Daniel Pearsall, SCIMAC

1. Principles of GM crop co-existence – it’s nothing new NFU Conference Peterborough, 16 November 2015 Daniel Pearsall, SCIMAC

2. Introduction to SCIMAC • Grouping of industry organisations along • UK farm supply chain • Established in 1998 to support the responsible • development and co-existence of GM crops in the UK • SCIMAC on-farm guidelines endorsed by UK Government • Industry partner in UK Farm-Scale Evaluations • SCIMAC supports choice for farmers and consumers, • backed by effective, science-based regulation

3. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach (1) • Co-existence is an economic issue, not about safety • Co-existence arrangements will only be required if there is (differentiated) market demand • Zero is not achievable, but practical tolerance thresholds work • Co-existence is not new to farmers - systems are already in place to meet customer specifications • Co-existence is not one-way, and requires co-operation between neighbouring growers

4. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach (2) • GM growers cannot reasonably be held responsible for the self-imposed marketing standards of others • Growing GM crops introduces no new liability issues once good practice, negligence and due diligence are defined • Experience of growing GM crops around the world confirms that co-existence is achievable • No one knows whether new price differentials will emerge or be sustained between GM and non-GM value chains • Gene flow data offers a high degree of confidence that breach of labelling threshold would be extremely rare

5. UK supply chain currently manages co-existence (1) • ON-FARM • Certified seed production • Legal thresholds for varietal purity and admixture • Crop-specific field measures, including isolation distances • Communication and co-operation with neighbouring farmers • Machinery hygiene, and careful sequencing of operations • Sweetcorn and forage maize • Industrial and food grade oilseed rape • Milling and feed wheat varieties • Malting and feed barley varieties

6. UK supply chain currently manages co-existence (2) • GRAIN HANDLING & STORAGE • Computerised traceability in widespread use • Grain testing & sampling in-field and on intake • Measures in place to manage redress (eg for grain delivered • off-specification) • Dedicated systems for more sensitive material – eg HEAR osr: • Physically separate storage • Different colour documentation • Carefully selected grower base • NB. The nature and cost of segregation processes are determined by the market differentiation

7. SCIMAC on-farm guidelines • Management guidelines to ensure best practice and identity preservation in production of GM crops, covering: • operator competence • seed storage / planting • neighbour notification • crop separation distances • crop management • machinery hygiene • harvest / post-harvest management • on-farm monitoring and record- • keeping

8. SCIMAC guidelines – experience in practice • UK Farm Scale Evaluations (1999-2004) offered a unique opportunity to apply and evaluate the SCIMAC guidelines on-farm • Guidelines were applied at >280 split field sites – forage maize, autumn/spring sown OSR, sugar beet, fodder beet • Growers assessed via questionnaire & independent audit • (GM Inspectorate, ADAS) • High compliance levels - no Critical Control Point failures / no loss of organic / non-GM status

9. EU Regulatory Context 2003 Recommendation on Co-existence - 2003 • GM labelling threshold (0.9%) is the basis for co-existence • Freedom to choose GM, non-GM or organic must not be denied • Practical measures, specific to crop type and relevant to local conditions, must be developed at Member State level • Measures should build on existing segregation practices and available agricultural experience • Measures should be cost-effective, proportionate and based on the best available scientific evidence • Initial onus of responsibility for observing co-existence measures rests with the GM crop grower • Co-existence threshold of 0.9% applies equally to non-GM and organic growers

10. Proposed co-existence measures -a political barrier to GM crops? • Making agri-environmental payments conditional on not growing GM crops (Slovenia) • Growers require training and statutory licence to grow GM crops (Ireland) • Denmark has legislated for a DK100/ha (€14/ha) compensation payment to grow GM crops • 10-fold increase in separation distance to organic crops (Netherlands) • Banning GM crop cultivation in designated environmental protection areas (Cyprus) • Strict liability on GM farmer for all economic losses due to unwanted GM presence – even if co-existence rules observed (Germany)

11. No EU-wide consensus on technical measures Proposed separation distances – maize

12. EU co-existence review – conclusions ...it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are: (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) not proportional to the farmers’ basic economic incentives for coexistence. ...coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein. Devoset al, 2009

13. EU Commission Recommendation on Co-existence – July 2010 • Member States can use co-existence measures to permit or restrict the cultivation of EU-approved GM crops on all or part of their territories • 0.9% labelling threshold no longer the reference point for co-existence • No requirement to justify the scientific or technical basis for any co-existence measures adopted • Paves way for GM-free areas

14. EU Cultivation Directive – March 2015 • Member States can restrict or prohibit the cultivation of EU-approved GM crops – on non-scientific grounds • So far 19 out of 28 EU Member States have requested an opt-out from GM crop cultivation • Includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK • Intention is to break the logjam of GM approvals, allowing EU countries wishing to move forward with the technology to do so • Removes the need for co-existence measures to be used to block the technology?

15. Co-existence in practice - Portugal • Portuguese co-existence law (2005) includes technical measures to minimise adventitious GM presence, including: • Separation distances (200m conventional, 300m organic) • Border rows (24 rows can replace separation distance) • Staggered sowing / using varieties with different flowering times • Machinery hygiene, seed storage & transport • Also includes provisions to establish GM production zones • Voluntary groups of neighbouring farmers growing GM or non-GM maize, whose produce is bulked together as GM • Within a GM production zone, co-existence measures only apply to non-GM crops outside the zone

16. MON 810 monitoring plan Quantification of GM presence in nearby non-GM crops Source: Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture

17. Evolution of GM maize area in Portugal (ha) “Technology and innovation in agriculture must be available to ‘big’ and ‘small’ farmers. The implementation of GM production zones gives the opportunity to small farmers to access GM technology.” Source: Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture

18. Where a neighbouring non-GM maize crop is within 20m, GM maize growers are advised to observe the following: Will the neighbouring maize crop be marketed as GM? No Yes No additional measures necessary Is there a sowing difference of at least 4 weeks (April) or 2 weeks (May) between the GM and non-GM maize crop? No Yes No additional measures necessary GM grower advised to sow 12 rows of similar cycle non-GM maize adjacent to the neighbouring maize field - these rows are useful also as a refuge Co-existence in practice - Spain

19. Evolution of GM maize area in Spain (ha)

20. A landmark case for co-existence Marsh vs. Baxter – Australia • Australian organic farmer Steve Marsh sued neighbouring GM canola farmer Michael Baxter for A$80,000 over GM presence and loss of organic status • May 2014 - Supreme Court ruled against Marsh, concluding that Baxter had not acted negligently and could not be held responsible for lawfully growing a GM crop in a conventional way – Marsh also ordered to pay costs of A$800,000 • September 2015 – High Court appeal upheld the original decision, concluding that Baxter's lawful use of his own land did not constitute a wrongful interference, and that Marsh could not unilaterally impose limitations on neighbours to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case

21. Conclusions • Co-existence is not a new concept in agriculture • No approved technology or agricultural system should be excluded • Existing, industry-based measures are capable of servicing different market channels • Market realities of price, demand and differentiation must be allowed to determine co-existence in practice • Keep the politics out of the supply chain!