The Political Economy of Regulation of Biotechnology in Agriculture - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 700

presence of GM in plant material; 0.3%, which represents the threshold for GM presence
in seed supplies; and 0.9%, the legal limit set in the EU for adventitious GM presence in a
sample that automatically triggers labeling of all end products sold. The EU study objec-
tives were to (1) “identify sources and estimate levels of adventitious presence of GM
crops in non-GM crops at the farm level,” (2) “identify and assess changes of farming
practices that could reduce adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops below
policy-relevant thresholds,” and (3) “estimate the costs of relevant changes in farming
practices, costs of monitoring systems and cost of potential insurance systems to cover
possible financial losses due to adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops.”38
Models were run given either a 10% or a 50% adoption of GM crops in the study area.
Results indicated that a 0.3% threshold (for seed production) and a 0.9% threshold (for
food/feed labeling) might “technically be possible” but would be economically challeng-
ing. No scenario was tested that led to no adventitious presence at all.39 For GM potato,
no significant changes in farming practices would be needed and estimated costs of seg-
regation were low, so co-existence could be a reality without additional effort. Maize
occupied an intermediate position; increased costs and some changes in farming prac-
tices would be required to ensure co-existence and some types of intensive operations
presented more difficulties for co-existence than others. Note that in the EU, MON810
maize is the only GM crop approved for commercial use. Ninety-four percent of all
transgenic maize grown in the EU in 2013 was grown in Spain, where it represented only
31% of total maize plantings.
Based on these results and continuing public pressure, coexistence guidelines were
enacted in the EU in 2006.40 The European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) was tasked with
developing “Best practice documents for coexistence of genetically modified crops with
conventional and organic farming” for maize (Czarnak-Kłos and Rodrígues-Cerezo
2010) and for “Coexistence of genetically modified maize and honey production” (Rizov
and Cerezo 2013).
In the United States, the costs associated with implementing traceability landed
squarely on non-GM crop producers and processors. Stakeholder response was swift.
Why should those choosing not to use GM technologies have to bear the costs asso-
ciated with assuring the purity of their products? One reason put forward as to why
organic farmers should bear the cost of implementing co-existence measures is that they
receive a price premium for their crops. This premium results from the value processors
and consumers place on having access to foods grown without synthetic chemicals or
GM seeds. The price premium is an acknowledgment of the additional cost and effort
involved in production, particularly when they face the potential of losing their organic
certification should either gene flow or adventitious presence be detected on their farms
or in the produce sold. They already bear the costs of identity preservation. In truth,
the real premiums and profits go to the GM seed producers, who benefit greatly from
the patents they hold and associated restrictions they place on the use of GM seed (e.g.,
payment of technology fees, no seed saving). Hence, the cost of controlling gene flow
and adventitious presence in the EU is now borne largely by those promulgating and
benefiting from the use of GM seeds, which was also defensible under the “newcomer