About Us

• In the UK, the present voluntary agreement between the Government and SCIMAC that there would be no “general unrestricted cultivation” of GM crops applies until the results from Farm-Scale Evaluations are available (which is likely to be late summer this year). The T25 GM variety of maize already has Part ‘C’ clearance and seems likely to be listed on the national seed register soon, and subject to clearance of use of the associated herbicide under the pesticide regulations, there will be no legal impediment to UK farmers planting it in spring 2004.



• At EU level, there is pressure to end the current de facto moratorium, not least through the WTO. There could be a shift to allowing some policy decisions to be made by Member States: discussion is beginning on allowing them to possibly introduce at national level “farm management measures for the purpose of reducing the economic consequences that can result from the coexistence of different farming systems”; and economic liability is being considered at Member State level. Meanwhile new thresholds are being agreed or considered for adventitious presence in non-GM food, feed, and seeds.

1. It will build on the AEBC’s previous work on fundamental attitudes towards GM crops rather than re-visiting those issues, while explaining that the possible coexistence of GM and other crops represents only one aspect of consumer interest in GM crops.



2. It will consider briefly what is involved in offering a true choice to consumers, while noting that farmers also claim the right to choose what crops to grow and in what way, and recognising that choice is only one factor in consumer decision-making and that delivering consumer choice goes wider than coexistence.



3. It will restrict its detailed analysis to the first generation of GM crops which might be commercially grown in the UK (maize, sugar and fodder beet, and oil seed rape). It will recommend that a similar analysis should be undertaken later for other crops (for example GM wheat and GM crops grown for pharmaceutical uses).



4. It will concentrate on the possible effects of coexistence on present farming patterns in the UK, while recognising that these may change in future irrespective of the decision on GM crops.



5. It will focus on agricultural production as far the point of delivery of the crop to its immediate buyer.

• adventitious presence of GM seed in non-GM seed;
• geneflow through cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops;
• volunteer populations of GM plants in non-GM crops;
• product integrity up to the point of delivery.

• Coexistence of GM sugar beet and fodder beet with conventional and non-GM agriculture would probably be relatively straightforward, provided good farming practice was adhered to and the necessary control of bolters and weed beet was performed (farmers remove both bolters and weed beet in any case because they degrade the value of the crop and weed beet in particular affects the profitability of succeeding crops).



• Meeting the threshold of 0.9% which will be required by EU legislation for “non-GM” food should not present too much difficulty in practice for maize or fully-fertile oilseed rape (varietal associations and partially-restored hybrids of rape were harder to predict, but we understand that these comprise less than 5% of the annual crop planted in England, possibly a little more in Scotland), subject to having separation distances of up to 200m (possibly less) and some other on-farm measures.



• Meeting the de facto threshold of 0.1% likely to be required for products to be described as “organic” (and perhaps to meet the “non-GM” criterion for supermarkets’ own brands) for rape and maize would sometimes be difficult and in some places impossible to guarantee by using separation distances and other changes in agricultural practice. Very little organic oilseed rape is grown at present in the UK; fodder maize and sweetcorn production are more important organic crops.

• preserve choice
• command broad support
• be achievable within the constraints (actual or potential) of EU legislation
• be practicable in terms of farming practice
• be economically viable

1. Pressing for higher EU thresholds for non-GM food crops to make coexistence more easily achievable (not welcome to large sectors of the public; Council has only recently reached its decision and is unlikely to reopen the issue).



2. Allowing commercial production of GM crops in the UK without any sort of “coexistence regime” (effects not yet clear, pending results of analysis, but seems likely to make ensuring coexistence even between GM and conventional non-GM impossible or very difficult for at least some crops and so would restrict choice for consumers and farmers; liability sub-group have concluded that a coexistence regime much better than reliance on the law to deal with possible disputes; disputes between farmers more likely if commercialisation went ahead).



3. Banning all commercial production of GM crops in the UK (would restrict choice for consumers and farmers; would require revisiting EC legislative framework; would not necessarily ensure thresholds met because of possible adventitious presence in non-GM seed).



4. Introducing compulsory regional zoning of GM/organic crops (would contravene farmers’ freedom of choice; would require buffer zones and monitoring of volunteers and of unauthorised growing within the ‘GM-free’ zone; contrary to EC law).