| | Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional |
| | 0,96 | | MB | and organic crops in European agriculture |
| | 146 | | stron |
| | 1843 | | ID | INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES |
| | 2002 | | rok |
| | Table of content |
| | FOREWORDI |
| | CONCLUSIONS .III |
| | SUMMARY. 1 |
| | 1 INTRODUCTION . 11 |
| | 2 EXISTING SEGREGATION SYSTEMS . 15 |
| | 2.1 Certified seed production 15 |
| | 2.2 Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops 15 |
| | 2.3 Examples of segregation codes . 16 |
| | 2.3.1 British Retail Consortium / Food and Drink Federation code 16 |
| | 2.3.2 Soja de Pays . 16 |
| | 2.3.3 High erucic acid oilseed rape (HEAR). 17 |
| | 2.3.4 Waxy maize 17 |
| | 2.4 Organic farming 18 |
| | 2.5 Conclusion . 19 |
| | 3 EFFECTS OF CHANGING FARMING PRACTICES IN THE PRESENCE OF GM CROPS. 21 |
| | 3.1 Oilseed rape for seed production. 21 |
| | 3.1.1 Crop production and use 21 |
| | 3.1.2 Routes of contamination. 22 |
| | 3.1.3 Typical farm types 24 |
| | 3.1.4 The computer model GENESYS 25 |
| | 3.1.5 Assumptions used for simulations 25 |
| | 3.1.6 General interpretation of simulation results . 26 |
| | 3.1.7 Measures to reduce in-field contamination evaluated by GENESYS 26 |
| | 3.1.8 Farm 1: Conventional certified seed production 27 |
| | 3.1.9 Farm 2: Organic certified seed production. 34 |
| | 3.1.10 Farm 2’: Organic certified seed production on a small organic farm. 37 |
| | 3.1.11 Farm 3: Conventional farm-saved seed production 39 |
| | 3.1.12 Farm 4: Organic farm-saved seed production 43 |
| | 3.1.13 Costs of changed farming practices 45 |
| | 3.1.14 General conclusion for oilseed rape . 47 |
| | 3.2 Grain maize for feed production . 52 |
| | 3.2.1 Crop production and use 52 |
| | 3.2.2 Routes of contamination. 52 |
| | 3.2.3 Typical farm types 53 |
| | 3.2.4 The computer model MAPOD . 54 |
| | 3.2.5 Assumptions used for simulation . 55 |
| | 3.2.6 Evaluated measures to reduce contamination levels 56 |
| | 3.2.7 Farm 1: Intensive maize production in France . 58 |
| | 3.2.8 Farm 5: Intensive grain maize production in Italy 59 |
| | 3.2.9 Farms 2 and 2’: Organic grain maize production in Southern France 60 |
| | 3.2.10 Farm 3: Non-intensive conventional grain maize production 61 |
| | 3.2.11 Farms 4 and 4’: Organic grain maize production in Central France 62 |
| | 3.2.12 Contamination levels with 10% GMOs in the region. 62 |
| | 3.2.13 Costs of changed farming practices 63 |
| | 3.2.14 General conclusion for maize. 64 |
| | 3.3 Potato for food production 67 |
| | 3.3.1 Crop production and use 67 |
| | 3.3.2 Routes of contamination. 67 |
| | 3.3.3 Typical farm types 68 |
| | 3.3.4 Estimation of contamination levels 69 |
| | 3.3.5 Evaluated measures to reduce contamination. 69 |
| | 3.3.6 Farm 1: Conventional potato production for direct consumption and processing 70 |
| | 3.3.7 Farm 2: Organic potato production for direct consumption and processing 71 |
| | 3.3.8 Farm 3: Conventional early potato production for direct consumption 71 |
| | 3.3.9 Farm 4: Organic early potato production for direct consumption 71 |
| | 3.3.10 Costs of changed farming practices 72 |
| | 3.3.11 General conclusion for potato 73 |
| | 4 MONITORING NON-GM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.75 |
| | 4.1 Detection and quantification of GMOs75 |
| | 4.1.1 State-of-the-art in detection and quantification techniques.75 |
| | 4.1.2 A need for harmonised methodology81 |
| | 4.1.3 Current techniques for on-farm analyses and estimated costs 86 |
| | 4.1.4 Conclusion 89 |
| | 4.2 Proposal for a monitoring system90 |
| | 4.2.1 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point methodology90 |
| | 4.2.2 Structure of the system91 |
| | 4.2.3 Adaptation to different levels of monitoring needs.93 |
| | 4.2.4 Total costs of monitoring systems – fixed costs .96 |
| | 4.2.5 Costs of monitoring for oilseed rape.96 |
| | 4.2.6 Costs of monitoring for maize 97 |
| | 4.2.7 Costs of monitoring for potato98 |
| | 4.2.8 Conclusion 99 |
| | 5 FINANCIAL LOSSES IN CASE OF CONTAMINATION.101 |
| | 5.1 Impacts of contamination with GM crops on conventional farms.101 |
| | 5.1.1 Short-term impacts101 |
| | 5.1.2 Medium- and long-term impacts.102 |
| | 5.2 Impacts of contamination with GM crops on organic farms 103 |
| | 5.2.1 Short-term impacts103 |
| | 5.2.2 Medium- and long-term impacts.104 |
| | 5.3 Insurance against contamination105 |
| | 5.3.1 Indicative insurance costs .105 |
| | 5.3.2 Insurance and individual contracts – actual situation106 |
| | 6 TOTAL COST ANALYSIS FOR THE SELECTED CROPS .109 |
| | 6.1 Breakdown of costs .111 |
| | 6.1.1 Costs of changing farming practices.111 |
| | 6.1.2 Costs of monitoring 111 |
| | 6.1.3 Indicative insurance costs .111 |
| | 6.2 Total costs for selected farm types 112 |
| | 6.2.1 Total costs for oilseed rape for seed production .112 |
| | 6.2.2 Total costs for maize for grain production115 |
| | 6.2.3 Total costs for potato for food production 117 |
| | 6.3 Additional analyses .118 |
| | 6.3.1 Impact of agricultural system119 |
| | 6.3.2 Impact of size120 |
| | 6.3.3 Comparison between model crops 122 |
| | 6.3.4 Impact of subsidies .123 |
| | 7 GENERAL CONCLUSION125 |
| | 7.1 Crop specific results 125 |
| | 7.1.1 Oilseed rape for seed production 125 |
| | 7.1.2 Grain maize for feed production .126 |
| | 7.1.3 Potato for food production126 |
| | 7.2 General results .127 |
| | ANNEX I: ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF OILSEED RAPE.129 |
| | ANNEX II: ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF GRAIN MAIZE PRODUCTION.131 |
| | ANNEX III: ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF POTATO PRODUCTION.132 |