IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc109645.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Best practice document for the coexistence of genetically modified potato with conventional and organic farming

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Technical Working Group (TWG) for Potato is the fourth one of the European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) and is established for elaboration of the coexistence issues between genetically modified (GM) potato cultivation and non-GM potato and honey production in the EU. The present technical report analysed the possible sources for potential cross-pollination with GM potato and adventitious admixture of GM potato material such as seeds and pollen and presents consensually agreed by TWG for Potato best practices for coexistence. The terms of reference for this review are presented in Section 1. The scope of the Best Practice Document is coexistence in potato production in the EU. It includes the coexistence between GM potato cultivation and honey production. The ECoB TWG for Potato held two meetings in November 2015 and May 2016 and examined the state-of-the-art from scientific literature, research projects and empirical evidence provided by existing studies for segregation in potato production looking at the factors determining the cross-pollination rates in potato as well as other sources of admixture of GM material in conventional potato harvests and EU-produced honey. The review of this information (coming from a total of 155 references) is presented in a structured manner in Sections 4-6 of this document. Finally, the TWG for Potato reviewed the up to date approaches for the detection and identification of traces of GM potato material in non-GM potato harvests and honey (Section 7). The TWG for Potato of the ECoB, based on the analysis of the evidence summarised in this document submitted proposals for best management practices, which form the ground for the agreed consensus recommendations presented in Section 8, complemented by an ex-ante view about their economic impact (Section 9).

Suggested Citation

  • Ivelin Rizov & Gerhard Ruehl & Maren Langhof & Jonas Kathage & Emilio Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2018. "Best practice document for the coexistence of genetically modified potato with conventional and organic farming," JRC Research Reports JRC109645, Joint Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc109645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC109645
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gustafson, Cole R., 2002. "Economics Of Producing For An Identity-Preserved (Ip) Grain Market," Staff Papers 23651, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    2. Haverkort, A. J., 1990. "Ecology of potato cropping systems in relation to latitude and altitude," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 251-272.
    3. Greene, Catherine & Wechsler, Seth J. & Adalja, Aaron & Hanson, James, 2016. "Economic Issues in the Coexistence of Organic, Genetically Engineered (GE), and Non-GE Crops," Economic Information Bulletin 232929, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Carolina Celis & Maria Scurrah & Sue Cowgill & Susana Chumbiauca & Jayne Green & Javier Franco & Gladys Main & Daan Kiezebrink & Richard G. F. Visser & Howard J. Atkinson, 2004. "Environmental biosafety and transgenic potato in a centre of diversity for this crop," Nature, Nature, vol. 432(7014), pages 222-225, November.
    5. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    6. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    7. Marta Czarnak-Klos & Emilio Rodriguez Cerezo, 2010. "European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) - Best Practice Document for Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. 1. Maize Crop Production," JRC Research Reports JRC59319, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Ivelin Iliev Rizov, 2016. "European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) - Best Practice Document for coexistence of genetically modified cotton with conventional and organic farming," JRC Research Reports JRC101485, Joint Research Centre.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    2. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 495-514, September.
    3. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Mario F. Teisl & Julie A. Caswell, 2003. "Information Policy and Genetically Modified Food: Weighting the Benefits and Costs," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, March.
    5. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    6. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    7. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    8. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    9. Julia Jouan & Aude Ridier & Matthieu Carof, 2018. "SYNERGY: a bio economic model assessing the economic and environmental impacts of increased regional protein self-sufficiency," Post-Print hal-01937084, HAL.
    10. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2012. "Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126531, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Bonny, Sylvie, 2009. "Issues, impacts, and prospects of the first transgenic crops tolerant to a herbicide. The case of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51449, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. GianCarlo Moschini & Harvey E. Lapan, 2005. "Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 05-wp391, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    13. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jackson, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 263-281, September.
    14. Parcell, Joseph L., 2002. "Emerging Ip Markets: The Tokyo Grain Exchange Non-Gmo Soybean Contract," Working Papers 26038, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Harvey Lapan & GianCarlo Moschini, 2007. "Grading, Minimum Quality Standards, and the Labeling of Genetically Modified Products," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 769-783.
    16. Oliveira, Paulo Ricardo Silva & Silveira, José Maria Ferreira Jardim da & Magalhães, Marcelo Marques de & Souza, Roney Fraga, 2020. "International trade in GMOs: have markets paid premiums on Brazilian soybeans?," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 58(1), January.
    17. Merel, Pierre R. & Carter, Colin A., 2005. "The Coexistence of GM and non-GM Crops and the Role of Consumer Preferences," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19512, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Consmuller, Nicola & Beckmann, Volker & Petrick, Martin, 2011. "Towards GMO-free landscapes? Identifying driving factors for the establishment of cooperative GMO-free zones in Germany," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114493, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    19. Sobolevsky, Andrei & Moschini, GianCarlo & Lapan, Harvey E., 2002. "Genetically Modified Crop Innovations and Product Differentiation: Trade and Welfare Effects in the Soybean Complex," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10098, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Are EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations proportional?," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44191, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Genetically modified crops; coexistence; potato;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc109645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.