QMaine farmer Jim Gerritsen said: "If I decided to spray my house purple and I sprayed on a day that was windy, and my purple paint drifted onto your house and contaminated your siding and shingles, there isn't a court in the nation that wouldn't in two mi

Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen said: "If I decided to spray my house purple and I sprayed on a day that was windy, and my purple paint drifted onto your house and contaminated your siding and shingles, there isn't a court in the nation that wouldn't in two minutes find me guilty of irresponsibly damaging your property. But when it comes to agriculture, all of a sudden the tables are turned." He is referring to the spread of GM pollen across property lines, such as the experimental GM rice grown by Bayer near Louisiana State University, which contaminated 30 percent of US rice acreage within 5 years, and spread as far as Central America and Africa. In this case, Bayer paid $750 million in damages, but in most cases, the courts have refused to hold GM growers liable for infringing others' property rights. Do you support farmer's private property rights, and if so, how do you propose containing GM pollen?

AExpert Answer

As part of the agricultural biotechnology industry, we support the private property rights of farmers and believe they have the choice to plant crops that best meet their needs, whether they be organic, conventional or biotech. We advocate coexistence—the concurrent cultivation of conventional, organic and genetically engineered crops consistent with underlying consumer preferences and choices.

 

A broad range of production practices may be employed or accounted for in a successful coexistence scheme, and farmers regularly use several production practices and processes to achieve the desired results. These may include:

 

  • Farmer-to-farmer (neighbor-to-neighbor) communication;
  • Intimate knowledge of both neighboring crops and wild-plant communities for possible cross-pollination;
  • Rotation schemes of crops that reduce pollen exposure from volunteer plants;
  • Seed handling so there is no mixing during planting, harvesting and cleaning operations;
  • Temporal isolation for pollen release through staged planting times;
  • Field/plot selection and identification;
  • Isolation distances, based largely on each crop’s reproductive system (self- or cross- pollinated) and method of cross-pollination (e.g., wind- or insect-pollinated);
  • Buffer rows;
  • Continuous visual inspection of all genetic stocks and removal of any off types and weeds;
  • Field inspections multiple times, possibly by third parties; and
  • Post-harvest risk mitigation.

 

More on coexistence can be found in this report, prepared by the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA).

 

Additionally, in the winter of 2013, USDA asked the public to comment on successful partnerships, how agricultural coexistence in the United States can be strengthened and what USDA can do to enhance science-based stewardship practices. To see consumers’ feedback, click here.

 

Lastly, to see a report on coexistence released by the Advisory Committee on 21st Century Agriculture in 2012, click here.

Posted on April 18, 2018
GMO Answers provides the facts that answer questions related to biotechnology, GM crops and agriculture. We work to ensure that the content and answers provided by experts and companies are accurate and therefore do not present opinions about GMOs, simply facts. GMO Answers is a community focused on constructive discussion about GMOs in order to have open conversations about agriculture and GMOs. This website is funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information. The Council... Read More
Posted on April 20, 2018
When glyphosate is applied to plants (e.g., crops or weeds) a certain percentage is absorbed and transported throughout the plant. The amount absorbed is variable depending on the application rate and the type of plant. Very little of the absorbed glyphosate is degraded by the plant and cannot be removed. Its persistence in plants is also variable. Federal regulatory agencies have established allowable limits for glyphosate residues in many different crops to protect human and animal health.... Read More
Answer:
Posted on April 25, 2018
First, the question is wrongly framed; it’s not true that there’s less “usage” of GMOs in developing countries. In a 2016 report, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) reported that “of the top five countries growing 91 percent of biotech crops, three are developing countries (Brazil, Argentina, and India).” The other two were the U.S. and Canada. Although the U.S. led biotech crop planting in 2016... Read More
Answer:

Explore More Topics