Comments in response to “Enhancing Agricultural Coexistence; Request for 

Public Input”

Overview

In response to the Request for Information on agricultural coexistence published in the Federal Register

on November 4, 2013, APHIS received 4,161 comments by the comment closing date of January 3, 2014. 

The comments were from organic farmers, conventional farmers, and farmers that grow genetically 

engineered (GE) crops, as well as national, regional, and State trade organizations representing them; seed 

companies; organic product retailers; consumer rights, environmental protection, and other nonprofit 

advocacy organizations; consumers of organic foods; scientific research organizations; a U.S. Senator1, 

and members of the public. One consumer protection organization submitted a petition, signed by over 

27,000 supporters, urging the Secretary to prevent GE contamination by implementing the AC21 report 

recommendations for protecting non-GE crop production and seed.

2 Another consumer organization 

submitted a letter signed by nearly 32,000 supporters calling for local control over GE crops and for 

labels on GE foods.3

The majority of commenters generally opposed the growing, production, and marketing of GE products

with some commenters indicating that GE crops should be banned. Many raised concerns about issues 

not addressed in the Request for Information, particularly labeling of GE products (wanted); effects on

animal and human health from ingesting GE products; environmental effects of glyphosates and other 

herbicides, as well as pesticide use; contamination of heirloom and conventional seed stocks; international 

trade implications, and consumer rights, among others. 

Most of the comments we received that referenced the AC21 report to the Secretary opposed the premise 

that coexistence could effectively provide protection for the organic farming industry and the consumers 

that support it. (It should be noted, however, that most commenters opposing coexistence did not engage 

the report’s recommendations in detail.) Commenters also expressed the view that the report privileges 

the rights of GE growers over those of organic growers, and particularly expressed concern with the 

AC21 report recommendation of a compensation mechanism for GE contamination based on a crop 

insurance model. These commenters stated that the responsibility for preventing contamination needs to

lie with GE growers and the GE industry. 

 

1

Senator John Tester of Montana. The comment expressed concern that the Coordinated Framework for Regulation 

of Biotechnology is not adequately protecting health, safety, markets, and choice in the review of genetically 

engineered crops. It also stated that companies that create and market GE seed should be held accountable for the 

contamination-related economic losses of non-GE farmers. The comment also stated that USDA should ensure that 

cross-pollination issues are addressed, develop best management practices for the maintenance of high purity seeds, 

and require that GE seed companies, their supply and distribution chains, and users of GE seeds follow these 

practices to prevent contamination. Finally, the comment expressed the view that GE foods should be labeled at the 

point of purchase (with an acknowledgment that this is not in APHIS’ purview). The comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-4141. 

2

Food and Water Watch. They requested that APHIS: 1) Investigate the state of contamination in the commercial 

seed supply and the economic burden of contamination on organic and non-GE farmers in the United States; 2)

Create a plan to maintain the purity of public seed supplies and ensure that the non-GE seed supply is adequate to fit 

the needs of non-GE and organic farmers; and 3) Continue the work of the National Genetic Resources Advisory 

Council. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-

3898

3 Organic Consumers Association. The comment is located at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=APHIS-2013-0047-3873.
2

While many commenters dismissed the concept of coexistence and specific recommendations of the 

AC21 report, some did provide constructive responses to the questions in the Request for Information. A 

summary of responses to each of these recommendations is provided below. 

Some commenters appear to be unaware that actions they recommend are contained in the report’s 

recommendations, while other commenters oversimplified or misinterpreted the report’s 

recommendations. Some commenters requested actions that are beyond the current authority of USDA to 

implement. This comment summary does not attempt to reconcile points made in the comments with 

what is actually contained in the report or what is feasible. It is simply intended to represent the scope 

and content of commenter responses. 

Topic 1: Information Needs and Communication to Foster Coexistence

Information Content:

Several commenters suggested that if coexistence is to work, all types of farmers—conventional, organic, 

and GE—need specific, scientific, and unbiased information about GE farming methods and effects on 

non-GE farming. One commenter, a sustainable agriculture consultant, echoed the view of these 

commenters in stating that “good information is the essential starting point for fostering effective 

communication and collaboration among stakeholders; for effective prevention of unintended GE material 

in non-GE crops; and thus for effective coexistence.”

Another commenter stated that considerable uncertainty exists among farmers about what defines a 

specific type of production system. If USDA developed clear definitions for each type of production 

system (organic, conventional, GE) that could be agreed upon by all types of producers, the commenter 

thought that it could eliminate many disputes and misconceptions about coexistence and facilitate its 

adoption. Similarly, one commenter suggested that USDA produce videos or other material that depicts 

various forms of agriculture production and how they can co-exist.

In addition, many commenters stated that farmers need accurate information regarding several aspects of 

GE crop varieties in order to make sound decisions regarding whether and how to use GE technology on 

their farms, and how to avoid unintended GE material in non-GE crops. One commenter, the National 

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)4, suggested a framework for coexistence that addresses the 

following needs:

 Knowledge of agronomic risks as well as benefits associated with GE varieties. Known risks 

include evolution of herbicide resistant weeds where herbicide tolerant GE crops are grown with 

increased use of the corresponding herbicides; and evolution of pest resistance from planting GE 

crops. Potential risks also include impacts of GE crops on soil life, and changes in nutritional 

quality of feed grains and forages.

 Accurate information on outcrossing distances for different GE crops, and appropriate minimum 

buffer distances to meet the criteria for non-GE markets, and the higher criteria for non-GE crop 

seed production.

 Sound advice on other measures that GE farmers should take to minimize gene flow beyond farm 

boundaries, and that non-GE farmers should take to avoid or minimize risks to their crops.

 

4 According to NSAC, their allied organizations contributed to drafting the comment, including the Virginia 

Association for Biological Farming, Union of Concerned Scientists, Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education 

Service, FarmAid, and Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture.
3

 Accurate information regarding purity (freedom from unintended GE content) of non-GE crop 

seed from different sources.

Other commenters suggested that growers need more information about the larger environmental and 

economic implications of GE contamination, stating that these topics are of critical importance to the 

ideas underpinning coexistence and how one system of agriculture can directly and indirectly impact the 

viability of the other.

Some commenters expressed the need for more complete and accurate information on the incidence of 

economic losses to non-GE farmers from unintended presence of GE material in crop seed or crop 

harvests, including information on the dollar losses incurred by farmers affected. Commenters also stated

that the need for science-based information and effective preventive measures will multiply as the number 

of crop species for which GE varieties are commercialized increases. 

A few commenters expressed concerns with where to obtain reliable information. For instance, one 

commenter indicated that production information such as improving nutrient uptake, different chemicals 

to use and seed traits come from several places, making it difficult to know which information is 

scientifically valid. 

One conventional crop farmer asked the USDA to establish science-based information regarding food 

production and marketing practices because some groups are spreading misinformation through the media

about the production and risks of genetically modified crops. As a consequence, conventional production 

farmers have almost no credibility when responding to these falsehoods. The commenter stated that the

USDA should take the lead in requiring factual information to be used regarding GE production. 

One commenter, a biological farming association,5stated many of the tools and educational services 

currently available regarding GE crop varieties are “promulgated by patent holders, and may be biased or 

inaccurate. There is an acute need for unbiased and accurate educational materials.” The commenter 

added that this may necessitate promulgating regulations requiring patent holders to allow independent 

researchers access to their GE crop germplasm for evaluation. In addition, the commenter stated that the 

effort to educate should include explaining how the regulatory system works and drawing on USDA’s 

strong track record in regulating GE production. The commenter added that USDA should focus its 

efforts on developing and disseminating sound, impartial information, beginning with conducting the 

needed research. 

Some commenters asserted that there is a lack of impartial research to back claims that GE crops pose no 

greater health, environmental, or agronomic risks than conventional crops, indicating that such claims are 

often based on poorly designed studies conducted by patent holders rather than impartial, independent 

scientists. Much of the information available to farmers, according to other commenters, is disseminated 

by GE patent holders; such information can be misleading, as it is designed to emphasize the benefits and 

downplay the risks associated with GE crop varieties. 

Commenters also indicated that claims that few or no non-GE farmers have actually incurred losses from 

GE contamination are based on scant information. The problem may be further underestimated, they 

stated, because affected farmers are reluctant to speak out of fear of retaliation by neighbors or patent 

holders.

 

5 Virginia Association for Biological Farming. The comment may be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-3381.
4

Information Medium and Means of Delivery:

A few commenters provided information about where they currently obtain data relating to coexistence 

and by what medium they prefer to receive new information. 

One commenter stated the need for USDA to use several different mediums to reach both younger and 

older generations involved in agricultural production. The commenter cited the importance of e-mail 

alerts/newsletters, printed newsletters, utilizing already established networks and social media. Several 

commenters stated, however, that face to face interaction is often the best form of communication. 

Several commenters indicated that the most efficient way to facilitate face to face interaction regarding 

agricultural coexistence would be via regional forums. Another commenter stated that they prefer to 

receive information from the USDA through the Federal Register.

Some commenters expressed the desire to have maps or other means to locate production of GE and nonGE crops in order to learn about potential sources of GE pollen or locations of sensitive non-GE crop 

production. On the other hand, some stated that pinning maps have proven ineffective in a voluntary 

system and will be less useful as GE crops are planted more widely and in increasing varieties.

A few commenters suggested that information about GE plantings be disseminated through local food coops, markets, and other organizations involving organic producers. One commenter, a member of a local 

food co-op, indicated that their co-op functions as a “community nexus” where producers, distributers and 

consumers can exchange information and is where the "tire meets the pavement" in how actual policies 

play out in the real world, locally.

Ways of promoting and increasing collaboration among stakeholders:

In addition to providing input on ways of promoting collaboration, some commenters brought up what 

they perceived to be as obstacles to collaboration.

Several commenters, many of whom identified themselves as organic crop producers and consumers,

expressed the view that the burden of collaboration is being placed disproportionately upon organic and 

conventional producers and that there can be no collaboration when one agricultural technology has the 

propensity to trump all of the rest: “There must be a shared sacrifice,” stated one commenter. Another 

stated that “farmers who don't want to grow GE crops face significant burdens. To protect their crops, 

farmers must establish wide buffer zones, losing the use of significant amounts of land. They spend time 

and extra money to find non-GE seeds. And if they are contaminated despite their efforts, they lose sales 

in organic and non-GE markets.” 

Many commenters also shared the view that communication between neighboring farmers is “a good 

thing,” but that communication alone is not a viable solution to preventing and dealing with 

contamination. Some added that this is not just an issue for organic farmers, since those who are hurt 

most often by genetic and chemical contamination from GE production are conventional farmers.

The general view, stated one commenter, is that communication takes place between GE and non-GE 

farmers but that there is no way to enforce a responsible behavior change beyond peer pressure. On the 

other hand, many organic farmers stated that they knew which farmers in their area were growing GE 

crops but did not express an interest into entering into a dialogue about coexistence with them.
5

One commenter, a seed trade association,6stated that cooperation among seed developers, seed producers 

and growers at the local field level, particularly communication among neighboring growers, is necessary 

for successful coexistence. They emphasized that seed companies have been coping with coexistence for 

decades and have developed mechanisms that work. The commenter added that “third parties, including 

the public sector, have historically played an important role in validating product integrity and facilitating 

coexistence at a field planting level. Communication along the value chain is necessary for understanding 

and developing reasonable market expectations.” 

Another commenter representing a national consumer advocacy organization7stated that existing 

unregulated and unmonitored use of GE technology precludes access to non-GE markets and limits the 

success of organic, identity preserved (IP), and non-GE farmers once contamination occurs or is 

suspected. Under this current scenario, the commenter stated, transgenic polluters escape liability for 

contamination and restitution costs and are allowed to contaminate without restrictions: “It is a win-win 

situation for GE growers and a lose-lose situation for everyone else.” Similarly, many organic growers 

spoke of being surrounded by GE producers and were concerned that no buffer could be big enough to 

contain cross-pollination. 

Many commenters shared the view that USDA is depending too heavily on outreach and collaboration 

among stakeholders when it should instead be using this opportunity to establish a more consistent and 

comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent contamination. One commenter stated that “the view 

that ‘farmers can just work it out among themselves’ without a strong federal oversight regime is a recipe 

for significant problems.” Many commenters held the view that if GE growers are held accountable to 

USDA and not just their neighbors, collaboration and coexistence among agricultural sectors would be 

improved.

A national family farm advocacy group8submitted a petition with over 2,200 signatures. The petition 

expressed the need for a mechanism for protecting the confidentiality of farmers commenting about 

contamination incidents but to still have those comments included in the public record. (For comments 

on this notice, people could and did comment as “anonymous." We note that USDA-APHIS-BRS has a 

separate hotline for reporting compliance incidents involving regulated GE organisms. Such a hotline 

could be something that people are educated about.)

One commenter suggested an incentive-based approach to cooperation, noting the need to “provide 

adequate resources to extension educators and related personnel that could help provide incentives for 

cooperation in time and space so contamination is reduced.” Similarly, another commenter recommended 

a compensation mechanism modeled on the private insurance industry that would “incentivize desired 

behaviors and thus spur pro-coexistence actions by all parties: 

The private insurance industry will always attempt to shift risk in order to achieve maximum 

value. This analysis of burden-shifting not only assigns fault and compensation in a way that 

maximizes value for all parties involved, but also achieves the ultimate goal of the compensation 

mechanism, which is to disincentivize the behavior causing the loss and thus minimize the risk of 

loss in the future.

 

6 American Seed Trade Association. Their comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-3629

7 Center for Food Safety. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS2013-0047-3913. 

8

Farm Aid. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-

4026
6

Another commenter tied incentivized approaches to a recommendation made in the AC21 report: 

With respect to the aim of coexistence, the technology providers have the financial and 

technological resources to mitigate the risk of future genetic drift. If the responsibility for loss due 

to genetic drift is shifted to the technology provider, the provider is incentivized to thoroughly 

and accurately research the efficacy of buffer zones and other coexistence measures and to 

develop practices to minimize the risk of genetic drift. This approach would also address the 

AC21’s call for research regarding the efficacy of coexistence strategies under Recommendation 

IV of the report.

Topic 2: Education Needs and Learning Tools

A substantial number of commenters indicated that “voluntary solutions, such as education, collaboration, 

outreach and communication among farmers fail to deal with preventing ongoing GE contamination.” 

Many commenters indicated that APHIS seeks input on questions of education and outreach but that 

doing so is “putting the cart before the horse.” They stated that coexistence education is not possible

when there is no clear message around the issues brought up in the AC21 report. The commenters stated 

that USDA must first establish clear guidelines for research, compensation, stewardship, and preserving 

seed quality before any effort to educate, collaborate, and conduct outreach. Voluntary solutions on these 

issues are insufficient; that is what we have today and it is clearly not working.”

On the other hand, a comment supported by the American Farm Bureau, the Biotechnology Industry 

Organization, and several other grower and trade groups9stated that coexistence is already working and 

supported the view that education could continue to promote coexistence. They provided a list of 

priorities to guide education and outreach efforts:

 Draw on grower leadership and expertise. These efforts should be led by farmers and educators that 

have expertise in crop production and have an interest in identifying and promoting effective local 

solutions.

 Seek local solutions. A key objective of efforts to promote coexistence should be to identify and 

disseminate information so farmers can adopt effective solutions at a local level. Therefore, any 

program should be flexible and take into account the local and regional diversity in agriculture and 

needs related to coexistence.

 Be crop specific. Because of biological differences, any program should be designed to be flexible 

and responsive to the specific agronomic and coexistence needs of individual crops and cropping 

systems.

Several commenters expressed the view that an outreach toolkit is not a replacement for mandated 

prevention practices, and that “without requirements for users and owners of GE products, organic and 

non-GE farmers are again the ones most likely to sacrifice since they have more at stake and are more

likely to plant buffer zones (taking land out of production) and planting later in the season (often taking a 

hit in yields).”

Some commenters considered consumer education as an important component of educating about 

coexistence. For instance, one commenter stated that "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” should be 

 

9 The other signatories include the Agricultural Retailers Association, American Seed Trade Association, American 

Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Soybean Association, CropLife America, National Association of Wheat 

Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 

and Western Growers. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS2013-0047-3686. 
7

expanded greatly so that most consumers have a good idea of how and where their food is produced. 

“Most people who take the time to explore the origins or their food usually make wiser food purchases for

their families. Knowledge is power.” 

Many commenters stated that more research was needed on GE s to ensure a secure non-GE seed supply. 

“If the USDA is going to educate the agricultural community, it should learn more about the impacts of 

GE products and monitor contamination in the seed supply.” A national alliance of organizations

supporting organic agriculture10 added that USDA should immediately create a GE contamination registry 

so it can track and eliminate known sources of GE contamination across the supply chain.

Available educational tools:

A few organizations, including the Michigan Farm Bureau, indicated that rather than focusing on 

regulatory solutions, USDA should support educational initiatives and risk mitigation strategies that will 

build upon already existing grower-to-grower and crop-to-crop solutions:

These efforts will be most successful when they are driven by farmers who are familiar with 

crop production practices in their immediate area, and have an interest in identifying and 

promoting effective solutions. Farm and commodity organizations, Farm Bureau included, 

should be engaged as partners in these efforts. We urge USDA to work through the land grant 

universities and existing local extension networks to deliver scientifically-sound information. 

Extension agents and crop advisors at the local level have the best expertise to address 

stewardship recommendations appropriate for specific geographic locations and crops. This will 

help ensure educational programs related to coexistence will be relevant to local situations and 

address any localized problems. 

Another commenter, the National Corn Growers Association,11 stated that as USDA looks for ways to 

educate and provide outreach, “they should utilize existing resources rather than creating any new 

government program to address the issue. Farmers already have interactions with beginning farmer and 

rancher programs, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency offices, and the 

National Organic Program, to name a few. It would make sense for USDA to utilize these existing 

networks as farmers are already familiar with them...” 

A biologist12 commented that further education on genetics could help people opposed to GE s understand 

what it is they are actually opposing on a scientific level: 

The best application for enhancing agricultural coexistence is basic science education on how 

genetics works, that inserting a sequence for a protein is a more precise version of crossbreeding 

that agriculture has done for centuries. After establishing baseline understanding of what 

actually happens when genes are modified, clearer rules on what can and can't be regulated can 

be determined. When people ask for a GE ban, are they asking to stop transgenics? From 

mutations within a species? From changing or deleting copies? These are details that many antiGE consumers miss, nuances that will let good research be unfairly targeted (like the golden rice 

project13).

 

10 National Organic Coalition. The comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-3916.

11 The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-4002.

12 The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-1020.

13 Genetically engineered Golden Rice produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, and increased levels of 

iron. The goal of the project is to reduce nutrition deficiencies in developing countries by providing the fortified 

rice seed, free of cost, to small-scale farmers to grow in these countries, where it would then be consumed.
8

Other commenters agreed that USDA should build on existing education materials and focus on local 

extension networks to deliver it, to “identify and empower farmers with reliable information to adopt 

effective coexistence solutions at a local level.” The American Farm Bureau14 commented that any 

program should “acknowledge and be flexible to the local and regional diversity in agriculture and needs 

related to coexistence. Local efforts could be facilitated by partnering with the land grant university and 

research extension system to take advantage of existing capacity and technical expertise.” The 

commenter added that “USDA should partner with state departments of agriculture, universities and local 

cooperative extensions services on focused education and outreach efforts. Extension agents and crop 

advisors at the local level have the best expertise to address stewardship recommendations that are 

appropriate for specific geographic locations and crops.”

One commenter, an organic education service,15 suggested that GE producers should receive training in 

coexistence practices: “those who choose to use GE s should be required to attend a course that discusses

GE contamination prevention protocols, similar to pesticide applicator training classes. While it is the 

non-GE farmer who is in the minority, it is not these farmers that are causing the damage and they should 

not be the ones who are mandated to take classes.”

The International Food Information Council Foundation16 commented that their organization “regularly

creates outreach toolkits” and offered to assist the USDA in coexistence outreach and education. 

Some commenters suggested using contracts as a tool to reduce gene flow and foster coexistence. These 

comments are discussed below.

Education about contracts:

One commenter stated that the question of contracts “needs to be broadened to include contracts that both 

GE and non-GE farmers enter into with seed providers (GE) and markets/buyers (both). GE crop 

technology agreements should be written to ensure that farmers understand their obligations to 

neighboring farmers (to prevent unwanted gene flow) as well as to their GE seed providers. Organic and 

IP non-GE farmers need to understand their marketing contracts in terms of tolerances for unintended GE 

content.”

One commenter urged USDA to help GE crop farmers with contracts, by

paying due attention to the contracts that GE crop farmers sign with the seed provider, and help 

the farmer understand and follow provisions within the contract that can help minimize the risk of 

gene flow onto neighboring farms. If current GE technology agreements do not include 

provisions for minimizing these risks, USDA should require GE technology providers to add 

them to their contracts and ensure that farmers understand them. In addition, organic and IP nonGE producers who grow and market crops under contract need to understand buyers’ 

requirements regarding freedom from unintended GE material, tolerance thresholds, and 

stewardship practices that will help minimize risks of GE contamination. 

The commenter concluded by stating that “the bottom line is that adequate preventive measures must be 

implemented by GE patent holders and GE crop farmers, so that the onus of prevention does not fall 

entirely on organic and non-GE farmers who do not benefit from the technology in the first place.”

 

14Comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-0963.

15 Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS2013-0047-3455. 

16 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-4166
9

Another commenter, a sustainable agriculture organization,17 added that tools for GE farmers to help them 

reduce gene flow can also include appropriate provisions in contracts with GE patent holders.

An organic education service18 questioned how contracts might be used to foster coexistence: 

Producers should be able to write their own contracts for their intended market and they should 

not be the ones who are mandated to take classes. In our free market society, should the USDA 

be mandating what goes into a contract? If a buyer is willing to take corn with a 1% tolerance of 

GE DNA presence, then they can do that, or they can decide on 0% tolerance, or whatever the 

market will bear. The non-GE and organic farmers as well as the buyers of their crops do not 

want this GE contamination and are the victims of a defective technology.

Available geographic information:

Some non-GE farmers commented that there should be a national database available so they can find out 

which GE crops are being planted next door and what contamination issues they can expect. Similarly, 

other commenters stated that for GE farmers, there is no registry to track where their crops are being 

grown and it is a burden for non-GE farmers to figure out who is farming the land adjoining theirs and 

what they are planting. They indicated that similar databases already exist at the state level for pesticide 

application so that people can avoid unwanted drift exposure. A few of these commenters indicated that

such a database would be especially important with regard to additional pesticide exposure resulting from 

increased use of GE crops.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and its member organizations19 cited the issue of 

nonresident landowners and the difficulty with determining the actual producer of a GE crop, in turn 

making it a challenge to engage in collaboration: 

With the majority of land being operated by nonresident landowners, larger operations farming 

the land using a variety of custom operators to perform various activities, and land leases of only 

one year, it has become difficult to find the entity that is buying the seed and planting it. You 

cannot assume the landowner would be able to provide contact information for the person who 

both makes the decisions on crop planting as well as the person actually doing it. It is a huge 

burden to place on the non-GE farmer, to ask them to find and discuss planting protocols and 

other issues with whomever it is managing the neighboring land. It is a huge burden to place on 

the non-GE farmer to ask them to find and discuss planting protocols and other complex issues 

with the manager of the neighboring land.

Decision support system:

In commenting on challenges to establishing a decision support system, a few commenters thought that it 

was premature to establish one “in the absence of a sufficient database of impartial, science-based 

information to create valid algorithms for each crop and each GE trait, without which no credible decision 

support system can be generated. They added that “information for crop species with existing GE 

varieties in production is scant and often biased; information for additional crop species with GE varieties 

in development does not yet exist.” 

 

17 National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-4090

18 See footnote 15.

19 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-4090. 
10

Similarly, other commenters stated that effective measures to protect non-GE farmers from GE 

contamination (whether through cross pollination during production, or through GE-commingled crop 

seed) must be in place in order for any decision support system to be effective.

Topic 3: Practices and Activities to Promote Collaboration

Factors affecting local, voluntary coexistence solutions: 

Most commenters opposed the concept of coexistence, noting that it was premature to consider this 

concept without further research into the safety of GE s. Commenters stated that before considering 

coexistence, USDA should avoid rushing into deregulation of additional GE crops, consider adopting a 

moratorium until the required research regarding health and environmental safety of GE technology, and 

ensure effective prevention of unintended GE content in non-GE crops.

A large number of individual commenters were skeptical that voluntary coexistence would work. 

Commenters stated that a lack of information, lack of trust, and lack of adequate regulatory framework to 

protect non-GE farmers from contamination and associated liability all prevent local voluntary solutions 

from working. They added that the inherent nature of strongly outcrossed species makes it hard to 

manage contamination and achieve coexistence through local voluntary solutions alone. However, many 

commenters, regardless of whether they supported or opposed GE production, believed that “local 

involvement and decision making is better than a one size fits all national or state program.”

Concerns with voluntary coexistence plans:

Voluntary written coexistence plans would, in the view of many commenters, add another unfair burden 

to most farmers who chose not to use GE seeds or processors who chose not to risk contamination of 

products they produce. Organic farmers questioned what recourse they would have if GE farmers did not 

adhere to the coexistence plan, and whether smaller farmers would have as much time and resources as 

larger farmers to observe the plan and confirm that their neighbors are adhering to it. One sustainable 

agriculture organization20 echoed the sentiments of many in stating that “the last thing any farmer wants 

to do is mandate how their neighbor is to farm, especially with the threat of lawsuit or fines which might 

result if someone does not keep to their agreement.” 

The same commenter expressed the view that a voluntary coexistence plan is subject to too many 

variables, making planting schedules hard to predict and coordinate with other farmers. 

Someone may plan to plant on a certain date, but it may rain and they are delayed, or the long 

range weather forecast calls for unfavorable planting weather (dry or wet) and so a farmer may 

need to plant earlier than they planned. Equipment breaks down, fertilizers and seed do not arrive 

on time, or the wrong seed is delivered and needs to be replaced causing setbacks to planned 

planting dates. Sometimes there are just not enough hours in the day to get all of the manure or 

fertilizer spreading, tillage or herbicide applications and planting done.

Effective joint coexistence practices:

Several commenters stated that the key to making coexistence work is to “establish shared responsibility. 

Those who own and grow GE s are currently not required to prevent contamination in the field and 

 

20 See footnote 15.
11

marketplace. Farmers who avoid GE s continue to shoulder the entire burden of contamination 

prevention and clean-up, and at times give up growing certain crops.”

A national sustainable agriculture organization21 offered specific suggestions for successful coexistence 

practices:

Successful coexistence occurs mainly when only primarily self-pollinated GE crops are grown 

(e.g. soybean, for which a 30-foot buffer or a good hedgerow may be adequate), or when 

neighboring GE and non-GE producers are growing different crops (e.g., a GE corn field will not 

affect a nearby organic orchard so long as the corn farmer takes care to avoid pesticide drift, or an 

effective hedgerow exists between field and orchard). However, if a new enterprise introduces a 

strongly cross-pollinated GE crop into a region where organic or non-GE production of that crop 

species is already underway, coexistence is likely to fail. Similarly, a newly establishing organic 

or non-GE farming enterprise may not be able to grow certain cross-pollinated crops if existing 

farms are already producing GE varieties of those crops.

Another commenter, an organic advocacy organization,22 provided similar suggestions on crop buffers 

and cross-pollination prevention:

Successful collaborative coexistence plans at the neighborhood level are feasible for primarily 

self-pollinated crops like soybean. Reasonable buffers between GE and non-GE fields, good 

communication among farmers, and measures to ensure seed purity and avoid commingling of 

either seed or crop harvests should result in adequate prevention of unintended GE content in 

non-GE crops, and thus, coexistence. For outcrossing crops like corn, canola, or alfalfa, however, 

it may be necessary to reach agreements that designate substantial geographical areas (at least 

several square miles) as either exclusively non-GE or GE production areas for a given crop. This 

will either require a great deal of organization and cooperation, or some kind of local zoning 

ordinance to designate parts of a county where GE production of certain crops may or may not 

take place.

One commenter23 recommended that “USDA, Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency should implement the 

recommendations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to improve the framework for 

monitoring and coordinating on contamination issues: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-60.”

Finally, a commenter24 suggested that USDA consult an informational peer-reviewed series put together 

by UC Davis and California Cooperative Extension in response to the issue of Coexistence in California 

in 2005: http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/publications/Agricultural_Biotechnology_in_California_ABC_Series.htm

Topic 4: Collaborative Meeting Formats

One individual commented specifically about what stakeholders should be involved in meetings in order 

to make collaboration and coexistence effective: 

Make sure to have knowledgeable representatives from every type of agriculture: traditional, 

organic, IP, biotech, biodynamic, integrated pest management, etc. Reach out to organizations 

like the Rodale Institute to find representatives. Find a farmer who has been challenged by the 

 

21 See footnote 17. 

22 National Organic Coalition. The comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-3916. 

23 Organic Crop Improvement Association International. The comment can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-3037. 

24The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-0055. 
12

biotech industry and bring that person to the table to find out how to address those challenges. If 

you don't include people like that, you are not going to achieve coexistence.

Another suggestion was that such meetings should include a broad, balanced group of stakeholders, 

including:

 Independent, unbiased scientists who can speak to the outcrossing distances and other relevant 

parameters for each species of crops for which GE varieties are commercially available, and 

scientists who can speak to the availability and purity of non-GE seed;

 Non-GE farmers and businesses;

 Farmer-based organizations that work with non-GE farmers; and

 Representatives from the GE and non-GE seed industries.

Another individual suggested a meeting format that draws upon technology to share stakeholder views:

A meeting format similar to the National Science Foundation’s Ideas Lab 

(http://knowinnovation.com/expertise/ideas-lab/#sthash.BwwqbtUO.dpuf) would be a novel and 

effective way to ensure coexistence issues were frankly and fully explored at the USDA’s public 

forum. The Ideas Lab concept could be adapted to fit the time and monetary constraints of the 

public forum. Individuals at the public forum could submit ideas/proposals electronically to be 

displayed in front of the entire group.25

Similarly, a commenter suggested that “public forums could be held at the local, regional and national 

levels to increase the variety of participants as agricultural coexistence affects growers across the U.S. 

Regional webinars or teleconferences on specific issues could accompany the in-person forums.”

Another commenter

26 expressed the need for ongoing dialogue about coexistence issues that will be 

would be fully explored at a USDA-hosted public forum. “Any such meeting should include a discussion 

of contamination prevention strategies, fair compensation mechanisms, and an acknowledgement of 

contamination and loss that non-GE farmers experience.”

Other Comments and Concerns 

Suggestions:

 Provision should be made to secure large areas of land as GE -free preserves to allow 

maintenance of seed heritage areas. 

 USDA should create and implement a plan to maintain the purity of publicly held germplasm. 

The plan should include measures to (1) determine the presence of GE traits in publicly held 

germplasm stocks, (2) conduct ongoing monitoring of contamination in germplasm stocks, and 

(3) address contamination if it is identified in germplasm stocks. USDA should also conduct 

research on the state of contamination in the commercial, non-GE seed supply.

 USDA should expand APHIS authority to regulate GE crops. Current APHIS regulations are 

narrowly prescribed to focus the agency on certain safety issues posed by GE technology. The 

Plant Protection Act of 2000, however, provides APHIS with much broader regulatory authority 

than is captured by Part 340 regulations. The statute defines a noxious weed as “any plant or 

 

25 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0047-0159

26 See footnote 17.
13

plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or 

other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the U.S., the public 

health, or the environment” (emphasis added). Clearly, based on this language, USDA has 

sufficient statutory authority to issue regulations that address the economic harm posed by GE 

technology.

 The USDA also should be conducting more research into the effects on our honeybees and other 

pollinators that are dying in record numbers due to GE crops and the poisons needed to control 

the super weeds that are becoming resistant to the old form of Round-up. (USDA-ARS is 

conducting research on honeybees)

27

.

 Both conventional (chemical and GE ) farming and Organic (biological) farming are commonly 

traded internationally and must comply to international standards of organizations such as 

European Union, Japanese, Good Agricultural Practices and Good Handling Practices (USDAAMS-GAP), State law, CODEX, and many other private and governmental regulatory attempts to 

ensure safe and accurately labelled foods and drugs. Especially relevant is National Science 

Foundation (NSF) International testing, safety; www.nsf.org. Any new standards and protocols 

of USDA must be compatible and compliant in spirit with the international consensus of organic 

certification and labeling of foods, personal care products and drugs. 

 In the case of seed production, states that are producers of significant vegetable, grain and 

ornamental horticultural crops have established fairly common model of regulation of 

neighboring varietal seed production and certified seed production. This analogous issue is one 

of genetics, specifically. Taking into account everything that has potential to cause problematic 

cross-contamination of genetics, such as wind, pollinator activity, buffer zones adequacy, 

equipment residues, foot wear residues, post-harvest contamination potential; standards exist and 

need to be seriously addressed and equivalent compliance assured. All crop production and 

protection should enjoy the same common sense and fair regulation that varietal seed production 

enjoys by rule of law. 

Other Commenter Concerns:

 GE crops are often planted using "no-till" methods. Under no-till, residue is left on the soil, but 

then is more, not less, prone to wash away under certain circumstances, or rather it floats away, 

whereas soil is more prone to sink in the water. This then places GE corn cobs in other fields 

downstream. There need to be regulations to prevent these GE seeds from floating downstream, 

(sometimes for miles,) to then be planted (i.e. under soil that has also washed down there).

 The current lack of federal enforcement of basic product liability rules regarding GE s and their 

associated agro-chemicals is exacerbating rural conflicts and jeopardizing the economic 

livelihoods of thousands of non-GE farmers nationwide. Suggestions that non-GE farmers should 

 

27 USDA-ARS is conducting research on the biology and control of honey bee parasites, diseases, and pests to 

ensure an adequate supply of bees for pollination and honey production. Honey bee colony collapse disorder 

(CCD), first observed on the eastern U.S. coast in the second half of 2006, has accounted for recent declines in the 

U.S. honey bee population. While several factors have been observed to be strongly correlated with CCD, few 

hypotheses have been experimentally verified and thus it is not currently known with certainty which factors 

produce CCD. Additional USDA information on CCD is available at 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/news/docs.htm?docid=15572 and 

http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf. 
14

just purchase additional insurance to cover their contamination losses is equally absurd. We do 

not ask livestock owners to pay for "wolf predation" coverage out of their own pockets. This 

situation has been entirely created due to federal approval of a particular technology without 

requisite liability.

 Coexistence report recommendations are a violation of the Obama Administration’s own selfprofessed adherence to the Principles of Environmental Justice 28 outlined in Executive Order 

12898.

 Information and research on the effect of GE s has shown evidence of tumors, and other 

degenerative illnesses, not to mention birth defects. These issues cannot be ignored. Other 

potential negative effects of GE’s are food allergy, increased toxicity, decreased nutritional value 

of food, and antibiotic resistance.

 The blanket use of pesticides matched to GE crop seed for weed control has produced the 

expected result of “superweeds” that are resistant to chemical pesticides. Mare’s tail, the first 

weed resistant to Roundup (glyphosate), developed it defense in nature only four years after 

Roundup Ready soybeans were released. Which not only proves again that it does not take 

biotechnology to develop the trait, but that certain undesirable outcomes of current GE 

technology are foreseeable. Now approximately 24 weeds have developed resistance to 

Roundup. 

 USDA approvals are pending to link GE seeds to the herbicide 2,4-D. In the near future, we can 

expect other chemical pesticides such as dicamba and atrazine will also be linked to GE crop 

seeds. New formulations encompassing various combinations of Roundup, dicamba, 2,4-D, and 

atrazine are already on the market, despite the fact that there is little information about the effects 

of the interactions of these chemical components on the environment or human health.

 The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has reported that “Several animal 

studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune 

problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the 

gastrointestinal system.

 

28 Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental impacts, including interrelated social and economic impacts, of federal actions on minority, 

low-income, and Tribal populations.