Coexistence in the EU—return of the moratorium on GM crops?

Devos, Yann; Demont, Matty; Sanvido, Olivier

doi:10.1038/nbt1108-1223

Cited by 42 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Europe has defined a 0.9% labeling threshold for the EU approved GE seeds in organic or conventional crop seeds (European Commission, 2003). Adventitious presence above this threshold triggers product labeling as originating from GE material (Devos et al, 2008). Before the commercial release of GE flax, a strategy is required to mitigate transgene movement.…”

Section: Strategies To Reduce Pollen-mediated Gene Flow In Flaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coexistence allows growers and consumers the choice of producing or purchasing conventional or organic crops with known standards for adventitious presence of genetically engineered (GE) seed. Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) is multipurpose oilseed crop in which product diversity and utility could be enhanced for industrial, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical markets through genetic engineering. If GE flax were released commercially, pollen-mediated gene flow will determine in part whether GE flax could coexist without compromising other markets. ) to the low ALA trait. Seeds were harvested from the pollen recipient plots up to a distance of 50 m in eight directions from the pollen donor. High ALA seeds were identified using a thiobarbituric acid test and served as a marker for gene flow. Binomial distribution and power analysis were used to predict the minimum number of seeds statistically required to detect the frequency of gene flow at specific a (confidence interval) and power (1Àb) values. As a result of the low frequency of gene flow, approximately 4 million seeds were screened to derive accurate quantification. Frequency of gene flow was highest near the source: averaging 0.0185 at 0.1 m but declined rapidly with distance, 0.0013 and 0.00003 at 3 and 35 m, respectively. Gene flow was reduced to 50% (O 50 ) and 90% (O 90 ) between 0.85 to 2.64 m, and 5.68 to 17.56 m, respectively. No gene flow was detected at any site or year 435 m distance from the pollen source, suggesting that frequency of gene flow was p0.00003 (P ¼ 0.95). Although it is not possible to eliminate all adventitious presence caused by pollen-mediated gene flow, through harvest blending and the use of buffer zones between GE and conventional flax fields, it could be minimized. Managing other sources of adventitious presence including seed mixing and volunteer populations may be more problematic.

show abstract

Section: Strategies To Reduce Pollen-mediated Gene Flow In Flaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For grain corn, isolation distances range from 25 to 600 m (there is no coexistence law in Italy; Chiarabolli, 2011), with 200 m frequently being stipulated (Table 1). Devos et al (2008aDevos et al ( , 2009Devos et al ( , 2014 state that large and fixed isolation distances around GM corn fields, such as the 600 m specified by Bulgaria and Luxembourg, are (i) excessive from a scientific standpoint, (ii) difficult to implement, (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape, and (iv) not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence. In general, isolation distances for GM vs. non-GM coexistence are significantly greater than those for conventional or organic identity preservation (IP) systems with lower tolerance thresholds (Ramessar et al, 2010).…”

Section: Fixation On Isolation Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Flexibility-in-regulation proponents (within Europe) argue that farmers should have the option of using pollen barriers instead of isolation distances, which would encourage (or perhaps more accurately, not discourage) the adoption of GM crop technology by farmers Demont and Devos, 2008;Devos et al, 2008aDevos et al, , 2014Skevas et al, 2009Skevas et al, , 2010Hagedorn et al, 2010). Pollen barriers act as buffer (separation) zones to minimize cross-pollination.…”

Section: Fixation On Isolation Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological and Agronomic (Non) Sense of Ex‐Ante Coexistence Measures

Beckie

Hall

2015

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological and agronomic sensibility of ex‐ante coexistence measures used in different parts of the world is reviewed. These measures need to be commensurate with the biology of the crop and the genetically modified (GM) adventitious presence (AP) labeling thresholds imposed by government or industry. Excessive and inflexible measures or establishment of artificially low thresholds are not consistent with the intent of recommendations, namely to provide growers and consumers with practical choices. In the case study of Portugal, few ex‐post liability claims have been made and GM thresholds have rarely exceeded 0.9%. Giving farmers more flexibility or decision‐making ability in the ‘who, what, where, and how’ of implementing coexistence measures has been successful. Knowledge and experience gained in coexistence worldwide should inform and strengthen future measures or policies. As such, regular monitoring, analysis, and reporting of the efficiency and effectiveness of coexistence measures worldwide would be a useful mechanism for iterative learning and adaptation. Excessive and scientifically unjustifiable measures need to be weeded out.

show abstract

“…cost‐effective). The main take‐home message for EU policymakers was that compliance to the key principles would imply building in a certain degree of flexibility in national/regional coexistence regulations (Demont and Devos, 2008; Devos, Demont, and Sanvido, 2008; Demont et al , 2008; Devos et al , 2009). In this article, we explore how policymakers can implement this recommendation in practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Abbreviations: CZ = Czech Republic; DE = Germany; PL = Poland; PT = Portugal; RO = Romania; SK = Slovakia. Source: Devos et al (2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU   Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne   Hin zu flexiblen Koexistenzregelungen für genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU

Demont¹,

Devos²,

Sanvido³

2010

EuroChoices

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU The European Union (EU) is currently facing a challenge that might unnecessarily hamper the adoption of GM crops: regulating the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non‐GM crops. Member states are currently implementing or developing both ex ante coexistence regulations and ex post liability schemes to ensure that both GM and non‐GM crops can be cultivated in the EU. In this article, we explore in detail how national and/or regional policymakers can build in a certain degree of flexibility in ex ante coexistence regulations in order to reduce the regulatory burden on certain agricultural options and avoid jeopardising the economic incentives for coexistence. We use the example of GM maize as a case study, being the only GM crop planted over a significant area in the EU. We conclude that flexibility could be integrated into regulations at different levels: (i) at the regulatory level by relaxing some of the regulatory rigidity in ex ante regulations; (ii) at the farm level by allowing the substitution of isolation distances by pollen barriers; and (iii) at the national/regional level through plural coexistence measures, consistent with heterogeneity of farming in the EU.

show abstract

Coexistence in the EU—return of the moratorium on GM crops?

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

The Biological and Agronomic (Non) Sense of Ex‐Ante Coexistence Measures

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU   Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne   Hin zu flexiblen Koexistenzregelungen für genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Coexistence in the EU—return of the moratorium on GM crops?

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissimum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist?

The Biological and Agronomic (Non) Sense of Ex‐Ante Coexistence Measures

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne Hin zu flexiblen Koexistenzregelungen für genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU   Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne   Hin zu flexiblen Koexistenzregelungen für genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU