Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coexistence of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: Is an Individual Choice Possible?

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe has been characterized by controversy. In 2002, the European Union introduced the concept of “coexistence” as a compromise solution that, through the establishment of science-based technical measures, should allow the market to operate freely while reducing policy conflicts on GMOs. However, the concept remains highly contested and the technical measures difficult to apply. This paper presents qualitative research on the conceptualization and implementation of the coexistence framework in two regions of Spain (Catalonia and Aragon), where 42% and 55% of maize was GM in 2006, respectively. In this context, the concept of coexistence and its proposed implementation both fail to resolve previous conflicts and actually work to generate new ones through the individualization of choice and impacts. Considerations of the social conditions in which the technology and the management measures are implemented were not taken into account. This resulted in the promotion of biotechnological agriculture over other alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AGPME and EFEagro (2006), La coexistencia es posible. Jornada técnica. Coexistencia en España de cultivos transgénicos, convencionales y ecológicos. Retos de futuro tras ocho años de convivencia. Retrieved from http://www.antama.net/descargas/informes/informe.pdf on November 15, 2007.

  • Altieri, M. A. (2005), The myth of coexistence: Why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production? Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 25, pp. 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APROSE (2006), Guía 2006 de buenas prácticas para el cultivo del maíz Bt. Retrieved from www.monsanto.es/Novedad/Folleto%20aprose%202006.pdf on June 7, 2007.

  • Assemblea Pagesa, Plataforma Transgènics Fora! & Greenpeace (2006), Impossible coexistence. Seven years of GMO’s have contaminated organic and conventional maize: An examination of the cases in Catalonia and Aragon, Madrid.

  • Assembly of European Regions (2005), “GMO – The EU current regulations are far from exhaustive,” Strasbourg: Press release, March 24.

  • Badía Roig, C., P. Sabaté Prats, and M. Ruiz González (2001), “El sector porcino y de la producción de piensos compuestos.” in Fundació ciudad de Lleida (ed.), Anuario 2001, Lleida: UDL, pp. 17–26.

  • Bannert, M. and P. Stamp (2007), Cross-pollination of maize at long distance. European Journal of Agronomy, 27, pp. 44–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R., R. Brauner, A. Hermann, R. Hermanowski, J. Meier, K. Nowack, H.␣Schmidt, and B. Tappeser (2002), Genetic engineering and organic farming. Freiburg/Darmstadt/Berlin, Öko-Institute e.V. Environmental Research Program of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Major Issues in Environmental Protection.

  • Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, and J. Wesseler (2006), Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, pp. 1193–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher K., J. Nolan, and P. W. B. Phillips (2007), Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: Spatial patterns of contamination. Ecological Economics, 53, pp. 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binimelis, R. (2005), Co-existence of organic and GM agriculture in Catalonia. MSc Dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona.

  • Bock, A. K., K. Lheureux, M. Libeau-Dulos, H. Nilsagard, and E. Rodríguez Cerezo (2002), Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture. Joint Research Center.

  • Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot (2003), Co-existence of GM and non GM crops: Case study of maize grown in Spain (paper presented at the 1st European Conference on the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic crops, Slagelse).

  • Busch, L., R. Grove-White, S. Jasanoff, D. Winickoff, and B. Wynne (2004), Amicus Curiae Brief submitted to the dispute settlement panel of the WTO in the case of EC: Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products.

  • Carr, S. and L. Levidow (2000), Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, pp. 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalan Parliament (2004), Resolució 172/VII del Parlament de Catalunya, sobre les mesures de determinació dels productes transgènics dins el marc de la qualitat agroalimentària. Catalan Parliament Official Bulletin, 128.

  • Christey, M. and D. Woodfield (2001), Coexistence of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops. Crop & Food Research Confidential Report, 427. Ministry of Environment, New Zealand.

  • Demont, M. and E. Tollens (2004). First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain. Annals of Applied Biology, 145, pp. 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., P. Maeseele, D. Reheul, L. Vanspeybroeck, and D. de Waele (2008), Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, pp. 29–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., D. Reheul, and A. De Schrijver (2005), The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: A focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environmental Biosafety Research, 4, pp. 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastham, K. and J. Sweet (2002), Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. European Environment Agency, 28. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  • EFEAgro (2004), El Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación ofrece a las organizaciones no gubernamentales medioambientales integrarse en la Comisión de Biovigilancia. Retrieved from: http://www.terraagraria.es/front/frameppal.php?idCategoria=1 on June, 2006.

  • European Commission (2001), Opinion of the scientific committee on plants concerning the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds. Health and Consumer Protection Directorate. SCP/GMO-SEED-CONT/002-FINAL.

  • European Commission (2002), Life sciences and biotechnology – A strategy for Europe. Luxembourg: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2002)27 final.

  • European Commission (2003a), GMOs: Commission addresses GM crop co-existence. Brussels: Press Release, IP/03/314, March 5.

  • European Commission (2003b), Commission recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Notified under document number C(2003) 2624, (2003/556/EC).

  • European Commission (2005), Final report of a mission carried out in Spain 07/03/2005 to 11/03/2005 concerning controls on food & feed containing, consisting or produced from GMO, DG(SANCO)/7632/2005-MRFinal Directorate F – Food and Veterinary Office, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General.

  • European Commission (2006a), Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament: Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified organisms with conventional and organic farming and Annex. COM(2006)104 final, SEC(2006)313.

  • European Commission (2006b), GMO coexistence research in European agriculture. Luxembourg, Directorate General for Research – Dissemination and Communication.

  • European Commission (2007), Organic food: New regulation to foster the further development of Europe’s organic food sector. Press release, IP/07/807, June 12, Brussels.

  • European Parliament (2003), Report on coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 2003/2098(INI).

  • Furtan, W. H., A. Güzel, and A. S. Weseen (2007), Landscape clubs: Co-existence of genetically modified and organic crops. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, pp. 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. W. Bauer, L. Jackson, S. Howard, and N. Lindsey (2003), Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology in the UK, 1991–2002. Life Sciences in European Society Report: London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • Hajer, M. (1995), The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haygood, R., A. R. Ives, and D. A. Andow (2004), Population genetics of transgene containment. Ecology Letters, 7, pp. 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, C. (2002), From scientific risk to paysan savoir-faire: Peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Science as Culture, 11, pp. 5–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, C. (2006), Post-industrial ‹quality agricultural discourse’: Techniques of governance and resistance in the French debate over GM crops. Social Anthropology, 14(3), pp. 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, C., D. Morgan, R. Weekes, R. Daniels, and C. Boffey (2003), Farm scale evaluations of GM crops: Monitoring gene flow from GM crops to non-GM equivalent crops in the vicinity (contract reference EPG 1/5/138). Part I: Forage Maize.

  • Hoggart, K. and A. Paniagua (2001), The restructuring of rural Spain? Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp. 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAEST (2007), Información estadística de Aragón. Economía/Sector Agrario. EStructura de las explotaciones agrícolas. Retrieved from http://www.portal.aragon.es/pls/portal30/url/folder/IAEST/IAEST_00 on December 4, 2007.

  • IFOAM (2002), Position on genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Retrieved from http://www.ifoam.org/press/positions/ge-position.html on September 4, 2007.

  • Jank, B., J. Rath, and H. Gaugitsch (2007), Co-existence of agricultural production systems. Trends in Biotechnology, 24(5), pp. 198–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoury, L. and S. Smyth (2007), Reasonable foreseeability and liability in relation to genetically modified organisms. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(3), pp. 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, B. A. (2007). Liability and compensation schemes for damage resulting from the presence of genetically modified organisms in non-GM crops. Research Unit for European Tort Law. European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law, Austrian Academy of Sciences.

  • Kvakkestad, V., F. Gillund, K. A. Kjolberg, and A. Vatn (2007), Scientists’s perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values, 16(1), pp. 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langhof, M., B. Hommel, A. Hüsken, J. Schiemann, P. Wehling, R. Wilhelm, and G. Rühl (2008), Coexistence in maize: Do nonmaize buffer zones reduce gene flow between maize fields? Crop Science, 48, pp. 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langreo Navarro, A. and A. González del Barrio (2007), “El sector porcino en España.” in UPA and Fundación de Estudios Rurales (eds.), Agricultura familiar en España 2007, Madrid: UPA, pp. 228–232.

  • Levidow, L. and K. Boschert (2007), Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum (in press). DOI 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.001.

  • Levidow, L. and S. Carr (2007), GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39, pp. 408–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. and C. Marris (2001), Science and governance in Europe: Lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Science and Public Policy, 28(5), pp. 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. A. (2002), Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, pp. 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, B. L., K. D. Subedi, and L. M. Reid (2004), Extent of cross-fertilization in maize by pollen from neighboring transgenic hybrids. Crop Science, 44, pp. 1273–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAPA (Spanish Ministry of Agriculture) (2007), Superficie en hectáreas de variedades maíz GM que se encuentran incluidas en el registro de variedades comerciales. Estadísticas semillas de vivero. Retrieved from http://www.mapa.es/es/agricultura/pags/semillas/estadisticas.htm on 15 December.

  • Marvier, M. and R. C. Van Acker (2005), Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, pp. 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, K. (2003), Neoliberalism on the molecular scale. Economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum, 34, pp. 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, K. (2008), Beyond techno-science: Transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico’s future. Geoforum, 39, pp. 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod-Kilmurray, H. (2007), Hoffman v. Monsanto: Courts, class actions, and perceptions of the problem of GM drift. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 27, pp. 188–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messéan, A., F. Angevin, M. Gómez-Barbero, Klaus Menrad, and E. Rodríguez Cerezo (2006), New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture. EUR 22102 EN, 1. 2006. Joint Research Center.

  • Messeguer, J., G. Peñas, J. Ballester, M. Bas, J. Serra, J. Salvia, M. Palaudelmas, and E. Melé (2006), Pollen-mediated gene flow in maize in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, pp. 633–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morán, C. (2006), El maíz transgénico está acabando con los cultivos del ecológico. El País, October 19.

  • Müller, W. (2003), Concepts for coexistence. ECO-RISK, Office of Ecological Risk Reseach, commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Health and Women.

  • Myhr, A. I. (2005), Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs). Water Science & Technology, 52(6), pp. 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Biosafety Comission (2002), Proceedings of the 27th meeting. 27th September, Madrid.

  • Ortega, J. I. (2006), La coexistencia de los cultivos modificados genéticamente con los ecológicos (Paper presented at the VII Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica/III Congreso Iberoamericano de Agroecología. Zaragoza)

  • Paniagua, Á. (2001), Agri-environmental policy in Spain. The agenda of socio-political developments at the national, regional and local levels. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, pp. 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponti, L. (2005), Transgenic crops and sustainable agriculture in the European context. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 25, pp. 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. (1995), Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (eds.) (2001), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, C. P. (2007), Coexistence or conflict? A European perspective on GMOs and the problem of liability. Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 27, pp. 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004), How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, pp. 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermer, M. and J. Hoppichler (2004), GMO and sustainable development in less favoured regions – the need for alternative paths of development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, pp. 479–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer, F. (2007), An analysis of the Swiss vote on the use of genetically modified crops. Working paper no. 0717. Socioeconomic Institute, University of Zurich.

  • Smyth, S., G. G. Khachatourians, and P. W. B. Phillips (2002), Liabilities and economic of transgenic crops. Nature biotechnology, 20, pp. 537–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. A. (2002), Transgenic crops – why gene flow matters. Nature biotechnology, 20, p. 542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todt, O. (1999), Social decision making on technology and the environment in Spain. Technology in Society, 21, pp. 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolstrup, K., S. B. Andersen, B. Boelt, M. Buus, M. Gylling, P. B. Holm, G. Kjellsson, S. Pedersen, H. Østergård, and S. A. Mikkelsen (2003), Report from the Danish Working Group on the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic crops, DIAS report Plant Production no. 94, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele.

  • Van de Wiel, C. C. M. and L. A. P. Lotz (2006), Outcrossing and coexistence of genetically modified with (genetically) unmodified crops: A case study of the situation in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 54(1), pp. 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (2007), Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 54(4), pp. 387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, R. (2004), Criminology and GM food. British Journal of Criminology, 44, pp. 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, W. E., T. Bringezu, I. Broer, J. Eder, and F. Holz (2007), Coexistence between GM and non-GM maize crops – Tested in 2004 at the Field Scale Level (Erprobungsanbau 2004). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 197, pp. 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2001), Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), pp. 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Roger Strand, Fern Wickson, and Kamilla Kjølberg at the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT) in Bergen, Iliana Monterroso at FLACSO-Guatemala, and Joan Martínez Alier and Nicolas Kosoy at the Autonomous University of Barcelona for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article. The Research Council of Norway and the FP6 project ALARM (GOCECT-2003-506675) have partially funded this research. I am particularly grateful to all the stakeholders who actively collaborated in the research process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

    Rosa Binimelis

Authors
  1. Rosa Binimelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosa Binimelis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Binimelis, R. Coexistence of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: Is an Individual Choice Possible?. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 437–457 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9099-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9099-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation