Juridical cost-benefit analysis of coexistence : uneasy this task !

HAL Id: hal-02751821

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02751821

Submitted on 3 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

this task !

M.A. Hermitte, G. Ganselier, Yves Bertheau

To cite this version:

M.A. Hermitte, G. Ganselier, Yves Bertheau. Juridical cost-benefit analysis of coexistence : uneasy this task !. Co-Extra International Conference, Jun 2009, Paris, France. 150 p. �hal-02751821�



INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE

























 



ProgrammeandAbstracts





GMANDNONGMSUPPLYCHAINS:THEIRCOEXISTENCEANDTRACEABILITY



www.coextra.eu

  CoExtraConference StakeholderWorkshop June24,2009 June5,2009 AgroParisTech PalaisduLuxembourg 16rueClaudeBernard 15ruedeVaugirard Paris75005,France Paris75006,France  

25June2009

Paris,France



Content



Programme...5 AbstractsofOralPresentations...9 Session1:IntroductoryPresentations...9 1.1. Reportonthecoexistenceofgeneticallymodifiedcropswithconventional andorganicfarming...9 1.2. SIGMEAresultsoncoexistenceatthefarmlevel...11 1.3. TransContainer:OverviewandProgress...13 1.4. CoExtraintroduction...15 SessionA1:MethodsforManagingGeneFlow...17 A1.1. Biologicalmeasuresforgeneflowmitigation...17 A1.2. Biocontainmentofmaizebycytoplasmicmalesterilityandxenia...18 A1.3. Pollencontainmentbycleistogamyinoilseedrape...20 A1.4. Chloroplasttransformationandtransgenecontainment...22 A1.5. Mesoscaledispersalofmaizepollenandimplicationsforgeneflow...24 SessionA2:CoexistenceandTraceabilityinAgricultureandFoodProduction...25 A2.1. Empiricalanalysisofcoexistenceincommoditysupplychains...25 A2.2. ModellingcoexistencebetweenGMandnonGMwithinsupplychains...28 A2.3. CostsandbenefitsofsegregationandtraceabilitybetweenGMand nonGMsupplychainsoffinalfoodproducts...30 A2.4. Consumers’attitudestotheEUtraceabilityandlabellingregulation....33 SessionB1:TechnologiesforManagingtheSupplyChain...35 B1.1. GMOsamplingstrategiesinthefoodandfeedchain...35 B1.2. RationalizationofGMOtestingbyappropriatesubsamplingandcontrolplans...38 B1.3. ModularApproachImplemented:Pros,ConsandFuturePerspectives...41 B1.4. Validationofnovelmethodsandtechnologies...44 B1.5. ReferencematerialsandreferencePCRassaysforGMOquantification...46 SessionB2:DetectionofGMingredientsinfoodsandFeeds...49 B2.1. NewrealtimePCRmethodsavailableforroutineGMOdetectionlabs applicabilityandperformance...49 B2.2. ReliabilityandcostsofGMOdetection...51 B2.3. NonPCRbasedAlternativeAnalyticalMethods...53 B2.4. DetectingunauthorisedandunknownGMOs....55 B2.5. NewmultiplexingtoolsforreliableanalysisofGMOs...57

Session3:Legal,Liability&RedressIssues...59 3.1. Legal,Liability&RedressIssues...59 3.2. Scientificexpertiseandthejudges...60 3.3. Juridicalcostbenefitanalysisofcoexistence:uneasythistask!...61 Session4:StakeholderViewsinEU...62 4.1. Stakeholderviewsandinteractions...62 Session5:DecisionSupportSystems...63 5.1. TheCoExtraDecisionSupportSystem:AModelBasedIntegration ofProjectResults...63 5.2. AnalyticalDSSmodule–howtosupportdecisionsintheanalyticallab...65 5.3. DSSmodulesontransportation(TMmodule)andonunapproved GMOs(UGMmodule)...67 Session6:Experiencesfromthirdcountries...69 6.1. BenefitCostAnalysis,FoodSafety,andTraceability...69 6.2. SegregationMeasuresfor(Non)GMcropsandtheirImplicationsfor SupplyChainsinJapan...71 6.3. CoExistenceandtraceability:Costsandbenefitsinfoodandfeedsupplychains...73 6.4. ACompanyPerspective...74 6.5. ProtectingEuropeanqualityagriculture:NonGMfeedsupplyandproduction...75 7. IntegrationofCoExtraresultsinEUtoolsforcoexistence&traceability...78 8. SummaryofmainCoExtradeliverables&results,perspectives,information dissemination&application....79  PosterAbstracts...96 P1. AcosteffectiveP35S/Tnosmultiplexscreeningassaywithinternalpositivecontrol...96 P2. Theproblemofwhentolabelinpresenceoflowamountsoftransgenic material:thecaseofbotanicalimpurities...97 P3. NIRimagingandchemometricsinsupporttothedetectionatthe singlekernellevelofGMO...99 P4. PerformanceofTaqMan®,LNA,CyclingProbeTechnology,Luxand PlexorrealtimePCRchemistriesinquantitativeGMOdetection...100 P5. GMOanalysis:towardsassuringconfidenceinaresult...101 P6. DetectionofBacillusthuringiensisbyrealtimePCR...103 P7. Developmentofanewprobeforqualitativeidentificationand quantificationofBt11maize...105 P8. DevelopmentofconstructspecificTaqManrealtimePCRfordetectionand quantificationoftransgenicBt11maize(Zeamays)...106 P9. Stateoftheartonsamplepreparationandassessingthevalidity ofproceduresderivingtestportionfromlaboratorysamples...108 P10. DesigningthePCRmarkersAgrobacteriumtumefaciensgallformingstrains....110

P11. Arapid&simplepointofusediagnosticforGMOdetectioninplants...112 P12. Developmentofanintegratedplatformforthedetectionofmaterials derivedfromgeneticallymodifiedcropsinfoodandfeedproducts...113 P13. UseofpJANUS¥02001asCalibratorPlasmidforGTS4032 (RoundupReadySoybean)Detection:AnInterLaboratoryTrialAssessment...114 P14. Testingthe“ModularApproach”:anexamplewithRoundUpReadySoybean...115 P15. NAIMA:afastquantitativemethodforhighthroughputGMO diagnosticsinfoodandfeedstuffs...116 P16. GMOversusmycotoxinssamplingplan:apragmaticapproach...117 P17. Approachestomonitortheadventitiouspresenceoftransgenes inexsitucollectionsofnationalgenebanks...119 P18. Monitoringtheadventitiouspresenceoftransgenesinexsitucotton collectionsoftheNationalGeneBank...120 P19. MoleculardiagnosisofcommercializedorunapprovedBtcropsof IndiausingqualitativeandquantitativePCRassays...121 P20. MultiplexingofSIMQUANT...122 P21. Useofcomputationalsubtractiontosearchforunknowngeneticmodifications...124 P22. EffectofdifferentstorageconditionsonPCRamplificabilityof genomicDNAextractedfrompelletscontainingmaizeMON810maize...125 P23. MultiplexDNADetectionSystemForIdentificationOfGenetically ModifiedOrganisms(GMOs)InFoodAndFeedChains;CoExtraWP6results...127 P24. TheCoExtrawebsite,akeytoolintheCoExtraexternalcommunicationstrategy...128 P25. Influenceofthe(nonGM)soybeanpriceoncompoundfeedprice...130 P26. ThecosteffectivenessofthecoexistenceofGMHToilseedrapeinIreland: ananalysisofcropmanagementstrategies....131 P27. ModellingcoexistencebetweenGMandnonGMsupplychains...133 P28. Supplychaindescriptionandanalysisformaize,potatoesandfresh tomatoesinSlovenia...135 P29. PreferenceheterogeneityamongGermanconsumersregardingGMrapeseedoil...137 P30. Costsofcoexistenceandtraceabilitysystemsinthefoodindustry inGermanyandDenmark...138 P31. AnalysisoftheextracostsgeneratedonFrench“LabelRouge” chickensupplychainbynonGMfeedpolicy....139 P32. Towardsanoptimalmanagementregimetofacilitatethecoexistence ofGMandnonGMoilseedrapeinIreland...141 P33. BrazilianGMOFreeAreasExperimentandtheReleaseofRRSoybeans...143 P34. AbibliometricsapproachonSoybeanResearchinBrazil...144 P35. TheAgroindustrialChainofSoybeaninBrazil:BriefNotesontheContractofSale...145 P36. TimeRequirementsandFinancialExpendituresforCoexistenceMeasuresand TheirImpacttoProfitabilityofGeneticallyModifiedPlantsinSwitzerland...146

TUESDAY,JUNE2

8:00to18:00 Settingup:ExhibitionandPosters AgroParisTech(APT)

14:00to18:00 Conferenceregistration(alsorequiredforattendingthe receptiononTuesdayevening) APT–mainentrance (16rueClaudeBernard, 75005Paris) 15:00to16:00 PressConference(accessreservedforpress)  Chair:FrançoisHoullier(DSPPV,Scientificdirectorof Plantsandderivedproducts,France)  YvesBertheau(INRA,France),FrédériqueAngevin(INRA, France),CoExtraExecutiveCommitteeMembersand BernhardKoch,Prof.ofTortLaw(InnsbruckUni.) APTsalledesconseils 19:00to20:30 Reception: Welcomecocktail&Welcomeaddress CityHallMairiedeParisVème 21PlaceduPanthéon 75005ParisV Métro:Luxembourg(15minutes walkingdistance) WEDNESDAY,JUNE3 SESSION1:ECResearch 8:0010:00 Registration APT–mainentrance 9:009:10 Welcomeaddress RemiTousain(DirectorofAgroParisTech,France)and YvesBertheau(INRA,France) APTAmphiTisserand& Risler 9:109:50 Chair:YvesBertheau(INRA,France)  1.1Reportonthecoexistenceofgeneticallymodified cropswithconventionalandorganicfarming SigridWeiland(DGAgricultureandRuralDevelopment, EC),AliceStengal(DGEnvironment,EC),CiaranMangan (DGResearch,EC) 9:5010:20 1.2SIGMEAresultsoncoexistenceatthefarmlevel JeremySweet(NIAB,UK) 10:2010:50 1.3TransContainer:OverviewandProgress RuudA.deMaagdandKimBoutilier(PlantResearchIn ternationalB.V.,TheNetherlands) 10:5011:30 BREAKANDVISITOFCONFERENCEEXHIBITION&POST ERS 11:3012:00 1.4CoExtraintroduction YvesBertheau(INRA,France) 12:0013:30 MIDDAYBREAK SESSION2:Parallelsessions(detailedprogrammeonpage6) 13:3015:00 ParallelsessionA.1  MethodsforManagingGene Flow Chair:JoachimSchiemann(JKI, Germany) ParallelsessionB.1  TechnologiesforManagingthe SupplyChainandDetectionof GMingredientsinfoodsand Feeds  Chairs:KristinaGruden(NIB, Slovenia)&RobertaOnori(ISS, Italy) 15:00to18:00 ParallelsessionA.2 CoexistenceandTraceabilityin AgricultureandFood/Feed Production Chairs:FrédériqueAngevin (INRA,France&MortenGylling ParallelsessionB.2 GMOdetection  Chair:ArneHolstJensen(NVI, Norway) SessionA:Tisserand  SessionB:Risler

SessionsAandBDetails WEDNESDAY,JUNE3,AgroParisTech,France,Paris  SessionA1 MethodsforManagingGeneFlow Chair: JoachimSchiemann(JKI,Germany)

13:3013:50 A1.1. Biologicalmeasuresforgeneflowmitigation AlexandraHüsken(JKI,Germany) 13:5014:10 A1.2. Biocontainmentofmaizebycytoplasmicmale

sterilityandxenia MariaMunsch(ETH,Switzerland) 14:1014:30 A1.3. PollencontainmentbyCleistogamyinoilseedrape XavierPinochet(Cetiom,France) 14:3014:50 A1.4. Chloroplasttransformationandtransgenecontain ment RalfBock(MPI,Germany) 14.5015.10 A1.5. Mesoscaledispersalofmaizepollenandimplica tionsforgeneflow S.DupontandY.Brunet(INRA,France)  SessionA.2. CoexistenceandTraceabilityinAgricultureandFood Production Chairs: FrédériqueAngevin(INRA,France)& MortenGylling(FOI,Denmark) 15:1015:40 A2.1. Empiricalanalysisofcoexistenceincommodity supplychains JamesCopeland(FERA,UK)andNicolas Gryson(UniversityCollegeofGhent, Belgium) 15.4016:10 BREAK  16.1016:30 A2.2. ModellingcoexistencebetweenGMandnonGM withinSupplyChains LouisGeorgesSoler(INRA,France) 16:3016:50 A2.3. Costsandbenefitsofsegregationandtraceability betweenGMandnonGMsupplychainsoffinal foodproducts KlausMenrad,AndreasGabriel(WZS, Germany) 16.5017:10 A2.4. ConsumersattitudestotheEUtraceabilityand labellingregulation JoséM.Gil&MontserratCostaFont (CREDAUPCIRTA,Spain) 17.1018:00 Questionsanddiscussion   SessionB.1. TechnologiesformanagingtheSupplyChain Chairs: KristinaGruden(NIB,Slovenia)& RobertaOnori(ISS,Italy) 13:3013:50 B1.1. GMOsamplingstrategiesinthefoodandfeed chain MarinaMiraglia(ISS,Italy) 13:5014:10 B1.2. RationalizationofGMOtestingbyappropriatesub samplingandcontrolplans YvesBertheau(INRA,France)andRoy MacArthur(FERA,UK) 14:1014:30 B1.3. Themodularapproachimplemented,pros,cons andfutureperspectives MarkvandenBulcke(IPH,Belgium) 14:3014:50 B1.4. Validationofnovelmethodsandtechnologies MarcoMazzara(JRCIHCP,Italy)  14:5015:10 B1.5. ReferencematerialsandreferencePCRassaysfor GMOquantification IsabelTaverniers(ILVO,Belgium) 15:1015:30 Questionsanddiscussion  15:3016:00 BREAK   SessionB.2. DetectionofGMingredientsinfoods Chair:ArneHolstJensen(NVI,Norway) 16:0016:20 B2.1.

NewrealtimePCRmethodsavailableforroutine GMOdetectionlabsapplicabilityandperform ance DoerteWulf(Genescan,Germany) 16:2016:40 B2.2. ReliabilityandcostsofGMOdetection KristinaGruden(NIB,Slovenia) 16:4017:00 B2.3. NonPCRbasedalternativeanalyticalmethods GuyKiddle(Lumora,UK) 17:0017:20 B2.4. DetectingunauthorisedandunknownGMOs ArneHolstJensen(NVI,Norway) 17:2017:40 B2.5. Newmultiplexingtoolsforreliableanalysisof GMOs MariaPla(CSIC,Spain)

THURSDAY,JUNE4 SESSION3  Legal,liability&redressissues Chair:BernhardKoch(ECTIL,Austria) 9:009:20 3.1.Legal,liability&redressissues BernhardKoch(ECTIL,Austria)andM.A.Hermitte(CNRS,France) 9:20–9:40 3.2.ScientificexpertiseandthejudgesC.Noiville(CNRS,France) 9.4010.00 3.3.Juridicalcostbenefitanalysisofcoexistence:uneasythistask! MA.Hermitte,G.Canselier(CNRS,France)&Y.Bertheau(INRA,France) SESSION4 10:0010:30 StakeholderviewsinEU: Chair:KristinaSinemus(Genius,Germany)  4.1.StakeholderopinionsandattitudesoncoexistenceofGMOswith conventionalandorganicsupplychains GeorgeSekallaris(NHRF,Greece)andRenèCusters(VIB,Belgium) APTAmphiTisserand 10:3011:00 BREAKANDVISITOFCONFERENCEEXHIBITION&POSTERS  SESSION5  Dataintegration&DecisionSupportSystems Chair:NevenaAlexandrova(ABI,Bulgaria) APTAmphiTisserand 11:0011:20  5.1.TheCoExtraDecisionSupportSystem:Amodelbasedintegration ofprojectresults MarkoBohanec(JSI,Slovenia) 11:2011:40  5.2. AnalyticalDSSmodule–howtosupportdecisionsinthe analyticallab KristinaGruden(NIB,Slovenia) 11:4012:00 5.3.DSSmodulesontransportation(TMmodule)andonunapproved GMOs(UGMmodule) EstherKok(RIKILT,TheNetherlands) 12:0013:30 MIDDAYBREAK  SESSION6  Experiencesfromthirdcountries Chair:MortenGylling(FOI,Denmark) APTAmphiTisserand 13:3014:00  6.1.Benefitcostanalysis,foodsafety,andtraceability JamesHammitt(HarvardUniversityCentreforRiskAnalysis,Boston,USA) 14:0014:30  6.2.Segregationmeasuresfor(non)GMcropsandtheirimplications forsupplychainsinJapan MasashiTachikawa(IbarakiUniversity,Japan) 14:3015:00  6.3.CoExistenceandtraceability:costsandbenefitsinfoodandfeed supplychains BillWilson(NorthDakotaUniversity,USA) 15:0015:30 6.4.CompanyPerspective RandalGiroux(Cargill,USA) 15:3016:00 BREAK  16:0016:30 6.5.ProtectingEuropeanqualityagriculture:nonGMfeedsupplyand production RenaudLayadi,(RegionBretagne,France) APTAmphiTisserand 16:3017:00 7.IntegrationofCoExtraresultsinEUtoolsforcoexistence& traceability GuyvandenEede&EmilioRodriguezCerezo(EuropeanCommission/JRC) 17:0017:30 8.SummaryofmainCoExtradeliverables&results,perspectives Informationdissemination&application YvesBertheau(INRA,France) 17.3018:00 9.ConcludingComments APTAmphiTisserand

Stakeholderworkshop



PalaisduLuxembourg,Paris Friday,June5 8:008:30 Registration Entrance Chair(wholeday):YvesBertheau(INRA,France)  Stakeholderpanel:GarlichvonEssen(EuropeanSeedAssociation,ESA),Arnaud Petit(CommitteeofProfessionalAgriculturalOrganisations,GeneralCommit teeforAgriculturalCooperationintheEuropeanUnion,COPACOGECA),Agnès Davi(ConfederationofFoodandDrinkIndustriesoftheEU,CIAA),OlivierAn drault(UFCQueChoisir,FederalUnionofConsumers),MireilleFerri(Vice présidenteRégionIledeFrance),MaaikeRaaijmakers(“PlatformBiologica”) Moderator:OlivierdeLagarde(journalist) SalleMédicis 8:309:00 Introductorytalk MarionGuillou(CEOINRA,France)  IntroductiontoCoExtra YvesBertheau(INRA,France) 9:009.20 Fromseedstosilo:agriculturalcoexistenceandtraceabilityissues FrédériqueAngevin(INRA,France) 9:2010:30 Roundtable Panelquestions,thenaudiencequestions 10.3010:50 Legalissues BernhardKoch(ECTIL,Austria) 10:5012:00 Roundtable Panelquestions,thenaudiencequestions 12:0014:00 LUNCHBREAK SalleRenéCoty 14:0014:30 Supplychainmanagementandeconomicissues MortenGylling(FOI,Denmark) SalleMédicis 14:3015:30 Roundtable Panelquestions,thenaudiencequestions 15:3016.10 Stakeholderopinionsandattitudes  Somelessonsfromstakeholderinteractionsforthefutureofcoexistence RenèCusters(VIB,Belgium)  Statement PascaleHebel(CREDOC,France) 16.1017:10 Roundtable Panelquestions,thenaudiencequestions 17:1017:40 Finalcomments 17:5518.10 ConclusionsbyJeanLouisBorloo(FrenchMinisterofEnvironment) 17.4017.55 CoExistenceofGMandnonGMsupplychains:thepointofviewoftheCom missionerinchargeofAgriculture. JulienMousnier(MemberofthecabinetofMsFischerBoel,EC,Brussels)

AbstractsofOralPresentations



Session1:IntroductoryPresentations



1.1. Reportonthecoexistenceofgeneticallymodifiedcropswith

conventionalandorganicfarming

SigridWeilandandAliceStengal, EuropeanCommission,Brussels  Coexistencereferstothechoiceofconsumersandfarmersbetweenconventional,organicandGM cropproductionincompliancewiththelegalobligationsregardingthelabellingofGMOs.GMOsas wellasfoodandfeedcontaining,consistingof,orproducedfromGMOshavetobelabelledinorder to guarantee an informed choice. As this potentially implies economic losses, e.g. where GMOs appear in conventional or organic products, suitable technical measures have to be taken to segregate GM from nonGM production. Whilst environmental and health aspects of GM crop cultivationmustbeexhaustivelyaddressedalreadyduringtheauthorisationprocedure,theyarenot to be considered in the context of coexistence. Coexistence measures have their focus on the economicimpact.

Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. The Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices on coexistence is intended to help MemberStatesdevelopnationallegislativeorotherstrategiesforcoexistence.

The Commission published recently its second report on coexistence providing an update of the state of national coexistence measures based on information provided by the Member States. The report also gives an overview of the activities undertaken in response to the mandate provided by theconclusionsoftheAgriculturalCouncilofMay2006.

With15MemberStateshavingadoptedlegislationoncoexistence,comparedtofourin2006,there hasbeensignificantprogressinthedevelopmentofcoexistencelegislation.Theapproachesapplied inMemberStatesdifferwithrespecttoadministrativeproceduresandthetechnicalspecificationsof segregation measures. These differences reflect the regional variation of agronomic, climatic and otherfactorsdeterminingthelikelihoodofGMOadmixture tononGMcrops.Astudylaunchedby the Commission shows that all national jurisdictions foresee a minimum protection in cases of economicdamagesresultingfromGMOadmixtureinnonGMcropsunderregularconditionsoftort lawwhichdiffersbetweenMemberStates.Themajorityofthemhasnotadjustedtheconditionsof generaltortlawtothespecificcaseofGMOadmixture.

In parallel to the development of national coexistence regulation, there has been a moderate expansion of the cultivation of GM crops. However, commercial experience necessary for the assessmentofthebestwayforwardtoaddresscoexistenceisstilllimited.

Research activities concerning various aspects of coexistence are still ongoing in many Member States,illustratingtheneedforfurtherdevelopingtheknowledgebase.Inviewoffurtherassessing and enhancing the efficiency of national coexistence measures, the European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB), created by the Commission, is developing, in collaboration with the Member States, crop specificBestPracticeDocuments.

From the present report the Commission concludes that there is no need to deviate from the subsidiaritybased approach towards coexistence. The Commission will continue to foster the exchangeofinformationwithMemberStatesregardingcoexistenceandsupportfurthercoexistence relatedresearchbasedonclearlyidentifiedneeds.

1.2.



SIGMEAresultsoncoexistenceatthefarmlevel

AntoineMesséan1&JeremySweet2 1 EcoInnov,INRA,BP1,78850ThivervalGrignon,France 2 TheGreen,Willingham,CambridgeCB245JA,UnitedKingdom 

In 2003, the European Commission established the principle of coexistence which refers to “the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GMcrop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards” and laid downguidelinesdefiningthecontextofthiscoexistence1.

What needs to be accounted for if we are to introduce in a sustainable manner GM crops throughoutEuropesothatcoexistenceisfeasible?ThecrossdisciplinaryEuropeanSIGMEAResearch Project was set up to provide to decisionmakers sciencebased information about the appropriate coexistenceandtraceabilitymeasuresthatwouldbeneeded.

To this end, SIGMEA brought together the principal teams and thereby the principal programmes studying gene flow in a large number of countries across Europe, representing a wide range of agriculturalsystemsincludingorganicfarming.

Within the last 5 years, SIGMEA has (i) collated and analysed European data on gene flow and the environmental impacts of the major crop species which are likely to be transgenic in the future (maize, rapeseed, sugar beet, rice, and wheat), (ii) designed predictive models of gene flow at the landscape level, (iii) analysed the technical feasibility and economic impacts of coexistence in the principal farming regions of Europe, (iv) developed novel GMO detection methods, (v) addressed legalissuesrelatedtocoexistence,and(vi)proposedpublicandfarmscaledecisionmakingtools,as wellasguidelinesregardingmanagementandgovernance.

SIGMEAhasproducedapracticaltoolboxforaddressingGMimpactsinagriculture:

1. Auniquedatabaseincludingmorethan100datasetsongeneflowandecologicalimpacts which may inform decisionmakers on factors driving gene flow at the landscape level and on the variability of such processes across Europe, help regulators to set up coexistence measuresatNationallevelsaswellashelpscientiststoidentifyfurtherresearchprioritiesin thatarea.

2. LandSFACTSisauserfriendlywindowsbasedsoftwaretosimulatecropallocationtofields by integrating typical crop rotations and crop spatiotemporal arrangements within agricultural landscapes and could be used for a practical implementation of coexistence measures

3. The generic gene flow platform LandFlowGene, including validated rapeseed and maize modules, is now available as a prototype. It has been used to assess the feasibility of coexistence at the landscape level under various contexts (climate, landscape, cropping systems,adoptionrate)andtesttheeffectofcoexistencemeasures.Thisplatformcouldbe extended to other crops to provide a general framework for informing coexistence in all croppingsystemsofEurope. 4. Structuralandorganisationalfactorsaffectingcoexistenceinpracticehavebeenidentified andstrategiesformanagingcoexistenceattheregionallevelhavebeenproposed;  1 Commissionrecommendationof23July2003 (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/guide_en.pdf)

5. A userfriendly decisionsupport system (SMACAdvisor) to assess maize coexistence feasibilityatthefieldlevelwasdesigned.

6. A comprehensive overview of monitoring and legal issues has been provided and general recommendationshavebeenmade.

Altogether, these tools and outcomes can be combined to assess coexistence at various spatial scales(field,farmorregion)andvariousdecisionmakinglevels(farmers,elevators,memberstates, EU).

SIGMEAfindingsmakeitpossibletoaddressissuessuchas"whatwillhappen,intermsofgeneflow, ifaparticularGMorganismisintroducedintoaparticularEuropeanregion?"and"howcancropsbe deployed at the landscape level so as to maintain the adventitious presence of GMOs in conventionalcropswithinthelegalthresholds,oranyspecificmarketdrivenrequirements?".

The outcome of both field and modelling studies carried out in SIGMEA is that best practices for coexistencearehighlyvariableanddependonlocalcharacteristics,croppractices,environmentsas wellasfarmerstrategiesandpreferences,andthatthefeasibilityofcoexistencedirectlydependson thetargetedthreshold.

Formaize,coexistence(definedascomplyingwiththeofficialthreshold)forhybridvarietiesshould be achievable through the use of high purity seed, the management of cross pollination by using varietiesthatfloweratdifferenttimesand/orspatiallyseparatingfields,ortheinstallationofbuffer zonesorthepracticeofdiscardingwherefieldsareincloseproximity.Forlowthresholds(0.1%)orin regions with high density of maize, requested measures such as isolation distances may be impossible to implement and a geographical separation between GM and conventional crops is a reasonablesolution.Forsupplychains,suchasorganicfarming–whichrequiresatotalabsenceof GMOsintheircrops–coexistenceatalocalscaleistechnicallyimpossible.

Basedonregionalcasestudiesfindings,contrastingglobalcoexistencescenariosmaybedefinedby consideringdifferentregulationapproaches:

x A"bottomup"approach,whichwouldlettheprivateactors(collectors,farmers)freetochoose the best way to achieve coexistence guidelines and to meet regulatory or marketbased thresholdrequirements;

x A "topdown" approach, based on the strong intervention of public authorities with the implementationofcompulsoryuniformmeasures(e.g.,isolationdistances);

x and a "third way" approach, which provides a focused response of authorities to lift some constraintsonprivateactors.

It has been stressed that a coexistence regime based on “uniform isolation distances”, as implemented so far in several member states, is not optimal, not proportional and may lead to unnecessaryadditionalcostsorrendercoexistenceimpossibleinpractice.

SIGMEAthusrecommendsthatcoexistencemeasuresshouldbeasflexibleaspossibleanddepend on local climatic, agronomic and environmental factors. This approach would lead to more cost efficient measures. However the current regulatory framework to support such an approach is still tobedeveloped.

SIGMEA has developed tools to support the definition and implementation of flexible measures. Predictivegeneflowmodelsarenowavailable(currentlyonlyformaizeandoilseedrapebuteasily extendable to other crops). These can help decisionmakers assess the feasibility of coexistence at the field, farm and silo level for the various targeted thresholds under various environmental and agronomic conditions. In addition simple decisionsupport tools, like SMAC Advisor can be used by farmersoradvisorswhowouldliketoquicklyassesscoexistencefeasibilityusinglimitedamountsof informationatalocalfieldlevel.

1.3. TransContainer:OverviewandProgress

RuudA.deMaagdandKimBoutilier

PlantResearchInternationalB.V.,WageningenUniversityandResearchCentre,Wageningen,TheNetherlands 

Background

The spread of transgenes from genetically modified crops to conventional and organic crops or to wild relatives remains a source of public and scientific concern in Europe. While movement of transgenesfromgeneticallymodifiedcropsapprovedforcultivationtoconventionalororganiccrops is strictly speaking not a biosafety issue, the EU policy for GMO crops is one of coexistence and traceability, i.e. the concurrent existence of all three systems (GMO, conventional, organic) should be facilitated (1). This has led to the development of countryspecific “coexistence measures” regulatingthegrowing,processing,andtracingproceduresforGMcrops(2).Containmentmeasures may be classified as physical, temporal or biological. Current coexistence measures use physical containment, namely minimal isolation distances and pollen barriers, between GMO and conventional or organic crop fields, as well as measures to prevent adventitious mixing during harvestingandprocessing.

Coexistence of GM and nonGM crops may be promoted by the implementation of biological transgene containment strategies, involving modification of the GMO crop in such a way as to minimizethespreadoftransgenesthroughpollen,seedorboth.Thecontainmentmechanismused for a particular crop needs to be carefully chosen for the mode of transgene spread that is most relevant for that crop, and be compatible with the harvested product (vegetative parts, fruits, or seeds).WhilenotthefocusoftheabovementionedEUpolicy,biologicalcontainmentmayalsobe beneficial when the spread of transgenes may be undesirable because of human health risks (pharmaceuticalsorrawindustrialproducts)orwhereoutcrossingtowildrelativesisaconsiderable risk. Depending on the particular application, biological containment strategies need to be proven failsafetovaryingdegrees.



TransContainer

The EU FW6 project TransContainer, which is coordinated by the authors, comprises 13 partners fromuniversities,researchandgovernmentinstitutes,SMEsandoneindustrialpartner.Theproject isinvestigatinganddevelopinganumberofstrategiesforbiologicalcontainment:

x Plastidtransformationasameanstopreventtransgenespread; x Preventionoffloweringasbiologicalcontainmentstrategy; x Controllingtransgenetransmissionthroughpollenandseed

Where necessary, we aim to complement these strategies with tightly controllable switches to restore fertility. The crops used are European crops grown for their seeds (oilseed rape), fruits (tomatoandeggplant),orvegetativeparts(sugarbeet,ryegrass,redfescue,poplarandbirch).For some of these crops, several strategies are being developed. Besides developing biological containmentstrategies,theprojectalso:

x Investigatestheimpactoftheimplementationofthesestrategiesonenvironmentaland foodsafetyandonthepossibleimprovementofcoexistencerules,

x Assesses the agroeconomic effects for European agriculture and compares different scenariosforcoexistence,

x Invokes stakeholder dialogue on socioeconomic and environmental issues by holding interviewsandworkshopsforstakeholdersandthepublic,

x Communicates coexistence issues and results of the project to stakeholders and the generalpublicthroughworkshops,theproject’swebsite,andproductionofaDVD.

The first results on the biological containment technologies of the Transcontainer project are beginning to emerge, and will be discussed (3, 4). Stakeholder involvement has proven to be a difficulttask,asalargepartofthepublicandtheusers(farmers)areonlyjustcomingtotermswith the introduction of GM crops and the associated coexistence measures. As a result, many of the stakeholdersarenotawareofthedifferentbiologicalcontainmentoptionsorhavenothadtimeto considerthem.Whenopinionsonthistechnologyhavebeengiven,theyusuallyfollowthelinesof the extremely polarized camps in Europe: proponents welcome the option or think that they are unnecessary,whileopponentsatbestdenouncereleaseofallGMOs,andatworstseeaplottoget GMOcropsacceptedorevenanexcusetodevelopGURTs,theinfamous“Terminator”technology. ThisworkwassupportedbytheEUFramework6Programme(Contractnr.023018).  References: 1. EuropeanCommission.LifesciencesandbiotechnologyaStrategyforEurope.[COM(2002) 27],http://ec.europa.eu/biotechnology/pdf/com200227_en.pdf 2. EuropeanCommission.Guidelinesforthedevelopmentofnationalstrategiesandbest practicestoensurethecoexistenceofgeneticallymodifiedcropswithconventionaland organicfarming.http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence2/guide_en.pdf 3. Colombo,M.,S.Masiero,S.Vanzulli,P.Lardelli,M.M.Kater,andL.Colombo.2008.AGL23,a typeIMADSboxgenethatcontrolsfemalegametophyteandembryodevelopmentin Arabidopsis.PlantJ.54:10371048. 4. DeMarchis,F,Wang,Y,Stevanato,P,Arcioni,S,andBellucci,M.Genetictransformationof thesugarbeetplastome.TransgenicRes2008DOI10.1007/s1124800891934

1.4. CoExtraintroduction

 YvesBertheau INRA,RoutedeSaintCyr,78026Versaillescedex,France.  CoExtraisanFP6(contract007158)researchprogramofthepriority5(Foodsafetyandquality)of theEuropeanCommissionwhichstartedinApril2005andfinishesinSeptember2009.

Its main aim is to provide practical tools to implement coexistence and traceability for the coexistenceofsupplychainsusingeitherGMO,conventionalproductsororganicagriculturederived products. This integrated project completes the two complementary STREPS: SIGMEA working mostlyonfieldcoexistenceandTranscontainerfocusingonbiocontainmentmethods.

The coexistence is understood as the ability to farmers to produce the agricultural products they wish, while still enabling the freedom of choice of consumers. The documentary and analytical traceabilitystudiedinCoExtraaretwotoolsnecessaryforbothmanagingthecoexistenceofsupply chainsandcontrollingtheresultsofthismanagement.Theproductstobemanagedoriginateeither from the European agriculture or from imports from third countries. In several aspects this managementofsupplychainsdoesnotdifferfromsystemsalreadyinplace,suchaswaxymaize,or seedsproductions.ThesegregationofsuchspecialitiesisquitewellknownandcontrolledintheEU andseveralthirdcountries,anddoesnotimpacttoomuchEuropeansupplychainscosts.Themain issue in segregating GM and nonGM products lies thus in a rather low labelling threshold of 0.9% andtheuseoftheDNAunittomeasurethis,asrecommendedbytheEC.

CoExtra first attempted to address coexistence from the farm to the retailer by starting empirical studiesandmodellinginfields,andstudyingtheiroutcomesmanagementintheupperpartsofthe supply chains. Gene flow studies on long distance of pollen dispersion on fragmented landscape were undertaken and statistical models were validated for e.g. maize. Biocontainment methods, designedtominimizegeneflow,werealsostudied.Theeffectsofseedsadmixtures,aswellasthose ofstackedgenes,onfieldsoutcomesoncurrentpollenflowmodelsandseedspuritywereassessed. Costsbenefitsanalysesofcoexistenceandtraceabilitywereundertakenwhilelookingforthemost costeffectivedetectionmethodstoreducetheirimpactonthefinalcosts.Thepracticesoftraders andthirdcountriesfarmerswereanalyzedinordertodeterminetrendsthatmaypredictthefuture ofEuropeansupplychains. Asaconsequenceofthe178/02Europeanregulation,documentarytraceabilityisawellknownand implementedpracticeinEuropeancompanies.GMOtraceabilitydiffersfromthisgeneralrequestof traceability by adding a longer period of documents preservation. Studies of documentary traceability, particularly in third countries, were undertaken for its positive impact on cost effectiveness on final prices and its current use in the EU. While the European policy opened the door to analytical controls, documentary traceability is a underestimated way to trace products at the lowest costs in supply chains provided the critical points of supply chains are clearly identified andmasteredafterinitialanalyticalcontrols.

As it was exemplified in a previous European study (Kelda / Keste) sampling large batches such as shipments of several thousand tons is not an easy task. The same apply to sampling in fields. As samplingisalsocarriedoutforseveralother purposessuchas mycotoxins, pathogens,allergens,a survey of sampling plans was carried out and the interest of combining different sampling plans tested.

Thanks to the 1829/03 and 1830/03 regulations, detection methods (currently Quantitative Real Time PCR) of EU approved GMOs are all validated through collaborative trials by the CRL (Community Reference Laboratory of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra). However, the

implementationofsuchmethodsvalidatedbyusingaparticularchemistryandgenerallyaparticular kind of apparatus may be costly and thus induce inappropriate analytical costs. CoExtra thus decided to compare chemistries and apparatuses to provide an enlarged freedom to laboratories applyingthesetechniques.AlternativedetectionmethodstoPCRwerealsostudiedaswellasfitfor purposeapparatustobeusedinfields.Moregenerallyspeaking,severalwaystoimprovethecost effectivenessofcurrentanalyticalmethodswereassessed.

AstheGMOproductionisincreasingworldwide,numerousincidentsofinvoluntaryreleaseofGMO occurred over the last years. GMO approved earlier in third country (e.g. asynchronous approvals betweene.g.USAandtheEU)haveappearedontheEuropeanmarkets.Moreworrying,newcomers in GMO production, such as some emerging countries, have developed unapproved GMO which havenowreachedtheEuropeanmarkets.InresponsetothisarrivalofseveralEUunapprovedGMO, CoExtra launched studies for developing detection methods for detecting EU unapproved GMOs. The same applied to GMO with stacked genes; some being unapproved though their isolated counterpartmaybeapproved,andtodetermineaccuratelythekernelscontentsofsampleshaving GMOmixturesofstackedandnonstackedgenes.

In order to retrieve information from stakeholders and share results with stakeholders, a dialogue wasinitiatedthroughthewebsite(www.coextra.eu),newsletters,focusgroups,andaStakeholder Advisory Board. In addition, the interviews carried out for the supply chains management and economicstudies.Thisdialoguewasalsoimprovedduringalargestudyofconsumers’attitudesand opinionsinseveralEuropeancountries.FromsomeattitudesobservedinthefocusgroupsCoExtra started studies on how to solve the issue of “low botanical presence’, where , for example a non GMOcargomaybeadmixedwithverylowlevelsofadifferentGMOcultivar.

The coexistence and the impact of traceability are both legal issues, thus several studies were launched on the current status of coexistence and traceability legal frame, liability and redress mechanisms.Asthescientificexpertiseperseisalsopronetolegalcontests,astudywaslaunched onthis,aswellacostbenefitanalysisfromalegalpointofviewonasupplychaincasestudy.

AlltheresultstobeissuedfromCoExtraaredifficulttosynthesizeinawaythatmakesthemeasily madeavailableandmastered,particularlybyallstakeholderssuchasSMEs.Thisisalsotrueforthe laboratories analysts who in routinely face several issues difficult to solve (as for instance the detectionofunapprovedGMO).CoExtrathuslaunchedasetofmodulesofaDSS(DecisionSupport System), integrating economic parts, management of supply chains with decision rules, laboratory analytical parts including careful assessment of the need for detecting unapproved GMOs in a sample.

Alltogether,the4yearsresearchofCoExtrahasbeenperformedbymorethan200scientists,with theirteamsandhasbeenattemptingtoprovideinsightsofcurrentpracticesandsolutionstoissues aswellasprovidingsolutionsforunpredictablesituations.Forthefirsttime,aEUresearchprogram has been addressing the whole supply chains, fromseeds to retailers shelves, their practices, their requirementsfortakingintoaccountboththeircurrentsolutionsandprovidingnewones.Theneeds ofthesupplychainsandtheirimpactonproductionofcropsprovidednewquestionsoncoexistence andtraceability,includingcostandtimeeffectivenessofanalyticalmethods.

The practical implementation of the several observations and solutions developed by CoExtra will haveimportanttechnical,scientific,economicandlegalimpacts.

SessionA1:MethodsforManagingGeneFlow



A1.1. Biologicalmeasuresforgeneflowmitigation

AlexandraHüskenandJoachimSchiemann

Julius Kuehn Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI), Institute for Biosafety of Genetically Modified Plants,Messeweg11/12,D38104Braunschweig.alexandra.huesken@jki.bund.de



WP1 (“Biological measures for gene flow mitigation) of CoExtra is aimed at assessing and developingbiologicaltoolsandmethodstoallowproducerstogrowthekindsofcropstheychoose with minimal levels of admixture between GM, conventional and organic products. Therefore, the generalobjectiveofthisWPistoanalyse,furtherdevelopandvalidatemethodsforrestrictinggene flowduringcultivationbyremovingorreducingthefertilityofpollenorseedsaswellastoidentify the major drivers of pollen flow over fragmented landscapes. It focus on crops for which GM varietiesarealreadyapprovedorclosetoauthorisation(maizeandrapeseed),andoncropswhose authorisation is expected during the next 5 years (sunflower, tobacco). The main aim of WP1 is to testthestabilityandreliabilityofbiologicalcontainmenttoolslikecytoplasmicmalesterilityinmaize and sunflower, cleistogamy in oilseed rape and plastid transformation in tobacco. Therefore, parametersofgeneflowofCMSmaizeandcleistogamousoilseedrapehasbeenstudiedunderfield conditions located at different sites in Europe. Moreover, data mining was performed to gain informationaboutthesuitabilityofchloroplasttransformationasacontainmentstrategy.

Tools modelling velocity and pollen concentrations over heterogeneous fields were also developed to assess the crosspollination rates between GM and conventional maize over large distances and fragmented landscapes. Based on gathered data a model of fluid mechanics was successfully validated.Fieldexperimentswerecarriedouttogaininformationaboutthemajordriversofmaize pollen flow over fragmented landscapes. Various factors involved in maize pollen emission and pollenflowwereanalysedthroughexistingdataanalysisandduetofieldexperiments.Seedlotsare starting points in an ever increasing supply food chain; therefore field experiments of maize seed admixture(1%GMseeds)havebeenconductedtoevaluatetheeffectofseedthresholdsonthefinal outcrossingrateintheharvestproduct.

In this presentation, certain results will be presented, which have been obtained in the work package.

A1.2. Biocontainmentofmaizebycytoplasmicmalesterilityandxenia

MunschM.1,2,C.Weider1,N.K.Christov3,X.Foueillassar4,A.Hüsken5,K.H.Camp2,andP.Stamp1

1ETHZ,InstituteofPlantScience,Switzerland 2DelleySeedsandPlants,Switzerland 3AgroBioInstitute,Bulgaria 4–Arvalis,InstitutduVégétal,France 5JuliusKuehnInstitute,InstituteforBiosafetyofGeneticallyModifiedPlants,Germany. 

While the genetically modified (GM) cultivations are spreading all over the world, the question of coexistence between the different farming systems is a main concern in Europe. For GM maize cultivation, the main issue is the release of GM pollen in the environment and the potential fertilizationofconventionaland/ororganicneighboringfields.Besidestudiesonisolationdistances betweenthefields,anotherapproachforgeneflowmitigationconsistsofthebiologicalcontainment of the transgene in cytoplasmic malesterile (CMS) plants. Cytoplasmic male sterility in maize (Zea

maize L.) is a natural trait due to a dysfunction in the mitochondrial DNA affecting sporogenesis.

CMS plants do not produce and release functional pollen. Three major types of malesterile cytoplasm (T, C and Stype) has been defined in maize according to the specific nuclear restorer genes(rfgenes)thatareabletocountermandthemalesterilityandrestorefertility.Breedersused thismaternallyinheritedtraitsincethe1950stominimizethecostsinhybridseedproduction.The Plushybrid system, i.e. growing suitable mixtures of GM cytoplasmic malesterile plants (80%) and unrelatednonGMmalefertileplants(20%),thelatteractingaspollendonors,isaninterestingway forcontrolling the release of pollen from genetically modified maize. The Plushybrid system relies onthefactthatthefemalefertilityofCMSplantsisnotaffected,andseedscanbesetifvitalpollen is provided. One prerequisite is however essential; the malesterile trait must be reliable under variousenvironmentalconditions.



EuropeanCMShybridsarereliablebiocontainmenttools[1]

Our hypothesis in this study was that one or more environmental factors may influence the expressionofthemalesterility.Therefore,fieldinvestigationswerecarriedoutin2005and2006in theframeof the EuropeanprojectCoExtra.Twenty modernCMShybridsfromdifferent European breeding companies representing all three cytoplasm types were tested in 17 environments in Switzerland,Bulgaria,GermanyandinFrance.Stableandunstablemalesterilityoccurredinallthree CMStypes.Thereversiontofertilitywasduetoaninteractionbetweengenetic(presenceofminorrf genes)andclimatic(airtemperature,photoperiodandwatervapor)factors.CMSTwasidentifiedas the most stable type of malesterile cytoplasm; nevertheless, due to its susceptibility to the fungi

Bipolaris maydis, its use may be limited to the growth of smallscaled transgenic fields, e.g.

molecular farming. While CMSS was often subject to restoration of fertility, the C type of male sterilitywassimilartotheTtypewithregardtomaintainingthemalesterilityandcouldbeapplied inalargerscaleforthegrowthofe.g.Btmaize(inmixturewithnontransgenicmalefertileplants). Even in situations, where the malefertile component of the PlusHybrid needs to be genetically modified too (e.g. herbicide tolerant trait), such a cultivation system can reduce the release of transgenicpollenby80%comparedtoaregularGMmaizestand,where100%ofthehybridsrelease transgenicpollen.

  

MaizePlusHybridsincreasegrainyield[2,3]

Beside their potential as a biocontainment tool, maize PlusHybrids combine benefits of male sterility (CMS effect) and allopollination (xenia effect) regarding the grain yield. They often outperform the corresponding malefertile sibpollinated hybrids. The potential gain in yield afforded by modern European PlusHybrid was investigated in a preliminary field trial in 2005 (3 locationsinSwitzerland)andinaEuropeanringtrialin2006and2007(12locationsinSwitzerland, Bulgaria, Germany and in France). Many PlusHybrids increased grain yield, on average, by 10% or more and by up to 20% in specific environments. The PlusHybrid effect affected both yield components, CMS leading mainly to a higher number of kernels and the xenia effect mainly to an increase in the thousand kernel weight. While the CMS effect depended strongly on the environment,thexeniawasconsistentinallenvironmentsbutitsextentvaried.

CytoplasmicmalesterilityisanelegantwaytominimizeoreveneliminatetheproblemofGMpollen flowofadjacentconventionalororganicfieldsifstableTandCcytoplasmisused.ThePlusHybrid systemwouldbeausefultooltoachieveanagriculturalbiocontainmentsystem.Forthissystem,a high level of male sterility must be maintained, as shown by this study. Furthermore, appropriate combinationsofCMShybridsandfertilepollinatorscanleadtoasignificantgaininyieldthatwould definitelyboosttheacceptanceofabiocontainmentsystemwithcytoplasmicmalesterility.  References: 1. C.Weider,P.Stamp,N.Christov,A.Husken,X.Foueillassar,K.H.CampandM.Munsch,Crop Sci49,7784(2009). 2. M.Munsch,K.H.Camp,P.StampandC.Weider,Maydica,inpress(2009). 3. M.Munsch,P.Stamp,N.Christov,X.Foueillassar,A.Hüsken,K.H.CampandC.Weider, CropSci,inreview(2009).

A1.3. Pollencontainmentbycleistogamyinoilseedrape

XavierPinochet2,AlexandraHuesken1,CharlesNjontie1,MartineLeflon2,DonPendergast3,Simon Kightley3 1 JKI,InstituteforBiosafetyofGeneticallyModifiedPlants,Messeweg11/12,D38104Braunschweig,Germany. 2 CETIOM,CentredeGrignon,BPno.4,F78850ThivervalGrignon,France. 3 NIAB,HuntingdonRoad,Cambridge,CB03OLE,UK  xavier.pinochet@cetiom.froralexandra.huesken@jki.bund.de  Thediversificationoffarmingproductionsystemswiththeapparitionoftransgeniccrops,aswellas thespecializationofcropscultivarsfordifferentmarkets,requiremeasurestopreventadventitious presence in productions at the field, storage and refinement level. For instance, in oilseed rape crops, such means are necessary to allow the coexistence of productions requiring different fatty acid composition. In fields, adventitious presence in adjacent fields is mainly due to pollen flow, whichhavetobereducedtomakepossiblethecoexistenceofdifferentcrops.Pollenflowbetween adjacent fields may be reduced by physical ways: by putting separation distances between fields grown with the same crops or by surrounding the crop of which the pollen is considered as contaminant with a buffer crop strips. Biological ways of containment, such as male sterility or cleistogamy, may also be used depending on the species. One simple way to prevent pollen flow betweenoilseedrapeistoensurethattheirflowersdonotopen.Cleistogamousplantsdonotexist naturally among the genetic resources of the oilseed rape species, but different lines of cleistogamousoilseedrapewereobtainedbychemicalinducedmutagenesisatINRARennes(Patent FR 97 15768). The cleistogamous trait is controlled by one gene (Renard and Tanguy 1997) and would be a good way of securing biocontainment, on condition that this trait is stable during the floweringperiodandundervariousenvironmentalandagriculturalconditions.Oneaimofourstudy was to test the stability of the cleistogamous trait in the field under several environmental conditions. In this goal, the flower opening level was observed at different dates during the flowering period, on two cleistogamous genotypes tested in three locations, during two successive years and under two treatments (with or without the application of a growth regulator at the vegetative restarting at the end of winter). The second aim was estimate the rate of adventitious presenceofcleistogamouslinesbyallopollenunderseveralenvironmentalconditions.Inthisgoal, the allopollination in seed sets collected on Clg1 plants was tested in three locations using erucic acidasamarkerduringtwosuccessiveyears.



MaterialandMethods

Thestabilityofthecleistogamoustraitwasassessedfortworapeseedcleistogamouslines,Clg1and Clg2,correspondingtothelines17046and16960,respectively,providedbyINRARennes(PatentFR 97 15768). Control cultivars were used in each site. In each site, a splitsplot field design, using a randomized block design, in four replications, was carried out, with elementary plot having areas between 22.5m² and 47,5 m². The development of the crop was characterized by notations of the dates when key development stages were reached and the plant height at maturity. During the floweringperiod,thestabilityofthecleistogamoustraitwasassessedvisuallybyscoringofopening levelonmatureflowersoftheinflorescencewithathreelevelscale:thefirstclasscorrespondedto thefullopenedflowers,thesecondclassofthetotallyclosedflowersthatappearedlikeabigyellow bud, and the last class of the partially opened flowers. Ten plants were scored per plot, with notationofatleastfiveflowersonthemainstemandononesecondarystem.

The allopollination was assessed for one rapeseed cleistogamous line (Clg1, corresponding to the lines 17046 provided by INRARennes (Patent FR 97 15768)). As a pollinator cultivar a high erucic

acid rapeseed line (Markant) was used in each site. The trial was isolated by at least 500m from otherrapeseedfields.Thetrialwascomposedof2neighbouringplots:Thefirstplotwassownwitha mixtureof99%ofMarcant(erucicline)seedsand1%ofClg1(cleistogamousline)seeds.Thesecond plotwassownwiththecleistogamouslineCleisto1.Eachplotwas50mlongand50mlargeandthe sowingrowshadthesamedirectionasthelimitbetweenthetwoplots,andasthedominantwind. Correlations between rates of seeds derived from crosses with the erucic line and the erucic acid content in seed sets were established in each site according to the erucic acid content of seeds producedbymanualcrossesbetweenClg1andtheerucicline.



Results

The first experiment showed that flowers of cleistogamous lines are mostly totally closed, but a variable proportion of flowers were observed as partially open. The average percentage of totally closed flowers (Clg1 and Clg2) reached 72.03% at location 1 (2007), 80.91% at location 2 (2007), 85.05% at location 3 (2007), 86.96% at location 2 (2006), 88.91% in at location 1 and 89.69% at location3(2006),withstandarddeviationsof26.6,24.3,19.3,9.54,7.9and6.6,respectivelyineach site x year. Global analyses of all the data from the six site x year combinations revealed that the environment (site x year) had an effect on the stability of the cleistogamous trait, as differences amongsitesandyearswereobserved.Themaineffectofgenotype(Clg1orClg2)explained33%of thevariabilityofthepercentageoftotallyclosedflowers.Thisstatisticalresultreflectsthedifference of mean and of variance showed by the two genotypes: in each environment, Clg1 showed a high stability level for the cleistogamous trait, whereas Clg2 showed a higher and more variable rate of partially open flowers. Finally, a low but significant difference was also observed between the notationsdoneontheprimaryoronsecondarystems,andtheapplicationofgrowthregulatorhad nosignificanteffect.

The second multisite experiment showed that the environment (site x year) had an effect on the allopollination,asdifferencesamongsitesandyearswereobserved.AllogamyratesofClg1undera highpressureofallopollen(Clg1sampledinerucicblock)varyinthreelocationsbetween4.4%and 16.2%.Thesamplescollectedonopenpollinatedcleistogamousplants(Clg1sampledinClg1block) at different distances from the erucic plots showed that the percentage of allogamy rates rapidly dropped over the initial meters around the pollen source and decreased as the distance from the pollensourceincreased.Insamples(location2)collectedonplantsat0mfromtheerucicplot,the erucic acid content reached at mean 1.64%, but at 6m, we observed only 0.26% of erucic acid. However, erucic acid was also detected in samples collected at 48m from the erucic plot, showing thatadventitiouspresence,atlowrates(lessthan0.2%)mayoccuratlargedistances.



Conclusions

The main result from our various studies is that cleistogamy has a major potential for limiting crosspollinationduetothestrongreductionofthepollencloud.Wesuggestthatisolationdistances implementedforoilseedrapecouldbedramaticallyreducedwhenusingcleistogamicoilseedrapeas acontainmentstrategy.  References: 1. RenardM.andX.Tanguy(1997):Obtentiondemutantscléistogamesdecrucifères.Brevet FR971576.

2. LeflonM,HueskenA.,NjontieC.,KightleyS.,PendergastD.,PierreJ.,RenardM.,PinochetX. (2009)Stabilityofthecleistogamoustraitduringthefolloweringperiodofoilseedrape AcceptedinPlantBreeding.

A1.4. Chloroplasttransformationandtransgenecontainment

RalphBock

MaxPlanckInstitut für Molekulare Pflanzenphysiologie, Am Mühlenberg 1, D14476 PotsdamGolm, Germany; Tel.: +49(0)3315678700,Fax:+49(0)3315678701,Email:rbock@mpimpgolm.mpg.de



Plantswithtransgenicplastidgenomes(referredtoas„transplastomic“plants)provideanattractive alternative to conventional transgenic plants (Ruf et al., 2001; Bock and Khan, 2004) and are increasingly used in metabolic engineering, resistance engineering and molecular farming (Bock 2007a).Theplastidtransformationtechnologyoffersseveraltechnicalattractions,suchas,highlevel transgeneexpression(reachingforeignproteinaccumulationlevelsofupto>70%oftheplant’stotal solubleprotein;Oeyetal.,2009),convenienttransgenestacking inoperons,absenceofepigenetic transgene instability (no gene silencing and position effects) and precise transgene integration by homologous recombination (Bock, 2001; Bock 2007a). Furthermore, the increased biosafety provided by transplastomic plants is of particular relevance to future applications of genetic engineeringinagricultureandbiotechnology.Plastids(chloroplasts)arematernallyinheritedinmost crops. Maternal inheritance excludes plastid genes and transgenes from pollen transmission (Bock 2007b).Therefore,plastidtransformationisconsideredtoprovideasuperbtooltoensuretransgene containmentandimprovethebiosafetyoftransgenicplants.Inalargescalestudy,wehaverecently assessedhowstrictmaternalinheritanceisandhowmuchincreaseintransgeneconfinementplastid transformationtechnologyconfers.Wehavedevelopedanexperimentalsystemfacilitatingstringent selectionforoccasionalpaternalplastidtransmission(Rufetal.,2007).Inalargegeneticscreen,we detectedlowlevelpaternalinheritanceoftransgenicplastidsintobacco(Nicotianatabacum),oneof the currently most preferred species in molecular farming (i. e., the highyield production of pharmaceuticalsinplants).WhilethefrequencyoftransmissionintothecotyledonsofF1seedlings was approximately 1.58 x 105 (upon 100% crossfertilization), transmission into the shoot apical meristemwassignificantlylower(2.86x106).Astheseexperimentsaddresstheworstcasescenario (100% crossfertilization, strong selection for the transgenic plastids), our data demonstrate that plastidtransformationprovidesahighlyeffectivetooltoincreasethebiosafetyoftransgenicplants (Ruf et al., 2007). However, in cases where pollen transmission must be prevented altogether, stacking with other containment methods will be necessary to eliminate the residual outcrossing risk.  References: 1. Bock,R.(2001).Transgenicchloroplastsinbasicresearchandplantbiotechnology.J.Mol. Biol.,312,425438. 2. Bock,R.andKhan,M.S.(2004).Tamingplastidsforagreenfuture.TrendsBiotechnol.,22, 311318. 3. Bock,R.(2007a).Plastidbiotechnology:prospectsforherbicideandinsectresistance, metabolicengineeringandmolecularfarming.Curr.Op.Biotechnol.,18,100106. 4. Bock,R.(2007b).Structure,functionandinheritanceofplastidgenomes.TopicsCurr.Genet., 19,2963. 5. Oey,M.,Lohse,M.,Kreikemeyer,B.andBock,R.(2009).Exhaustionofthechloroplast proteinsynthesiscapacitybymassiveexpressionofahighlystableproteinantibiotic.Plant J.,57,436445.

6. Ruf,S.,Hermann,M.,Berger,I.J.,Carrer,H.andBock,R.(2001).Stablegenetic transformationoftomatoplastidsandexpressionofaforeignproteininfruit.Nature Biotechnol.,19,870875. 7. Ruf,S.,Karcher,D.andBock,R.(2007).Determiningthetransgenecontainmentlevel providedbychloroplasttransformation 



A1.5. Mesoscaledispersalofmaizepollenandimplicationsforgeneflow

SylvainDUPONT,YvesBRUNET

INRA,Ephyse,Bordeaux,France



The growing introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops has generated a host of research efforts aimed at investigating the possibilities for coexistence between GM, conventional and organic farming systems. Published experimental and modelling studies aimed at characterizing pollen dispersal have shown that most pollen emitted by a source field deposits within a short distancefromthelatter,butalsothattheobserveddispersalfunctionshavelongfattails,makingit possibleforpollentocontaminateplantsatratherlongdistances.

Such possibility has been recently confirmed from (i) a series of airborne measurements of maize andoilseedrapepollenconcentrationandviabilityintheatmosphericboundarylayer,(ii)chamber measurements of pollen viability in a large range of temperature and humidity conditions and (iii) observationsoffecundationsinisolatedplotsofwhitekernel maize,atseveralkmfromanymaize field.

Inordertobetterunderstandlongrangedispersalofmaizepollenanapproachhasbeendeveloped tosimulatethetrajectoriesanddehydrationofpollengrainsintheatmosphereatregionalscale.To this purpose the nonhydrostatic mesoscale MesoNH model has been modified so as to introduce sourcetermsforpollenemission,conservationequationsforpollenconcentrationandmoisture,and a deposition velocity. Simulations have been performed over SouthWest France on several days during the maize pollination period. MesoNH is run in a twoway nested configuration including threenestedcomputationaldomainsdowntoa2kmhorizontalresolution.GISbasedlandusemaps are used for the surface conditions, featuring all the maize fields of the region, as previously identified from satellite data. Considering several days during which airborne measurements were performed, observed and simulated concentration profiles are found to agree well throughout the atmospheric boundary layer. The simulations allow the pollen plume to be characterized through each day and deposition maps of viable pollen to be produced. The calculated deposition rates at remotedistancesfromthemaizefieldsareinthesamerangeasthoseobservedinsitu.Theresults provide evidence that background fortitious contamination is unavoidable at regional scale. Additionaltestsimulationswillbeperformedusingspecificlandusepatternsinordertoquantifythe impactoflandscapestructureonregionalpollendeposition.

Session A2: Coexistence and Traceability in Agriculture and Food

Production



A2.1. Empiricalanalysisofcoexistenceincommoditysupplychains



JuergenBez1,RomainBourgier2,JamesCopeland3,MiaEeckhout4,ChemaGil5,NicolasGryson4, MortenGylling6,MarianneLeBail2,7,BaptisteLécroart2,MariuszMaciejczak8,VladimirMeglic9,Klaus Menrad10,AntoineMesséan2,LouisGeorgesSoler2,MattthiasStolze11,CiroTapia12,Aurélie

Trouillier2 1 FhGIVV,FraunhoferGesellschaftzurAngewandtenForschung,Germany 2 INRA,InstitutNationaldelaRechercheAgronomique,France 3 CSL,CentralScienceLaboratory,UK 4 HogeschoolGent,Belgium 5 CREDA,CentrodeInvestigacionenEconomiaYDesarrolloAgroalimentariosUPCIRTA,Spain 6 FOI,TheDanishResearchInstituteofFoodEconomics,Denmark 7 AgroParisTech,France 8 WarsawUniversityofLifeSciencesSGGW,Poland 9 KIS,AgriculturalInstituteofSlovenia,Slovenia 10 FW,UniversityofAppliedSciencesofWeihenstephan,Germany 11 FiBL,ForschungsinstitutfürBiologischenLandbau,Switzerland 12 INTA,InstitutoNacionaldeTecnologaAgropecuaria,Argentina  Introduction

Coexistence refers to the ability of farmers and consumers to make a practical choice between conventional,organic,andgeneticallymodified(GM)products,basedoncompliancewiththelegal obligationforlabellingand/orpuritystandards.AdventitiousmixingofGMmaterialwithanonGM productcanoccuratvariousstagesalongtheproductsupplychain,fromthefieldwherethecropis grown to the handling and processing plant. In the framework of CoExtra, the organization of different supply chains were  analysed and sensitive points and processes were identified with respect to GM and nonGM admixture and traceability. Seven commodity supply chains were investigated in various countries: soybean, maize, sugar beet, rapeseed, wheat, fresh tomato and potatoes.

Methodologyused

This empirical analysis of coexistence was based upon supply chain analysis and stakeholders’ interviews.Interviewsfocuseduponageneraldescriptionofcompaniesandprocesses,andonthe solutions currently adopted to deal with coexistence between GM and nonGM products. Supply chainshavenotbeenfacedtothecoexistenceissuewiththesamedegree,especiallyduetothefact that only a few GM varieties have been authorized in Europe. Thus, questionnaires also included questions about existing specialties supply chain (such as waxy maize, upper standard rapeseed, erucic rapeseed, etc) to gain an insight into how some stakeholders cope with the coexistence betweendifferenttypesofconventionalproducts.