ASABE Technical Library - Abstract

Abstract. Globally, biotech crops have left a legacy of success (over 10% annually in increased acreage for the first 20 years, 1995-2015) and some notable failures due to regulatory and litigation barriers to entry. These crops provide significant environmental and human health benefits compared to traditional agriculture, however, consistently yielding more than organic systems and employing no-till conservation methods that organic agriculture struggles to adopt. The coexistence of biotech crops with non-GMO and organic crops that have contracted to provide non-GMO at particular customer tolerances (collectively “non-GMO” crops) presents a challenge worldwide. USDA‘s AC 21 committee will once again address coexistence, perhaps influencing regulations and liability standards. Sustainability standards are routinely discriminating against “GMOs” even in industries like seafood and forestry where biotech versions remain in the regulatory pipeline for years, even decades. If producers of biotech crops are required to prevent the migration of contamination from their crop to these other, high-premium specialty crops, innovation in agricultural biotechnology will suffer (as the European experience with agricultural biotechnology clearly demonstrates). Indeed, if regulatory or industry standards are requiring biotech growers to avoid commingling with non-GMO crops, courts can impose a duty of care on biotech growers to “fence in” their crops and be liable for failing to do so. As a result, there will need to be a reduction in the opposition found in sustainability standards that seek to put biotech crops into containment at the cost of the grower or seed company providing the seed.