Laws, regulations, and treaties were created in the years following to contain genetically modified organisms and prevent their escape.
Many consumers are critical of genetically modified plants and their products, while, conversely, most experts in charge of GMO approvals do not perceive concrete threats to health or the environment.
The compromise chosen by some countries - notably the European Union - has been to implement regulations specifically governing co-existence and traceability.
In the United States there is no legislation governing the co-existence of neighboring farms growing organic and GM crops; instead the US relies on a "complex but relaxed" combination of three federal agencies (FDA, EPA, and USDA/APHIS) and the common law tort system, governed by state law, to manage risks of co-existence.
[3]: 44 To limit mixing in the first stages of production, researchers and politicians are developing codes of good agricultural practice for GM crops.
In addition to the thorough cleaning of machinery, recommended measures include the establishment of "isolation distances" and "pollen barriers".
[4] In addition to agricultural measures, there may be also biological tools to prevent the genetically modified crop from fertilising conventional fields.
With the end of the de facto moratorium on genetically modified plants in Europe, several research programmes (e.g. SIGMEA, Co-Extra, and Transcontainer) have begun investigating biological containment strategies for GMOs.
To be able to monitor and enforce compliance with co-existence regulations, authorities require the ability to trace, detect and identify GMOs.
[6] The Asilomar recommendations were voluntary, but in 1976 the US National Institute of Health (NIH) formed a rDNA advisory committee.
[7] This was followed by other regulatory offices (the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), effectively making all rDNA research tightly regulated in the USA.
economic losses to farmers caused by unintended presence of genetically engineered materials, as well as how such mechanisms might work.
[20][21] In 1997, Percy Schmeiser discovered that canola growing on his farm was genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup although he had not planted GM seed.
[22] The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer's crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.
[23][24] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence.
The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser's active participation, saying '.
[31] An investigation by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was unable to determine the cause of the contamination.
[49] In 2013, glyphosate-resistant genetically modified wheat that was not yet approved for release, but which had been declared safe for consumption in the USA,[50] was discovered in a farm in Oregon, growing as a weed or "volunteer plant".
[51][52] According to Monsanto it was "mystified" by its appearance, having destroyed all the material it held after completing trials in 2004 and because they did not think that seed left in the ground or pollen transfer could account for it.