
3.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF GM CONTAMINATION.
3.1.
Do stakeholders accept the above analysis of the potential sources of GM
presence and the assumptions that Defra is proposing should underpin the
coexistence regime?
3.1.1.
We accept that the potential sources of GM presence
appear to have been covered but question many of the assumptions.
3.1.2.
We do not accept the issue that because beet is
biennial that it is easily controlled.
There is no reference or mention of the real likelihood of beet cross
pollinating with native species, hybridising and creating a reservoir of GM in
the environment. How will this be addressed in any coexistence regime?
3.1.3.
Cross pollination between sexually compatible
plants is dismissed by saying it happens mainly at close range so relatively
small separation distances are acceptable.
Why should we accept any more contamination than seed stocks which will
require longer distances? The levels
being set look suspiciously like ones that can be achieved to maintain a final
GM presence level of below 0.9%.
3.1.4.
Border or barrier rows are mentioned throughout the
document with repeated caveats that there is no proof that they will work or
how well. This method should be removed
from the document until further work has been undertaken, refereed and
published. Paragraph 44 introduces
barriers again in the context of when separation distances are difficult to
observe. If they separation distances
are difficult to observe then GM crop should not be grown in that location.
3.1.5.
Paragraph 45 says it is “desirable” for beet
farmers to minimise cross pollination from bolters. This is a weak and weasely
word it has to be replaced with “essential”.
3.1.6.
The likely transfer of seed by machinery is down
played in the consultation document. It
says that it is disproportionate to expect a complete clean down between farms
and only have to clean those parts of machinery that are readily accessible. This is not acceptable. It may be acceptable for a farmer to accept
the risk of these machines moving within their farms. However, it is not acceptable for machinery
that is moving between farms and likely to contaminate road ways and other
farms once it has left the GM farm.
3.1.7.
Tables 1 and 2 give us great
concern and demonstrate the precariousness of the proposed regime. They can only be taken seriously if we assume
that we will always be dealing with very limited background levels of GM,
either through remaining volunteers or native GM hybrids. In the case of oil seed
rape and beet this is not a safe assumption to make. This makes the calculation of a 0.81% level
in oil seed rape dangerously close to the 0.9% level (without any additional
off farm contamination). This highlights the need to reject seed levels at levels
of 0.3-0.5%.
4.
PROPOSED COEXISTENCE MEASURES.
4.1.
Do stakeholders accept Defra’s proposed
overall basis for the coexistence regime as outlined above?
4.1.1.
We do not accept the proposal for what will be statutory
and what is a voluntary. All areas of the coexistence regime are essential and
must be statutory. The description of
such things as controlling volunteers as desirable is insincere. A statutory
requirement to adhere to an agreed best practice must be instituted.
4.1.2.
Defra appears to be overly worried about a
disproportionate burden on GM farmers. We question the disproportionate burden
on non-GM farmers. The proposed GM crops
are new with proven additional impacts on other farmers both economically and
environmentally. There has to be a
greater burden on GM farmers rather than accepting that other farmers (who will
not gain from the purported benefits of going GM) must shoulder an unreasonable
share of this burden. Organic farmers
burden all of the additional regulation and legislative burdens; would it not
be appropriate for GM farmers to do the same?
4.1.3.
A voluntary code of practice is too weak, will be
toothless and is failing to address the concerns of the
4.2.
Do stakeholders have particular comments on the analysis in the draft
Regulatory Impact Assessment (at Annex B), and on what it says about Defra’s plans to enforce, monitor and review the
coexistence regime?
4.2.1.
Many of our comments on the RIA
are covered elsewhere in this document. There are a number of specific points.
4.2.2.
Paragraph 9 suggests that applying
the costs of coexistence to GM farmers is a tax on innovation. To use such an emotive word in reference to a
regulation is not acceptable. There are plenty of production regimes where the
farmer/grower has to pay to be included or certified (organic and various
assured produce schemes come to mind).
There is also a widely accepted policy of polluter pays that can be
applied here. Paragraph 9 should be
removed from the RIA.
4.2.3.
The options are unbalanced and
biased. A GM free
4.2.4.
The tone of the whole RIA is such
that is suggests that Defra is apologetic and against any form of regulation in
this area. This is not acceptable and
goes against the wishes of consumers who have in the past and continue to
reject GM food.
5.
STATUTORY SEPARATION DISTANCES.
5.1.
Do stakeholders agree with these proposed distances? If not, which
aspect(s) of the supporting analysis and proposed assumptions made by Defra are
thought to need further consideration? What do stakeholders think of Defra’s proposal not to differentiate separation distances
by GM Index or field depth?
5.1.1.
The choice of separation distances is arbitrary and
appears to have been chosen to address a final GM presence of 0.9% as a target
and not a threshold. We would want to
see lower GM presence levels. The aim of
the regime should be to maintain the lowest possible levels of GM presence and
only in genuine circumstances should adventitious presence be found.
5.1.2.
Paragraph 80 seems to be set out to confuse. Table 4 which it accompanies is in hectares
while paragraph 80 refers to field depths.
These are clearly separate things as surely a modelled hectare approach
assumes a regular (square/circular) field while depth does not. What are the implications of this as there is
evidence in the literature that area and distance have different impacts on
pollen flow (REF).
5.1.3.
The recommendation for a separation distance for
oil seed rape of 35m is not acceptable as a this would
allow for a contamination level of 0.3% which is too high (as it would account
for a third of the 0.9% labelling level). A separation distance should be set
to aim for lowest detectable level assuming this is not too onerous on the GM
farmer. A level of 0.1% (or lowest
detectable level) is easily manageable through a small increase in the
separation distance of 20m and this is what should be aimed for. Therefore
based on Defra’s own evidence a separation distance
of 55m for winter and spring oil seed rape is manageable, reasonable and
essential to protect non-GM farmers.
5.1.4.
From the NIAB report a distance of 110m for grain
maize would give a GM presence level at the lowest detectable level. For fodder
maize the distances are slightly reduced with a distance of 90m giving a lowest
detectable level. Due to the likelihood
of confusion between crops a single separation distance should be set for maize
of 110m, which is the level suggested for grain maize in the consultation.
5.1.5.
To reduce red tape and the chances of any
confusion. There needs to be a single distance for each crop.
5.1.6.
Paragraph 82 covers the issue of cross pollination
from just one source and that the possibility of pollination from more than one
source will be in the review. It is not acceptable to allow GM production
without this issue being addressed within the coexistence regime. The likelihood of a non-GM farmer being
bordered by more than one GM farmer has to be taken seriously and addressed.
5.2.
Do stakeholders accept how the proposed separation distance requirement
would apply? What do stakeholders think of the idea at paragraph 87 that some
local discretion might be allowed?
5.2.1.
Paragraph 87 suggests that two farmers can agree on
other measures than crop separation distances.
This is of great concern. How will this be managed and documented. What if it goes wrong? It appears to be a recipe for conflict and a
rush towards reducing red tape to allow easier introduction of GM without
thinking through the issue.
6.
STATUTORY NOTIFICATION AND LIAISON REQUIREMENT.
6.1.
Do stakeholders have any comments on how the proposed notification and
liaison requirement would operate? What do stakeholders think about having a
single notification deadline for spring-sown crops, rather than separate
deadlines for spring rape and maize respectively (paragraphs 91/92)?
6.1.1.
A Statutory notification requirement is essential.
6.1.2.
The dates for of 1st March and 1st
August are probably workable with the crops in the consultation.
6.1.3.
The fourteen calendar days
notification period is clearly not sufficient time. It assumes that you can talk over the farm
gate with any neighbour. It does not
allow for the farmer to be away form the farm for this
period. There are also issues to do with
either the GM or non-GM farmer using early or late notification as way of
manipulating the situation as the consultee may not have plans in place when
approached. How will this be dealt with?
6.1.4.
A none response to a notification being accepted as a positive response is not
acceptable. It is clearly open to abuse. How would you prove that the
notification was sent, received, returned? There are a whole host of both
accidental (lost in mail) and underhand (do not send the notification) ways
that this proposed approach could cause problems. There must be a statutory
requirement to respond to any notification and a clear and transparent paper
chain to demonstrate that the process has been undertaken and adhered to.
6.1.5.
To set notification distances as the same as
separation distances is not acceptable.
The separation distances have been set on the basis of the modelled flow
of pollen. We know that there will be pollen flow that does not fit this model
(due to whether conditions, topography etc). Therefore notification distances
must be set at much greater distances to allow those producers who wish to grow
GM-free produce to adjust their cropping plans.
We also believe GM farmers should be obliged to take the wishes of these
farmers into account when setting there cropping plans.
6.1.6.
This also highlights the need for a register and a
tougher compensation package. It is
imperative that where contamination occurs outside of the notification distance
that it is identifiable where the source of the contamination has come from and
that the contaminated grower is recompensed.
7.
OTHER COEXISTENCE ISSUES.
7.1.
Do stakeholders think this is a reasonable way forward on farm-saved
seed?
7.1.1.
We accept that the proposed situation appears
sensible.
7.2.
Do stakeholders agree that a formal training requirement is unnecessary?
7.2.1.
We accept that farmers do not need specific
training as long as any GM farmer is fully liable for any damage caused through
their lack of knowledge.
7.2.2.
This is an example where Defra appears to be overly
worried about a disproportionate burden on GM farmers.
7.3.
Do stakeholders accept this conclusion on honey production?
7.3.1.
The situation for honey producers
is unacceptable. Any presence in their
product would undermine the authenticity of the product.
8.
COEXISTENCE BETWEEN GM AND ORGANIC PRODUCTION - POSSIBLE SPECIAL
ARRANGEMENTS.
8.1.
Should responsibility for any threshold below 0.9% rest with GM or organic
growers? How would organic producers cope with a threshold lower than 0.9% if
the onus for meeting it rested with them? Are there important points that are
not covered in the arguments outlined above?
8.1.1.
Government have clearly reneged on promises by
previous ministers. Jeff Rooker, Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food in July 1998 said "...our desire is to ensure that the
introduction of GMOs on a trial basis, an
experimental basis, or even a full-crop basis, in no way damages organic
farming" and "...it would be stupid for the Government to push more
money into converting to organic farming while allowing the farmers who take
that brave step to be damaged by other actions…". Ian Pearson MP, Defra Minister of State for
Climate Change and Environment, speaking as recently as June 2006 said "We
are supporting the expansion of organic farming and want to ensure that the
possible introduction of GM crops does not unreasonably prejudice the organic
sector." The spirit if not the word of what has been previously said has
been ignored and turned on its face.
8.1.2.
Notions of setting differential target values for
organic verses non-organic conventional production are at first glance
attractive and appear to represent scope for the development of enhanced
differentiation and added value to organic crops. But probe a little further
and the huge extra costs and regulatory burden that organic growers would have
to shoulder themselves mean a single, industry-wide figure of 0.9%
contamination is the least worst option. It is also
unlikely that consumers will distinguish between a 0.5 and 0.9% threshold as
much of the organic publicity on the issue has so far focussed on a level of
zero.
8.1.3.
The guiding principle must be for organic farmers
to work towards an undetectable level of presence within their systems and end
product. This is particularly important in sourcing seed and feed for example
where the current organic regulations prohibit the knowing introduction of GM
product into an organic system.
8.1.4.
Organic farmers should work towards an undetectable
level of presence within their systems and end product but an adventitious
level of 0.9% must be allowed as a precautionary level for truly adventitious
presence. The impact of seed thresholds is critical here for organic farmers to
aim at a non-detectable level.
8.1.5.
The co-existence issues raised in the document for
proposed GM crops (maize, OSR, sugar beet and potatoes) are academic. We agree that currently these crops are
either of limited importance to organic producers (OSR, sugar beet although
fodder beet may be a different issue) or there are minimal
co-existence/contamination issues (maize, potatoes). This may not be the case for future GM crops
brought to the market and it must be ensured that organic farmers can continue
to grow and produce their products with a minimum level of contamination at no
additional costs to them.
8.1.6.
The issues of GM contamination of inputs are real
and happening already in such inputs as animal feed. The EU, national competent authorities and
organic certification bodies need to put their houses in order so that the
threat to organic systems and markets from this contamination route is
eliminated.
8.1.7.
Paragraph 117 suggests that any additional
separation or such activities should be borne by the organic farmer as they are
gaining the benefit from the premium and it is what they do for other factors
already. We believe this is a poor
argument from government as they are changing the goal posts and expecting
organic farmers to pick up the tab.
8.2.
What do stakeholders think of this analysis – is there any firm evidence
that would call this into doubt or support a different conclusion? Is there an
alternative analysis that should be considered?
8.2.1.
We agree with this analysis.
8.3.
What do stakeholders think about this? Is the expectation that demand
from the organic sector will generate production of enough seed which is below
EU labelling thresholds to enable a threshold for organic produce lower than
0.9% to be met? Will consumer demand for organic products distinguish between a
GM threshold of 0.9% and, say, 0.5%?
8.3.1.
We believe that all seed thresholds should be set
at below detectable limit. It is highly
unlikely that there will be enough demand for all organic seed with a threshold
below 0.1% for all crops and varieties.
In many cases there is currently insufficient organic seed available so
it is highly unlikely that market forces will allow GM free organic seed in all
cases. However, if a seed levels are set between 0.3 and 0.5% it will prevent
organic farmers using these products as they will be knowingly introducing GM
product into their system.
8.3.2.
A single level needs to be set for organic produce.
The analysis of possible lower organic contamination levels to 0.5% seems
reasonable but would require an unreasonably large burden to be placed on the
organic farming sector. It is more
important that organic farmers aim for a level of beneath the lowest detectable
level but with the threshold of 0.9% for truly adventitious presence.
8.3.3.
It is also unlikely that the consumer will
distinguish between a 0.5 and 0.9% threshold as much of the organic publicity
on this issue has designated a zero level.
8.4.
Do stakeholders accept this analysis? Are there technical points that
need to be clarified or points not covered above that should be considered?
8.4.1.
The analysis of PCR and it reliability is of
concern and undermines the confidence consumers and others could have in a 0.9%
threshold.
8.5.
Is a process-based standard an alternative way forward? How practical is
it?
8.5.1.
A process approach must be used. Organic certification does not routinely
measure for pesticides on its produce so why this should be done for GM. However, this does not stop customers doing
so and expecting no detectable levels.
8.5.2.
If an organic level was set at 0.1%/lowest
detectable level and that organic farmers were required alone to undertake the
measures to ensure that this threshold was not exceeded it would bankrupt organic
producers. GM-free would be impossible
in enough cases to make it meaningless.
8.5.3.
We grudgingly agree with the consultation document
in this section.
8.6.
Overall, what do stakeholders think is the appropriate legal threshold
for adventitious GM presence in organic products, bearing in mind the various
factors considered above? With the general objective being to minimise GM
presence as far as possible, but allowing for the practical constraints, what
should be the specific aim in relation to organic production? Should the
Government support the Commission’s proposal to fix the threshold at 0.9% or
argue for a lower figure?
8.6.1.
We support the 0.9% threshold for organic
products. We believe that organic
products should be GM-free but accept that this is increasingly difficult with
the growing production and trade in GM products. The organic sector must do more to eliminate
the contamination of its own system (from animal feeds etc). We must aim for
zero but allow a truly adventitious level of 0.9%.
9.
REDRESS FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES.
9.1.
Have we correctly identified the range of losses that might occur in
crop values? What are your views on the proposed approach for dealing with the
corn-on-the-cob scenario?
9.1.1.
It is highly likely that in the timeframe of the first
GM crop production to the review, after 2-3 years, non-GM produce that is
contaminated with GM will be of lower value.
Any losses must be compensated for as must any additional costs,
including analytical tests.
9.1.2.
All additional costs for the introduction and
running of the regime must be borne by the GM industry. This should include all additional testing
costs as well as compensation, monitoring etc as well as costs for Defra farm
inspectors.
9.1.3.
Paragraph 142 says that losses will be paid on a
whole field basis. As it can take 2-3
days to tests for GM presence level how do farmers deal with crops from each
field? Are farmers supposed to store each field separately? What if the product
leaves the farm ahead of these test results? Payment for the loss of a whole
crop from a farm may be needed?
9.1.4.
Profit forgone if sold as GM is the minimum that
should be provided.
9.1.5.
The corn-on-the-cob scenario seems to be
acceptable. However, it does not make it
clear who pays for tests?
9.1.6.
We believe that the document has identified a range
of losses that would be expected but does not go far enough. The loss of “contract” such as from a
supermarket due to the presence of GM is a direct cost of GM contamination.
9.2.
Should consequential or additional losses be covered by any redress
mechanism? If so, which should be covered and why? How likely are these to
occur? Are there any other types of loss that should be considered?
9.2.1.
Any losses by the non-GM farmer must be covered ie additional storage, transport etc. This must also include
the cost of sampling and testing.
9.2.2.
We understand the concerned that if there are too
many losses covered a compensation scheme will be too complicated. The scheme should be as complicated as it
needs to be and not diluted under the cover of reducing red tape.
9.2.3.
It is highly likely that contracts will be lost due
any GM contamination. The document says that this is a function of the market
or will be covered by contract law and will not be included in the compensation
scheme. This is not acceptable and shows a worry lack of understanding in the
9.3.
What should the eligibility requirements be for non-GM farmers to seek
redress? Are there particular criteria that have not been highlighted?
9.3.1.
As long as the non-GM farmer has met their
requirements to the best of his abilities he must be eligible for redress.
9.3.2.
The time that it takes to test and the mixing of
product post-farm is an important issue. In many situations product from a
range of farms may be mixed and only then a positive result identified and product
rejected. In this case all farmers must be compensated.
9.4.
Are there any alternative ways of distributing the burden on the GM
sector? Are there any strong arguments or pros/cons to each approach that have
not been covered?
9.4.1.
The GM seed industry should pay for this
scheme. It can be collected through a
levy on GM seed sales.
9.5.
Which redress mechanism do you favour and why? If a compulsory redress
mechanism is your preferred option, which of the models at paragraph 166 should
it employ?
9.5.1.
Farmers should not have to resort to law to gain
redress. A voluntary redress scheme is
also unacceptable as through many other industries it has been shown that they
are biased towards the industry and toothless in many cases. A statutory
redress mechanism must be put in place.
9.5.2.
A fund needs to be collected for redress directly
from seed sales. How it is administrated
should be the simplest and most cost effective method a mixture of 166a –
establishing a specific body with the power to require GM seed companies to pay
redress directly to non-GM growers and 166c – establishing a specific fund
would be our preferred option.
10.
A PUBLIC REGISTER IF GM CROPS.
10.1.
How could a crop register aid coexistence? Are there other reasons to
justify the establishment of a register? How should any register relate to a
notification requirement? If a register is established should the information
be available to everyone? How would a register be funded?
10.1.1.
A register is a specific co-existence issue. The consultation assumes that coexistence is
only an issue in the single year of planting.
This is not the case and a record of what and where GM crops have been
grown is essential not only to monitor the code of practice and coexistence
regulations but also as a safeguard for any unforeseen problems in the future.
10.1.2.
The consultation document assumes that coexistence
will be an issue from a single crop to another.
If there are additional GM crops also being grown (close by but outside
the coexistence and notification distance) a farmer needs to know as it
increases the likelihood of contamination of the crop.
10.1.3.
A register could be used in conjunction with the
notification requirement. Consent forms
could be used to populate the register.
10.1.4.
We understand the concerns about the destruction of
crops. However, a public register can be made available in many different ways
so that some form of protection can be established as it is for other sensitive
but public information.
10.1.5.
The total disregard for allotment growers and gardens
in this section (179c) is both breathtaking and arrogant. These people have the right to know what is
likely to be contaminating their crops.
GM farmers with fields bordering or within designated separation
distances of gardens/allotments must be required to notify these people. We do not understand the logic that if you
grow it and consume it yourself you do not need to
know what is in it?
10.1.6.
Any costs of the register must be borne by the GM
industry it is an issue created by them and public money must not be spend on
it.
11.
VOLUNTARY “GM-FREE” ZONES.
11.1.
Do stakeholders have particular comments on the guidance that Defra
could make available on GM-free zones. Are there
relevant points that have not been covered in the above?
11.1.1.
This seems acceptable but pretty toothless as it
has no status in law. A nice marketing
ploy if it can be implemented but it will be limited by how joined up you can
get you non-GM farmers.
27/09/2006 17:14