Home
Search
GM Crop News
Who we are
Publications

Projects

Expertise
> GM Annual Global Study
> EU missing-out on GM crop benefits
> GM crops yield impacts
> GM crops impact on UK farm profitability
> Co-existence of GM and non GM crops
> Bt maize in Spain
> Roundup Ready Soybeans in Romania
> Novel Foods
 

Useful Links

> Liability
> Market dynamics
> GM Debate
> GM crops & organics
> Crop Profitability
Site Map
Contact
     

Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: case study of maize grown in Spain

 

Press release – 31st October 2003. PG Economics Ltd today announced the release of its latest research paper on GM and non GM crop co-existence – Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: case study of maize grown in Spain.

Given that GM (Bt) maize is in its sixth year of cultivation in Spain, this offers a unique (in the EU context) case study of whether approved GM, conventional and organic crops can co-exist.

Current co-existence
Out of the current area planted to maize in Spain (about 460,000 hectares), about 32,000 ha (7%) is to GM insect resistant (Bt) varieties, less than 1,000 hectares (0.2%) is organic and the vast majority is ‘conventionally produced’.

The evidence to date shows that these three types of maize production have co-existed without economic and commercial problems. This includes in regions such as Catalunya where GM (Bt) is concentrated . Where non GM maize has been required in some markets, supplies have been relatively easily obtained, based on market-driven adherence to on/post farm segregation and by the purchase of maize from regions where there has been limited adoption of Bt maize (because the target pest of the Bt technology, the corn borer is not a significant problem for farmers in these regions). Isolated instances (two) of GMO adventitious presence in organic maize crops were reported in 2001.

Future co-existence
For the future, the likelihood of co-existence problems arising remains fairly limited, even if there is a significant expansion in both the areas planted to GM crops and to organic maize because:

  • GM (Bt) maize is unlikely to dominate maize plantings in Spain, being concentrated in regions where there are significant (corn borer) pest problems. In other words there will continue to be regions of Spain where GM (Bt) maize will not be widely planted;
     
  • The organic maize area is likely to continue to be a very small part of the total maize crop (even if there was a tenfold increase in plantings), with a very limited economic contribution relative to the rest of the Spanish maize crop;
     
  • some changes to farming practices on some farms may be required. This will however, only apply where GMO maize crops are located near non GM or organic crops for which the non GM status of the crop is important (eg, where buyers do not wish to label products as being GM or derived from GM according EU labelling regulations). These changes are likely to focus on the use of separation distances and buffer crops (of non GM maize) between the GM maize crop and the ‘vulnerable’ non GM/organic crop.

Lastly, the organic sector can also take action to facilitate co-existence by:

  • applying a more consistent, practical, proportionate and cost effective policy towards GMOs (ie, adopt the same policy as it applies to other unwanted material). This would allow it to better exploit market opportunities and to minimise the risks of publicity about inconsistent organic definitions and derogations for the use of non organic ingredients and inputs damaging consumer confidence in all organic produce; OR
     
  • apply the same testing principles and thresholds currently applied to GMOs to other unwanted materials (eg, apply a test-based regime for pesticide residues);  AND
     
  • accepting that if it wishes to retain a policy towards GMOs that advocates farming practices that go beyond those recommended for GMO crop stewardship (eg, buffer crops and separation distances that are more stringent than those considered to be reasonable to meet the EU labelling and traceability regulations), then the onus for implementation of such measures (and associated cost) should fall on the organic sector in the same way as current organic farmers incur costs associated with adhering to organic principles and are rewarded through the receipt of organic price premia.
 

Co-existence introduction

Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: economic and market perspectives - PDF format

Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: case study of maize grown in Spain - PDF format

Co-existence of GM and non GM crops in the UK can occur without problems - PDF format

EU Commission report on co-existence

EU Paper on GMO's in seeds

 


Independent and objective consultants servicing the agricultural, agricultural supply trade, rural and food industries.


©PG Economics Limited 2004-2009
Registered Office: Stafford House, 10 Prince of Wales Road, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1PW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1300 321501 (P Barfoot) +44 (0)1531 650123 (G Brookes) Fax: +44 (0)1531 650099

www.pgeconomics.co.uk

Disclaimer: A number of different sources of information were used in compiling PG Economics reports and website files. Our reports and files contain some forecasts and estimates. It therefore remains possible that the reports and web files contain inaccuracies. PG Economics and its Directors do not accept any liability arising from any such errors or omissions and shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered as a result of any information given in its publications and website.