The Political Economy of Regulation of Biotechnology in Agriculture - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 702

the environment and that increased use of GM crops could add significant value to the
Swiss economy.45
Attention has since turned to how non-GM and organic production systems may
be able to “peacefully” co-exist—side by side—with production of GM crops. The EU
Commission (Article 43, Regulation 1829/2003) recognized there were indeed several
significant barriers to co-existence. Rigorous, ongoing research in the EU is focused
on resolving these barriers and has made good progress in negotiating mechanisms to
enable co-existence that address each barrier.46 Yet, this has not been without consider-
able “compromise” on the part of non-GM advocates. As Levidow and Boschert (2008)
stated, the European “co-existence” policy sought to avoid or manage political-economic
conflict over agbiotech.
In contrast, the USDA has only recently begun to consider a similar process.47 In
2013, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak reached out to the farming community in
an open letter aimed at initiating a dialogue on the issues of co-existence so that these
might be addressed openly.48 Vilsack commented that “I see my job as not dictating
the answer or not even indicating what I think the answer ought to be. I see my job
as putting people in the room” to find a solution among themselves.49 In response
to Secretary Vilsak's open letter, the Agriculture Committee of the US House of
Representatives made it clear that they would not support such co-existence measures,
especially if they increased the financial burden on those growing GM crops.50 C le arly,
the organic industry is on its own in dealing with the issue and many in this industry
prefer it that way.51
The EU co-existence policy (European Commission 2013) addresses ex ante pre-
ventative measures aimed at preventing cross-pollination of GM and non-GM crops
and reducing adventitious presence; and ex post liability actions, should ex ante mea-
sures fail. The Co-Xtra program was subsequently established under the European
Commission's Framework Research Programme. “Conducted by 52 partners in 18
countries, the Co-Extra project developed cost-effective and reliable tools for the
co-existence and traceability of GM, conventional and organic crops. The design
of such tools must consider gene flow management, costs and methods of segre-
gating GM and non-GM products, GMO sampling and detection, and liability and
compensation.”52
MNCs Reject GM in Some Product Lines
With regard to consumer sentiment, activism has led several multinational corpora-
tions (MNCs) to reject the use of GM ingredients in their products, particularly those
bound for European markets.53 Actions taken by MNCs have profound effects on the
commodity supply chain. For example, McDonald's is the world's largest purchaser of
potatoes, among other crops. Their quest for global uniformity in products sold has
led to massive monocultures of nearly genetically identical non-GM potatoes. Threats