Abstract
Coexistence policy in the European Union (EU) is designed to avoid unintended and adventitious presence of genetically modified (GM) crops in other products, preventing the potential economic loss from admixture (European Commission 2010). Coexistence is a direct consequence of the decision to provide consumers with a well informed choice when it comes to food produced from GM crops. While a mandatory labeling regime identifies GM produce in the market place, the availability of both GM and non-GM depends on the possibility of a downstream supply chain to provide both goods. Therefore, what is commonly called “coexistence measures” are a set of technical, administrative, and liability rules set out to avoid the unintended presence of GM material in non-GM crops at the farm level. Hence coexistence measures are not environmental risk management tools but tools to resolve potential market failures arising from GM crop cultivation in the EU.
The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The EC funds a research project which will assess the cost of ex ante and ex post coexistence legislation and their effect on adoption. The project’s details and results can be found at http://price-coexistence.com/.
References
Areal, F.J., L. Riesgo, M. Gómez-Barbero, and E. Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2012. Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union. Food Policy 37(4): 401–411.
Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, and J. Wesseler. 2006. Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(5): 1193–1199.
Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, and J. Wesseler. 2010. Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: Governing the coexistence of GM crops. Economics: The Open-Access Open Assessment E-Journal 4: 9.
Breustedt, G., J. Muller-Scheessel, and U. Latacz-Lohmann. 2008. Forecasting the adoption of GM oilseed rape: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(2): 237–257.
Demont, M., W. Daems, K. Dillen, E. Mathijs, C. Sausse, and E. Tollens. 2008. Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect! Ecological Economics 64(4): 683–689.
Demont, M., Y. Devos, and O. Sanvido. 2010. Towards flexible coexistence regulations for GM crops in the EU. EuroChoices 9(2): 18–24.
Demont, M., K. Dillen, W. Daems, C. Sausse, E. Tollens, and E. Mathijs. 2009. On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations. Food Policy 34(6): 508–518.
Devos, Y., M. Demont, K. Dillen, D. Reheul, M. Kaiser, and O. Sanvido. 2009. Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 11–30.
Dillen, K., and E. Rodriguez Cerezo. 2013. 15 Years of coexistence between GM and Non-GM maize in Spain: What can be learned from it? Portugal: GMCC Lisbon.
European Coexistence Bureau. 2010. Best practice documents for coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming: 1. Maize crop production. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. E. Commission. EUR24509.
European Commission. 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Union L268: 1–23.
European Commission. 2009. On the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. COM(2009) 153 final.
European Commission. 2010. Commission recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. Official Journal of the European Union C/200:1–5.
Koch, B.A. 2012. Liability and redress options for damage caused by GMOs. In Genetically modified and non-genetically modified food supply chains: Co-existence and traceability, ed. 403–413. London: Wiley.
Riesgo, L., F.J. Areal, O. Sanvido, and E. Rodriguez-Cerezo. 2010. Distances needed to limit cross-fertilization between GM and conventional maize in Europe. Nature Biotechnology 28(8): 780–782.
Sanvido, O., F. Widmer, M. Winzeler, B. Streit, E. Szerencsits, and F. Bigler. 2008. Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize. Transgenic Research 17: 317–335.
Shavell, S. 1984. A model of the optimal use of liability and safety regulation. Rand Journal of Economics 15(2): 271–280.
Skevas, T., P. Fevereiro, and J. Wesseler. 2010. Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal. Ecological Economics 69(12): 2402–2408.
Skevas, T., J. Wesseler, and P. Fevereiro. 2009. Coping with ex-ante regulations for planting Bt Maize: The Portuguese experience. AgBioForum 12(1): 60–69.
Acknowledgment
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. KBBE-2011-5-289157
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dillen, K., Rizov, I., Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2016). Developing Solutions for Coexistence in the EU—Legal, Technical, and Economic Issues. In: Kalaitzandonakes, N., Phillips, P., Wesseler, J., Smyth, S. (eds) The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 49. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3725-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3727-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)