Aiding in the Coexistence of Sustainable and Biotech Agriculture by Minimizing Contamination

Aiding in the Coexistence of Sustainable and Biotech Agriculture by Minimizing Contamination

Summary

The coexistence working group identified the issues surrounding coexistence. Producers, industry, universities, and state government personnel had an opportunity to offer suggestions on how the issues need to be addressed. The coexistence working group was divided into three subgroups consisting of representatives from all interests to find information and to propose Best Management Practices (BMPs). Relationships were developed by the different group members as they were forced to work together as a team. With great difficulty BMPs have been voted on and passed at this point with more to come in February.

Objectives/Performance Targets

1. 1. Awareness of issues; understanding of transgenic effects and impacts of the differing production systems.
   2. Learn listening /dialogue, conflict resolution, and joint problem solving skills.
   3. Mutual teaching and learning.
   4. Goodwill among participants and acknowledge mutual responsibility.
   5. Develop individual BMPs.
   6. Keep interested parties informed of findings and proceedings of the Transgenic Working Group.
   7. BMPs communicated, disseminated, and promoted to working group constituents.
   8. Develop comprehensive BMPs and curriculum.
   9. Identify presenter,: schedule and promote workshop sites and dates.
   10. Minimizing contamination risks.
   11. Participants from regulatory and state institutions agree to apply BMPs with their institutions and departments.
   12. Disseminate BMPs to end users.
   13. Implementation of BMPs to ensure purity and accessibility of genetic resource base.
   14. Implementation of BMPs to ensure integrity and marketability with the food system.
   15. Continuation of joint problem solving through the Transgenic Working Group.

Accomplishments/Milestones

1. Awareness of issues.
The issues surrounding coexistence were identified and prioritized at the first meeting of the working group. The issues were: liability, land grant funding, handling and segregation, tolerances, germplasm purity, certification standards, USDA rules for organic certification and regulations, opportunities and consequences, neighbor relations, controls on research, consumer concerns, traits and requirements for process, and principles to commercialize. Three of these issues, traits, requirements for commercialization, and USDA rules and organic certification, were handled by presentations and providing information to the group. (Status: Accomplished.)

2. Learn listening/dialogue, conflict resolution, and joint problem solving.
The working group was split into three subcommittees to work on the issues. The subcommittees were made up of members from the different groups represented in the working group. All three groups successfully gathered information and came up with recommended BMPs. All members of each group had to work together to write the BMPs. (Status: We still need to use feedback forms at the end of the group meetings to find out what change ultimately occurred.)

Ground rules were written for personal conduct at the meetings and on the group website. The rules were followed and respectful dialogue between opposing ideas were successfully conducted at every meeting.

A private website was set up to propose BMPs and hold discussion on them. This was not as successful as we would have liked because very few group members actually used it.

Nine BMPs currently have been passed by large majorities, one by consensus, and two have been passed by one vote. We also had some proposed BMPs fail by close votes. There are still points the group can’t agree upon. (Status: We still are working on BMPs. These should be completed at the February meeting. Final minority reports for each BMP will be completed in March.)

3. Mutual teaching and learning.
Through participation in the discussion, all members have a working knowledge of the concerns of the other parties. (Status: We still need to ask what changes in attitudes and learning occurred at the end of the process in our feedback forms at the close of the working group meetings.)

4. Goodwill among participants.
Group members were able to work successfully together at the meetings and in their subgroups. (Status: We still need to survey to see what change occurred at the end of our working group meetings.)

5. Develop individual BMPs.
Nine BMPs were reached by large majorities, one with consensus, and two with split decisions. (Status: We are still writing BMPs, which will be completed and voted on at the February meeting.)

6. Keep interested parties informed of findings and proceedings.
BMPs will be posted on the websites when we get them into final form. We will then seek comments from readers.

The project has been discussed with various groups around the state, nation, and world, and minutes and information has been supplied on request. We have also cooperated with information on states that are trying to conduct similar projects (e.g., Vermont and California). (Status: We will continue to work with these groups and share back and forth.)

7. BMPs communicated, disseminated, and promoted to working group constituents.
Five working group members failed to turn in any constituent feedback forms on issues. We had a 23% return rate on constituent feedback forms on issues. Of over 200 comments on issues and suggestions for BMPs, only two suggested that BMPs were not considered reasonable suggestions.

8. Develop comprehensive BMPs and curriculum.
We have yet to complete any of the Phase II objectives due to the difficulty we have had in getting BMPs passed. (Status: We requested and have been granted a one-year, no- cost extension to complete the outreach in winter 2004/2005.)

9. Identify presenters: schedule and promote workshop sites and dates.

10. Minimizing contamination risks.(Status: Yet to be completed. This may be a difficult accomplishment to measure.)

11. Participants from regulatory and state institutions agree to apply BMPs with their institutions and departments. (Status: Yet to be completed. To date, no currently passed BMPs lend themselves to regulatory and state institutions.)

12. Disseminate BMPs to end users. (Status: Yet to be completed. BMPs that currently have been passed have been presented to approximately 100 conventional and biotech farmers.)

13. Implementation of BMPs to ensure purity and accessibility of genetic resource base. (Status: Yet to be completed. BMPs were passed that address segregation of genetic material and crops.)

14. Implementation of BMPs to ensure integrity and marketability with the food system. (Status: yet to be completed. BMPs were passed that address tolerances and consumer concerns.)

15. Continuation of joint problem solving through the Transgenic Working Group. (Status: Yet to be completed. The future of the Transgenic Working Group will be discussed at the February 2004 meeting. We would like to continue group meetings for two additional years, depending on funding and buy-in from group members.)

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

We completed the BMP development, and will begin work on a printed document for dissemination, a web-based version of the BMPs, and a common PowerPoint/overhead presentation that can be delivered by all of the Working Group members. Brad Brummond and Duane Hauck have been speaking on the topic of coexistence at many meetings and workshops. It is also a topic that has received much coverage in the media and farm magazines. Producers are starting to become even more interested in the topic. It has created much discussion at their meetings. However, the notion of coexistence does not have universal acceptance in the agricultural community; there are still some individuals in the various constituency groups who do not see the need to work together and coexist.

Brad Brummond has exchanged minutes and processes with the Vermont coexistence group. The Vermont coexistence group has used some of North Dakota processes, but has taken a different direction than that taken by the North Dakota group.

Our BMPs will give producers a guideline on how to manage their production to aid in the coexistence of all production systems. Our BMPs highlight areas that most conventional and biotech producers have not taken into consideration to this point.

Collaborators: