Exploring Coexistence PIFB-NASDA Workshop 2006

1. Exploring Coexistence PIFB-NASDA Workshop 2006 Presentation to AC-21 December 6, 2011 Washington, D.C. Michael Rodemeyer University of Virginia

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. GM Crops Non-GM Buffer Zone GM Crops Non-GM GM-Free Buffer Zone Highlights • Academics (Bryan Endres) • Fencing-in vs. fencing-out • Who is responsible for the buffer zone?

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. Questions?