Maize pollen mediated gene flow in the Po valley (Italy): Source–recipient distance and effect of flowering time

Porta, Giovanni Della; Ederle, Davide; Bucchini, Luca; Prandi, M.; Verderio, A.; Pozzi, Carlo

doi:10.1016/j.eja.2007.07.009

Cited by 72 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, Scientific evidence suggests that the extent of cross-fertilization in maize is reduced much more effectively by a pollen barrier than an isolation perimeter of bare ground of the same width (Della Porta et al, 2008). The effectiveness of 10-20 m pollen barriers, ideally planted around the recipient field (Ceddia et al, 2009;Gustafson et al, 2006;Pla et al, 2006;Weber et al, 2007;Weekes et al, 2007), is shown to be comparable to 50 m isolation distances of bare ground (Devos et al, 2005;Messéan et al, 2006;Messeguer et al, 2006;Sanvido et al, 2008;Van De Wiel and Lotz, 2006).…”

Section: Isolation Distances Versus Pollen Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be "proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence", very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers.

show abstract

Section: Isolation Distances Versus Pollen Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, a pollen barrier -if the GM and non-GM crops in question are the same species -introduces competing pollen and/or can serve as a physical barrier to the flow of air and, consequently, the flow of pollen [16,[27][28][29][30][31]. Accordingly, a pollen barrier reduces the extent of cross-fertilization much more effectively than an isolation perimeter of bare ground of the same width [32,33]. A recent case-study focusing on the interaction between the incentives and the costs of coexistence suggests that the costs of complying with rigid regulations, such as excessive isolation distance requirements, are not proportional to the economic incentives of coexistence (i.e.…”

Section: Regulating Spatial Coexistence: Rigid Versus Flexible Regulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

Demont

Devos

2008

Trends in Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Pollen barriers do not need to be as large as separation distances to achieve a similar reduction in cross-fertilization. Generally, one row equals 2 m of isolation distance (Della Porta et al, 2008).…”

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

Maize pollen mediated gene flow in the Po valley (Italy): Source–recipient distance and effect of flowering time

Cited by 72 publications

References 19 publications

On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations

On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations

Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About