Managing the co-existence of conventional and genetically modified maize from field to silo A French initiative Pascal COQUIN AGPM 23-25, avenue de Neuilly.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BIOTECHNOLOGY ETHICS Biotechnology II. COMPETENCY: Discuss ethical and practical issues surrounding biotechnology.
Advertisements

Vision and Missions of the Turkey’s Seed Sector Kazım Abak 2 nd International Workshop on Seed Business Antalya 2-3 December 2013.
Trainers’ Training: Session 1 Measures to prevent DON contamination M. Eeckhout, G. Haesaert MYCOHUNT.
An Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis of GM Crop Cultivation: An Irish Case Study Marie-Louise Flannery, Fiona S. Thorne, B Paul W. Kelly and Ewen Mullins.
SOURCE: “Co-existence project kicked-off”, European Biotechnology News, Vol. 4, 2005 European Commission project aimed at co- existence of GE and non-GE.
TRADE DISPUTES WITH THE EU: GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS.
GMO Study Committee Iowa State Legislature December 13, 2005 Coexistence and Legal Liability Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Professor University.
GMO Crops: To Grow or Not to Grow? Marshall A. Martin Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Crop Production.
Purdue Ag Summit – September 13, 2002 Larry Svajgr, Executive Director Indiana Crop Improvement Association Maintenance of Product Integrity.
Regulating Plant- Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) A State and National Perspective Western Region Pesticide Meeting May 12-14, 2004 Spokane, Washington.
Agricultural Biotechnology Marshall A. Martin Professor and Associate Head Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University March 2000.
Some Remarks on pest control in Brazil Thanks to Anderson Galvão – Céleres Consultoria and Prof. Marcelo Gravina de Moraes -UFRGS.
Current Status of Food Traceability in European Union Willy De Greef IBRS.
“ Farm Seed Opportunities, recommendations for on-farm conservation in Europe” Riccardo Bocci, Véronique Chable, Kastler Guy, Louwaars Niels Farmers’ Rights.
NDSU Agriculture TRENDS IN THE USE OF CROPS DEVELOPED THROUGH BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE USA AND THE WORLD BY: Dr. Duane R. Berglund Professor of Plant Science.
Hurley, 2001 What to Know Before Planting GMO Terry Hurley Telephone:
Genetically Modified Organisms in Agricultural Production.
Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation Ex-ante assessment of the potential economic and environmental impacts.
Genetically Modified Organisms in Portugal. It is understood by genetically modified organism (GMO) any organism which genetic material, by biotechnology.
The perspective of the food and drink manufacturing sector Meeting consumer needs Responding to new challenges Dominique TAEYMANS Director Scientific &
GMOs GMOs IOPD IX San Francisco June 16—17, 2006 GMOs: CURRENT STATUS.
Terezia Sinkova EFSA The new EU Food Safety Agency.
Economics of Alternative Purity Standards under Conditions of Coexistence Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes University of Missouri-Columbia.
Department of Science and Technology: Role in the administration, utilization and management of GM food Ben Durham Chief Director Biotechnology and Health.
GM vs CONVENTIONAL A PRODUCTION ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE By: Dr. Duane R. Berglund Professor of Agronomy North Dakota State University.
3 oktober 2015 Plant Breeders Rights Novi Sad, May 22.
Seite GMO Policy in Austria (national strategy on cultivation and Co-existence, relevant legislation in Austrian Provinces ) by Heinz-Peter.
WP4 - Analysis of legislation, ethical issues, regulations and intellectual property ResistVir Meeting 6 th July 2006, Helsinki, Finland Dr Mike Adcock.
Geneticaly modified Food and Feed – current situation in EU Petr Beneš Food Safety Department Prague, 9 October 2009.
The environmental (in)coherance of European food policy Adrian Bebb Friends of the Earth Europe September 2006.
GM crops in the EU Campaigning opportunities and challenges FoEE and Greenpeace.
SOURCE: European Commission also adopted today three decisions on the placing on the.
/ 1 International Workshop for CIS countries “ The use of standards for fresh fruit and vegetables and dry produce in technical regulations and the application.
Value of Seed Treatments And the Role of Industry August, 2013.
EU legislation on GMOs: Overview and challenges Euro Coop Sustainability Working Group 27 October 2010 Sébastien Goux Unit Biotechnologies.
Rajesh K. Bhoge ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi 7 th Indo-Global Summit and Expo on Food & Beverages.
Current Scenarios of Forage and Forage Seed Production and Use in Ethiopia Getnet Assefa November, 2015.
Genetically Modified Foods Beth Roberson November 19, 2004 FST 490.
Burkhard Rüther University of Bonn, Germany
IMPLEMENTING MEASURES GM FOOD – FEED REGULATION (EC) N° 1829/2003 -Articles 5 and 17 concerning the presentation and preparation of the application -Articles.
Phytosanitary administration RS Status of neonicotionid insecticides for seed treatment in other EU countries Dr. Jernej Drofenik.
GMO Fact or Fiction?. Fact or Fiction? GMOs are created by injecting chemicals into food AFTER it is harvested Fiction GMOs are developed through genetic.
Romanian framework concerning GMOs Dr. Valeria GAGIU Institute of Food Bioresources 6 Dinu Vintila Street, , 2 nd district, Bucharest ROMANIA Tel.
What do these labels mean to you?. Have you seen these labels? Are there any food labels that could be misleading or meaningless?
17 June 2008IOPD XI 2008Chart 1 IOPD XI 2008 Berlin, 17 June 2008 GMO Policies in the EU – Consequences for the International Trade in Oilseeds and Feedstuffs.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM (GMO) TECHNOHOLICS.
Graham Brookes, Farzad Taheripour, and Wallace E. Tyner
The need for a new seed legislation
Role of GMOs in Food and Health Security
Current developments at EU level
Biotech Plants Two Different Visions and their Implications in Global Trading Carlos Moreira “Plants for Life” International PhD Program – 2017 (course.
Plant Health Risk Assessment at EFSA
WORKSHOP ON CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES SURROUNDING GMO’S
Stewardship Revision Quiz
“Agronomic and socio-economic impacts of New Plant Biotechnologies”
What do these labels mean to you?
Coexistence Coexistence of GM and non-GM cultivations
What do these labels mean to you?
Graham Brookes PG Economics Ltd, UK 10 October 2018
Regional look at growers challenges and engagement enabling current and future opportunities Luc Peeters | Chair of the Copa and Cogeca Working.
What do these labels mean to you?
Minor Uses Developments in the European Union
What do these labels mean to you?
ROLE OF KEPHIS IN SAFE HANDLING, TRANSFER AND USE OF GMOS.
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
What do these labels mean to you?
GMOs Legislation in EU.
What do these labels mean to you?
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
Presentation transcript:

Managing the co-existence of conventional and genetically modified maize from field to silo A French initiative Pascal COQUIN AGPM 23-25, avenue de Neuilly PARIS, France

The maize organisation since 1934  maize growers Maize in France :1,5 million ha of grain maize 1,4 million ha of silage maize ha of sweet corn ha of seed maize The A.G.P.M. : French Corn Growers Association  An economic mission and trade-union  A lobbying mission at national and international levels 2 main missions

A.G.P.M. position on the G.M. maize Maize growers must have the possibility to get all the production inputs adapted to their farm, the way of production and the markets they choosed : conventional, organic or G.M.. The G.M. technology is subordinated to precise and rigorous authorization ’s procedures conducted by scientific, lawful and political authorities  on the G.M. event by the E.F.S.A. and the national food safety agencies  on the G.M. varieties by the national Agencies in charge of the variety registration

A.G.P.M. position on the G.M. maize The G.M. varieties have assets : - on a technical view  development of European Corn Borer + Stem Corn Borer  News pests (Corn Root worm)  problem of mycotoxins - on a environmental view  reduced and reasoned use of the plant protection products - on an economic view  protection of the yield  better competitivity  real markets for G.M. maize

Brief regulatory situation  European level : one of the most strong regulation in the World  release into the environment,  traceability,  labelling,  post market control. By directive 2001/18 following 90/220 Regulations 1829/2003, 1830/2003, 65/2004, 641/ GM maize events authorised for culture 5 GM maize events authorised only for import and consumption

Brief regulatory situation  French level : - authorisation to grow the 3 GM maize events … in authorised varieties - coexistence rules : not yet at official level …but professional rules are used

: 15 Bt maize varieties authorised in France 1998 : between and ha cultivated 1999  2004 : - No commercial production, no market - Few studies on co-existence and benefits - EU rules (0,9 % for labelling) - P.O.E.C.B. : defining professional rules Bt maize production in France Background

2002 – 2004 Results Operational Programme for Evaluation of Biotechnology Crops (POECB)

 an experiment to examine traceability of GM maize crops under controlled natural conditions from field to silo Result: an analysis of the conditions governing co-existence between conventional and GM maize based on the specificity of each crop  a programme conducted by a Scientific Committee made up of experts from research and industrial organisations Project background

 Feasability study of coexistence between conventional and GM maize crops in real field conditions – thematic “pollen dispersal” – thematic “traceability”  Analysing benefits of maize tolerant to ECB and sesamia (Bt technology) and providing platforms for biovigilance studies – thematic “biovigilance”  Obtaining operational scientific information on crop traceability and economics from field to storage – thematic “co-existence management” Three programme objectives :

POECB : A three-year experiment Identical crop configuration: 0,5 to 2,5 ha of Bt maize surrounded by isogenic maize Worst-case scenario conditions to obtain maximum cross-fertilization –Bt maize and conventional maize are isogenic –Synchronous pollen emission –Conventional maize is sowed downwind of the Bt emitter crop

Results at the field level (case of representative plots) Prevailing wind direction =0.5% GM DNA 100 m 200 m Bt maize Conventional maize 200 m <0.1% GM DNA <0.1% GM DNA <0.1% GM DNA < 0.1% GM DNA = 0.2% GM DNA = 0.15% GM DNA 100 m 200 m Bt maize Conventional maize < 0.1% GM DNA 200 m < 0.1% GM DNA Cross-pollination levels in the conventional field identical in size to the Bt plot, and sowed downwind, are less than 0.9 %. LQ = 0.1% LD = 0.01%

 Setting up a Quality Management System with traceability procedures at each step of the maize chain sowing harvest transport drying storage  A controlled harvest Harvest is planned after sampling analysis to measure the cross pollination rate, Checks on maize harvester, trucks and transport  Drying and storage PCR analysis of maize batches Traceability from field to storage

Sowing Flowering Pre-harvest Harvest Dryer Transport /storage Seed purity analysis and seed drill checkl Pollen dispersal evaluation Sampling strategy & PCR analysis for harvest plan Harvester check Control procedure s & PCR analysis Transport Trailers control procedures Analysis and controls along the maize chain to better identify contamination, … … to control critical factors and ensure traceability From seed … to feed industry How to ensure traceability? Control procedures Feed industry

Trials designed to assist the maize sector Gathering scientific data

From POECB … to PACB 16 maize producers 100 ha of Bt maize 7 regions in France GM plots from 1 to 25 ha Utilisation of the scientific information gathered by POECB with a Good Practice Guide for GMO cropping, safeguarding the specificity of each type of production.

Co-existence guidelines Dissemination of technological information Information Buffer zone (10 m border strip) Cleaning of equipment Quality Management System

A basis for co-existence legislation in France Professional standard guidelines

Benefit n°1 : yield protection Economical risk : larvae number > 0,8/plt Between to ha Grain maize production concerned

Benefit n°1 : yield protection Economical interest for the farmer Yield protection level (on average) : 7 % = 70 € Cost of an insecticide treatment : 50 € Cost of the technology : 40 to 50 € Level of efficiency : Insecticide = 75 % Bt ~ 100 %

Benefit n°1 : yield protection Average situation Type1 Tr.2 Tr.Bt Yield (t)10 10,7 Cost (€) Gain (€) * Bt/other * Price basis : 100 €/t 1<Larvae number/plt<2

Benefit n°2 : grain quality (ppb) 3 examples (2005)

Benefit 3 : Reduce the impact on environment Non-targeted insects population evolution juin 12-juin19-juin26-juin 3-juil 10-juil17-juil24-juil31-juil 7-août 14-août21-août28-août 4-sept 11-sept 18-sept25-sept 2-oct Dates Bt maize Isogenic spraid Isogenic Spraying 9/07 Arvalis, 2002

Tomorrow : crop perspectives 2006 vs 2005 : Bt maize development confirmation within the European Union : - Czech Republic  ha(x 5), - Germany  ha(x 4), - France  ha(x 10), - Portugal  ha(+ 50 %), - Spain  ha(+ 25 %), 2007 and after : increase of Bt maize area based on 2006 technical results

Thank you for your attention