1. COEXISTENCE IN NORTH DAKOTA Brad Brummond September 2005

2. SITUATION North Dakota is a national leader in Certified organic production Oil seeds (flax and sunflower) Cereal grains North Dakota is increasing it’s acres of transgenic crops Soybeans Corn

3. SITUATION Organic and IP markets have low to no tolerance for transgenic crops. Biotech markets need pure seed for traits to work. World market is increasingly demanding specialized and branded products.

4. HOW TO PROTECT MARKETS Products need to be segregated and genetic drift contained. Agriculture needs to work together to guarantee markets. If markets can not be met we lose markets and income for North Dakota.

5. ISSUES (AS IDENTIFIED CWG) Liability Segregation Tolerances Seed Certification Standards Germ Plasm Purity Opportunity and Consequences Neighbor Relations and Communication Education of Consumers

6. COEXISTENCE WORKING GROUP July 02-05 Made up of stakeholders Developed Best Management Practices Organic growers and one conventional grower withdrew in protest over BMPs. See handout of BMPs

7. HOW DO WE COEXIST Communication Industry University Regulatory Producers Seedstocks If we do not communicate and help each other we all lose.

8. HOW DO WE COEXIST Strict segregation practices must be followed. Equipment cleanout Facilities clean Tarp trucks Dedicated resources

9. HOW DO WE COEXIST We must maintain genetic purity. If we do not have pure lots how can we serve our markets? Buffer strips Distance Pretest seed Planting dates

10. OTHER WAYS Understand contracts and risk Be a good neighbor Insurance??

11. ISSUES YET TO BE RESOLVED How far is far enough? Liability? Tolerances? What to do with unintended presence in seedlots?

12. WHERE ARE WE NOW? BMPs developed Communication started Other states and nations continuing efforts. North Dakota was one of the first efforts in coexistence.

13. CONCLUSION We must remember that coexistence is a journey, not a destination. Brad Brummond North Dakota Coexistence Coordinator

14. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of USDA

15. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Nebraska Experiments, University of Nebraska, under cooperative agreement number 2000-38640- 11923 Additional funding was provided by Monsanto

16. Questions? Comments?