## 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 4,1 61 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. Senator 1 , and me mbers of the public. One consumer protection organization submitted a petition , signed by over 27,000 supporters, urging the Secretary t o 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 T he maj ority 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 o thers . 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. ( Itshould be noted, however, that most commenters opposing coexistence did not engage the report’s recommendations in detail . ) C ommenters also expressed the view that the report privileges the rights of GE growers over those of organic growers, and particularly expressed co ncern 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 th at 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 pr actices 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. The y requested that APHIS: 1) Inv estigate 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 s upply 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

Wh ile 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 commenter s oversimplified or misinterpreted the repo rt’s recommendations. Some commenters requested actions that are beyond the current authority of USDA to implement. T his comment summary does not attempt to reconcile points made in the comments with what is actually contained in the report or what is fe asible . Itis 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 “g o od 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 stat ed that considerable uncertainty exists among farmers about what defines a specific type of production system . I f 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, o ne 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 an d 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 a gronomic 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 dis tances 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 economi c 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. C ommenter s 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, 5 stated 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 informati on, 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, indicat ing 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 farmer s have actually incurred losses from GE contamination are based on scant information . T he problem may be further underestimated , they stated, because affected farmers are reluctant to speak out o f 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

Inf ormation 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 p roduction. 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 non GE crops in order to learn about potential so urces of GE pollen or locations of sensitive non - GE crop production. On the other hand, some stated that p inning maps have proven ineffective in a voluntary system and will b e 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 co ops, 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 up on 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 “f

armers 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 signific ant 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 c ommunication 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 of ten 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 chang e 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, 6 stated 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 ad d ed that “t hird 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 organization7 stated that e xisting unregulated and unmo nitored use of GE technology precludes access to non - GE markets and limits the success of organic, identity preserved ( IP ) , and n on - 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 : “ Itis 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. ” M any 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 group 8 submitted 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 c ould 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 h otline 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 : T he 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 compen sation 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 Sa fety. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS 2013 - 0047 - 3913 . 8 Farm Aid. The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS - 2013 - 0047 - 40266

Another commenter tied incentivized approaches to a recommendation made in the AC21 report: W ith 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 strategi es under Recommendation IVof the report . **Topic 2: Education Needs and Learning Tools**  A substantial number of commenters indicated that “v oluntary solutions, such as education, collaboration, outreach and communication among farmers fail to deal with pre venting 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 groups 9 stated 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 expe rtise. 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 l ocal 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 c rop 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 too lkit 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 state d 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=APHIS 2013 - 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 agriculture 10 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 buil d 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 pro moting 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 - s ound 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 f ew. It would make sense for USDA to utilize these existing networks as farmers are already familiar with them . . .” A biologist 12 commented that further education on genetics could help people opposed to GE s understand what it is they are actually opposin g on a scientific level : T he 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 centuri es. 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 anti GE consumers miss, nuances that will let good research be unfairly targeted (like the golden rice project 13 ).

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 G enetically engineered Golden Rice produce s 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 f armers 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 Bureau 14 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 e xtensions 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 Foundation 16 commented that their organization “regularly creates outreach toolkit s ” 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 urge d 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 non GE producers who grow and market crops under con tract 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. ”

14 Comment can be vie wed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS - 2013 - 0047 - 0963 . 15 Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe tail;D=APHIS 2013 - 0047 - 3455 . 16 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS - 2013 - 0047 - 41669

Another commenter , a sustainable agriculture organization, 17 added that t ools for GE farmers to help them reduce gene flow can also include appropriate provisions in contracts with GE patent holders. An organic education service 18 questioned how contracts might be used to fo ster coexistence: P roducers should be able to write their own cont racts 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: S ome 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 wh o is farming the land adjoining theirs and what they are planting. They indicated that s imilar 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 organizations 19 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 : W ith 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 b oth makes the decisions on crop planting as well as the person actually doing it. Itis 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. Itis 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 footnot e 15 . 19 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS - 2013 - 0047 - 4090 .10

Similarly, other c ommenters 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. C ommenters stated that a l ack 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 make s 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 “l ocal involvement and decision making is better than a one size fits all national or state program. ” Concerns with voluntary coexistence plans: Voluntary written coexistence pl ans 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 t he sentiments of many in stating that “th e 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 ex

pressed 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. E ffective joint coexistence practices: Sever al commenters stated that the key to making coexistence work is to “e stablish 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 s uccessful 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 p roduction 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 varie ties 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 -p ollinated 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 commenter 23 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 imp rove 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 Co existence 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: M ake sure to have knowledgeable representatives from every type of agriculture: traditional, organic, IP, biotech, biodynamic, integrated pes t 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 . 24 The comment can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS - 2013 - 0047 - 0055 .12

b iotech industry and bring that person to the table to find out how to address those challenges. If you don't in clude 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://know innovation.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 const raints 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 “p ublic forums could be held at the local, regional and national le vels 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 commente r26 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 :  P rovision 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 n arrowly 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 noxio us 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 (USDA AMS - GAP ) , State l aw, CODEX, and many other private and governmental regulatory attempts to ensure safe and accurately labelled foods and drugs. Especially relevant is N ational Science Foundation (N SF ) 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 producer s 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 i nto 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 p roduct 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. H oney bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) , f irst observed on the eastern U.S. coast in the second ha lf of 2006, has accounted for recent decline s 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, decr eased 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 res istant 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 th ese 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 E xecutive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts, including interrelate d social and economic impacts, of federal actions on minority, low - income, and Tribal populations.