Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, as the article below notes, is currently being heavily promoted as a way to resolve the conflict over genetically modified crops by creating space for both in the same agricultural system. There have been a flurry of studies claiming coexistence is not just possible but relatively easy.

Here is a very important article on coexistence in the Indian context. It is taken from the latest book from the Indian NGO, Gene Campaign, "Relevance of GM Technology to Indian Agriculture and Food Security", edited by Suman Sahai. You can find out more about the book on Gene Campaign's website: www.genecampaign.org

The article examines in detail whether coexistence is a feasible agricultural model in India, and its conclusions have great relevance for other developing countries. It concludes that for developing countries like India the operational costs of achieving coexistence could be "so significant as to actually put the food supply into jeopardy were it to be implemented. In other words, coexistence cannot be implemented in India."
------

CAN GM AND NON – GM CROPS BE SEGREGATED IN INDIA – IS COEXISTENCE POSSIBLE?
Suman Sahai
Gene Camapign; New Delhi
http://www.lobbywatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=53&page=1

Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops is being promoted as a way to resolve the conflict over genetically modified crops and create space for both in the same agricultural system. This approach has gained support after the EU-US dispute in the WTO over the EU's de facto moratorium on the import of GM foods. Recent studies conducted in the US assert that coexistence is possible and that most organic farmers have neither incurred extra costs nor suffered any disadvantages due to the cultivation of GM crops in their vicinity.

The projection of coexistence as a feasible agricultural model is a source of anxiety for developing countries like India. Since the subject of GM crops is already internationalized through the Bio-Safety Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity, concepts like Coexistence, Labelling, Identity Preservation and traceability could become international policies that developing countries are compelled to implement. Would such an implementation be possible? Do developing countries have the capacity to segregate GM crops from non – GM crops, preserve the individual identity of each category, introduce mechanisms to trace food backwards from the store to the farm, and introduce meaningful labelling? In short, is coexistence of GM and non – GM crops feasible in the agricultural conditions prevailing in developing countries?

Co-existence in Agriculture

The broad notion of coexistence is based on the laws of most of the countries in the world, according to which farmers must be able to choose the crops they wish to cultivate, whether they are GM, organic or conventional crops. Co-existence deals with the possibility of different kinds of crops being cultivated and coexisting in the same agricultural system. Since different kinds of crops carry differing price premiums, it is natural that one of the important aspects of coexistence is the economic consequence of adventitious presence of material from one crop in another crop.

Accidental or adventitious presence can arise for a variety of reasons. These can include seed impurities, cross pollination, volunteers (plants that come up from seed left over from a previous crop), as well as from seed left inside planting equipment at the time of harvesting, and during storage and transport.

With respect to GM crops the foremost concern remains the economic consequences of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops and the presence of GM or conventional crop material in consignments of organic harvests.

Co-existence in conventional agriculture in industrialized countries

The practice of coexistence developed in the agriculture of industrialized countries for the purpose of differentiating high value crops from ordinary crops. Its history is older than that of the GM- non-GM segregation issue.

Trade in agricultural commodities assumes that some degree of adventitious presence of unwanted material will be found in supplies, so the presence of unwanted material from one crop in another crop is accepted in the agricultural sector to a certain extent. In the industrialised countries, the majority of agricultural products are subject to some form of grading, with a smaller percentage subject to a more complex form of identify preservation (IP). In the case of both, tolerance limits are invariably set for the presence of unwanted material because in any food processing/handling chain, ensuring absolute purity of products is virtually impossible. There are several instances where coexistence is practiced in conventional agriculture. Some examples are:

a) Maintaining different purity levels during certified seed production that will result in different standards of seed. Here tolerance levels are set for the presence of seed that is not considered ‘pure’. Purity is sought to be maintained by specified separation distances and temporal isolation between the seed crop that is grown for seed and other crops of the same species that are to be used as food. This is also backed up by seed inspection and testing. If the purity standard is not met, the seed will not be certified and the grower will lose the premium available for growing seed rather than grain. However, it has been found that in more than 95% of the cases, compliance with standards and procedures like isolation, cleaning, rotations, and separation of harvest is sufficient as to meet the stringent purity standards required by certified seed production systems.

b) Cultivating crops for specific traits, like high oil maize or high erucic acid oilseed rape. Although high erucic acid oilseed rape has anti nutritional properties, it possesses desirable properties for industrial use. It is therefore important that this oil seed rape does not contaminate the low or zero erucic acid seed rape grown for use in human food and animal feed. High erucic acid oilseed rape crops are normally grown on contract to processors. The contracts recognize that there may be adventitious presence of non-erucic oilseed rape in deliveries and specify tolerance limits for its presence. The contracts require that only certified seed is used, seed drills have been cleaned, specified separation distances are maintained from other oilseed rape crops, all cultivation and harvesting equipment is cleaned before use and post harvest segregation is maintained to minimise admixture. Purity is maintained by adequate testing and by attaching penalties, including rejection of crops, if the set parameters for the oilseed fatty acid content are not met. The threshold for admixture of oilseed rape is 2 %. Maintaining sufficient isolation distance can satisfy this condition.

c) Another area where tolerance limits are set is organic production systems. Limits are set for the presence of non-organic material in processed foods derived from organic ingredients and which are labeled as such. Limits are also set for the adventitious presence of non-organic material used as agricultural inputs such as for seed and for use as animal feed. Labelling produce as organic is normally based on the adherence to organic production and husbandry principles rather than on any testing regime for the produce, such as identifying the percentage of unwanted material such as pesticide resides.

Co-existence in the case of GM crops

Labelling of GM products, segregating them