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

Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology BACKGROUND 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

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

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Questions?