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 has reorganized due to the withdrawal of the organic producers from the group in protest of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that were passed. Development of the BMPs ceased and only editing that did not change the intent of the passed BMPs was allowed. The passed BMPs have been published in an NDSU Extension Publication A-1275. Two outreach meetings have been scheduled and two more are in the planning stage. A website has been developed on coexistence where people can comment on the BMPs. The outreach will be from January to March of 2005.

Objectives/Performance Targets

Awareness of issues; understanding of transgenic effects and impacts of the differing production systems.

Learn listening /dialogue, conflict resolution, and joint problem solving skills.

Mutual teaching and learning.
Goodwill among participants and acknowledgement of mutual responsibility.

Develop individual BMPs.
Keep interested parties informed of findings and proceedings of the Transgenic Working Group.

BMPs communicated, disseminated, and promoted to working group constituents.
Develop comprehensive BMPs and curriculum.
Identify presenters: schedule and promote workshop sites and dates.

Minimize contamination risks.
Participants from regulatory and state institutions agree to apply BMPs with their institutions and departments.

Disseminate BMPs to end users.
Implementation of BMPs to insure purity and accessibility of genetic resource base.
Implementation of BMPs to insure integrity and marketability with the food system.
Continuation of joint problem solving through the Transgenic Working Group.

Accomplishments/Milestones

Awareness of issues.
The issues surrounding coexistence were identified at the first meeting of the working group and prioritized. 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 were handled by presentations and providing information to the group. They were Traits, Requirements for commercialization and USDA Rules and Organic Certification. (Status: Accomplished.)

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 was 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. In February, five members of the coexistence working group withdrew in protest of some of the passed BMPs. Some of the different members are communicating once again but the Coexistence Working Group is still split. (Status: We have ceased working on BMPs and they have been published.)

Mutual teaching and learning.
All members – through participation in the discussion – have a working knowledge of the concerns of the other parties. (Status: We still need to ask in our feedback forms at the close of the working group meetings what changes in attitudes and learning occurred at the end of the process. It will be interesting to see if the withdrawal affected this.)

Goodwill among participants.
Group members were able to work successfully together at the meetings and in their subgroups. We had five members withdraw from the coexistence working group. There seems to be animosity between some of those who stayed and some of those who left. To some extent, some relationships are being rebuilt. (Status: We still need to survey at the end of our working group meetings to see what change occurred.)

Develop individual BMPs.
Nine BMPs were reached by large majorities, one with consensus, and two with split decisions. BMPs have been developed and published (Status: Accomplished.)

Keep interested parties informed of findings and proceedings.
BMPs have been posted on our website and we will publicize this website. The site will offer individuals a chance to comment on the BMPs.

Presentations have been made in Iowa and other states on the developed BMPs and the process. The process seems to be of more interest then the BMPs. We have just published the BMPs so we will now do a publicity campaign on them and the website. We waited to do this until we had a published document so as to not confuse the public. (Status: We will continue to do education and share our findings.)

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. We plan the outreach in 2005.

Develop comprehensive BMPs and curriculum.
BMPs have been written and published along with a website. (Status: We requested and have been granted a one-year, no-cost extension to complete the outreach in Winter 2004/2005.)

Identify presenters: schedule and promote workshop sites and dates.
(Status: Yet to be completed. We have two meetings set around the state with more planned. We plan to make a presentation at one large existing meeting. We have scheduled one independent meeting to discuss this and have several more in the works. I have had difficulty getting on programs of the big meetings now that transgenic wheat is off the table. The interest seems to have totally evaporated in the biotech and conventional farming communities. I fear turnout will be less than I would like due to this.)

Minimize contamination risks.
(Status: Yet to be completed.) It may be difficult to measure this accomplishment. I am struggling with how to measure this with the withdrawal of one segment of my group.

Participants from regulatory and state institutions agree to apply BMPs with their institutions and departments.
(Status: Completed. No passed BMPs lend themselves to regulatory and state institutions.)

Disseminate BMPs to end users.
(Status: Yet to be completed.) BMPs that have been passed have been presented to approximately 300 conventional and biotech farmers. They were also presented to 200 organic producers. Two meetings have been set for producers and at least one more is planned. We also are in the process of publicizing the website.

Implementation of BMPs to insure purity and accessibility of genetic resource base.
(Status: Completed. BMPs were passed that address segregation of genetic material and crops. NDSU Plant Science, Foundation Seedstock Project, and State Seed Department have protocols and Policies in place that address these BMPs.

Implementation of BMPs to insure integrity and marketability with the food system.
(Status: Partially completed.) BMPs were passed that address tolerances and consumer concerns. Implementation has already taken place at the University and State Seed Department as they have protocols and policies in place that address their BMPs.)

Continuation of joint problem solving through the Transgenic Working Group.
(Status: Impossible to complete due to the withdrawal of five members from the original group. I intend to try and use group members and former group members as a sounding board for future issues but there is no chance to bring the former group back together.)

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

We have completed the development of the BMPs and we have just published them. We also have developed a common PowerPoint/overhead presentation that has been used by Brad Brummond and Duane Hauck around the state and nation. There seems to be more interest at universities on coexistence than in farm groups. When transgenic wheat was withdrawn from commercial release, it seemed to have reduced interest in the topic of coexistence in the conventional and biotech communities. Many organic producers feel that the BMPs did not address their needs as they did not get specific and enforceable BMPs. This is very evident in reading the minority reports and it caused the withdrawal of these members from our group.

Having given several presentations on this topic, I think that one of the project’s greatest impacts was the procedure we used to get to the BMPs. One thing that most people say after a presentation is that we used the right procedure and had the right people at the table to come to a conclusion on this issue. The fact that the BMPs tend to be very general and not specific is a function of the people we had at the table. Everyone had a voice and everyone had a vote. I think another important impact will be in the future where we can use this as a starting point and a model for future discussion.

Collaborators: