Genetically Modified Bt Maize: from Theory to Practice

MASARYK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Social Studies Department of Environmental Studies

DOCTORAL THESIS

Brno 2020 Mgr. Veronika Chvátalová

MASARYK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Social Studies Department of Environmental Studies

Mgr. Veronika Chvátalová

Genetically modified Bt maize: from theory to practice

Doctoral Thesis

Supervisor: prof. RNDr. Ľubica Lacinová, DrSc.

Brno 2020

Acknowledgements Although I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently on the next page, I want to acknowledge others who have contributed to this work. First of all, this thesis would not exist without the farmers’ willingness to share their experience. Děkuji českým zemědělcům, kteří se zapojili do výzkumu. I am grateful to Ľubica Lacinová for becoming my supervisor, providing support well balanced with space for my independent work. I would like to thank everyone who provided feedback on earlier drafts and parts of the drafts of this thesis, Ľubica Lacinová, Zbyněk Ulčák, Erik Millstone and Lucie Sovová. Furthermore, I am grateful for methodological consultations with Lucie Galčanová, Jan Činčera and György Pataki. Fern Wickson, Nadia Johanisová and Armin Spök are appreciated for discussions on the proposal and development of the thesis. The Department of Environmental Studies provided an inspiring basis for my transition from the natural sciences to humanities. I am also thankful for fruitful discussions and stimulating environment at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society in Graz, which hosted me for one year in the later stage of my study. If I mentioned only one symposium from which I benefited, it would be the workshop “Post-normal science and its ethical aspects - Doctoral projects and other projects in the making” organized by Silvio Funtowicz and Matthias Kaiser. The setting was just perfect to consult the thesis with peers and seniors. Turning to my close ones, I appreciate your support on every level. Thanks to my friends for bearing with my silence in the last weeks before the submission. I am deeply thankful to my parents, to my mother, for her unconditional and understanding support, and to my father, who kept encouraging me to finish by the ever recurring question “have you finished and know it all yet?”. Děkuju.

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

Praha, 24th July 2020 Veronika Chvátalová

Abstract This thesis explores how the claimed benefits and risk management assumptions of the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize are fulfilled in agricultural practice from the perspective of Czech farmers and official data. Considering that the risk assessment of GM crops has been criticised, risk management fulfils a significant role. Nevertheless, even the risk management has been challenged. Moreover, it relies heavily on the co-operation of farmers. Such compliance may vary depending on the attitudes and practices of individual farmers. However, studies clarifying European farmers’ attitudes to GM crops are largely missing. This research takes the perspective of critical realism and is designed as a case study. The experience of farmers was placed into the context of a document analysis of the official information about the cultivation of GM maize, recommendations, regulation, and control of its compliance. Furthermore, I drew on the data from growers of GM maize obtained in interviews and a questionnaire, and I interviewed their neighbours who farmed conventionally and organically. In total, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The farmers’ accounts were analysed in the relationship with their attitudes towards GM crops. Besides, I analysed the Czech discourse about GMOs to provide a context for the farmers’ discourses. The data was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively using the sociological discourse analysis, which in turn drew on the constructivist grounded theory and the critical discourse analysis. The results are discussed continuously in five chapters, which reflect secondary research questions. The main conclusion of the study is that most of the benefits claimed by the Seed Producer and some of the recommended risk management practices of GM maize cultivation are not substantiated having regard to the agricultural practice as reported by the surveyed Czech farmers and described in the published literature. Particularly, the mooted benefits of GM maize cultivation were enjoyed by a varying proportion of Czech farmers. In contrast, some farmers experienced the opposite of the claimed benefit. A critical analysis of the documents indicated that only part of the tools of risk management is implemented in practice. Moreover, an essential part of monitoring of potential risks, the survey of GM maize growers, is not as effective as claimed. Furthermore, the results show that not all the farmers followed rules to secure the efficacy of GM maize against its pest. A document analysis revealed that compared to other European Union states, the Czech relevant legislation is moderately restrictive. Nevertheless, it proves to be a limiting factor of GM maize adoption along with the situation on the market and low pest pressure. Compared to other European farmers, the Czech ones have exceptionally positive attitudes towards GM crops. Their central discourse supportive of GM crops echoed the dominant Czech pro-GMO discourse and the claims of the GM Seed Producer. Only a minority of farmers employed a discourse opposing GM crops. It may be the case that a separate study is merited into the correlation between the positive views of farmers towards GM crops and their uncertain compliance with risk management practices.

Anotace Tato práce zkoumá, jak jsou v zemědělské praxi z pohledu českých zemědělců a oficiálních dat naplněny slibované přínosy a předpoklady risk managementu pěstování geneticky modifikované (GM) kukuřice. Vzhledem k tomu, že hodnocení rizik GM plodin je dlouhodobě kritizováno, risk management jejich pěstování plní významnou úlohu. Nicméně i ten je zpochybňován, a navíc značně spoléhá na spolupráci ze strany zemědělců. Odborná literatura je skoupá na popis postojů zemědělců ke GM plodinám, přičemž právě tento faktor pravděpodobně ovlivňuje jejich motivaci řídit se při jejich pěstování určitými pravidly. Tento výzkum je zpracován z perspektivy kritického realismu a designován jako případová studie. Zkušenosti zemědělců byly vztaženy k oficiálním informacím o pěstování GM kukuřice, doporučením, regulacím a kontrolám dodržování pravidel na základě analýzy dokumentů. Při zpracovávání daného tématu jsem nespoléhala pouze na data od pěstitelů GM kukuřice získaná v rozhovorech a dotazníku, ale vedla jsem rozhovory i s jejich sousedy hospodařícími konvenčně a ekologicky. Celkem jsem uskutečnila 22 polostrukturovaných rozhovorů. Výpovědi zemědělců byly zkoumány se zaměřením na jejich postoje ke GM plodinám. Práce navíc nabízí i rozbor českého diskursu o GMO na základě analýzy dokumentů a pozorování, který poskytuje kontext pro analyzované diskursy zemědělců. Vyhodnocení dat proběhlo kvantitativně i kvalitativně s použitím sociologické analýzy diskursu, která zahrnovala konstruktivistickou zakotvenou teorii a kritickou analýzu diskursu. Výsledky, které jsou diskutovány průběžně, jsou prezentovány v pěti kapitolách, z nichž každá se věnuje jedné vedlejší výzkumné otázce. Celkovým závěrem studie je, že většina přínosů slibovaných výrobcem osiva a některé z doporučených postupů řízení rizik při pěstování GM kukuřice nejsou zcela doloženy v zemědělské praxi zjištěné u dotazovaných českých zemědělců a v publikované literatuře. Konkrétně, údajné přínosy byly u českých zemědělců zaznamenány různě velkým podílem. Někteří naopak hlásili zkušenosti, které byly ke slibovaným výhodám v kontrastu. Kritický rozbor dokumentů ukázal, že jen část nástrojů risk managementu je uplatňována v praxi. Navíc důležitá součást monitoringu výskytu případných rizik, průzkum mezi pěstiteli, není zcela efektivním nástrojem. Výsledky dále dokládají, že ne všichni zemědělci dodržovali pravidla k zajištění účinnosti GM kukuřice k hubení škůdce. Analýza dokumentů ukazuje, že oproti jiným členským státům EU je pěstování GM kukuřice v České republice řízeno středně přísnými pravidly. Přesto tato pravidla byla vedle situace na trhu a nízkého tlaku škůdce pro pěstování GM kukuřice limitujícím faktorem. V porovnání s ostatními evropskými zemědělci mají ti čeští výjimečně pozitivní postoj ke GM plodinám. Jejich hlavní diskurs podporující pěstování GM plodin reprodukoval dominantní český pro-GMO diskurs a rétoriku výrobce GM osiva. Jen menšina zemědělců používala diskurs, který GM plodinám odporoval. Další výzkum by mohl testovat hypotézu souvislosti pozitivních postojů zemědělců a jejich nejisté dodržování postupů risk managementu.

Contents List of abbreviations ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 2

1.1. Genetically modified crops – a persisting issue ...... 2

1.2. The research presented in this thesis ...... 3

2. Context of the study ...... 6

2.1. Genetically modified organisms ...... 6

2.1.1. GM plants ...... 6 2.1.2. Bt maize MON810 ...... 7 2.2. EU GMO legislation ...... 10

2.3. Risk assessment ...... 11

2.3.1. Environmental risk assessment (ERA) ...... 12 2.4. Risk management ...... 13

2.4.1. Insect resistance management (IRM) plan ...... 13 2.4.2. Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) ...... 13 2.4.3. Co-existence ...... 16 2.5. Agriculture ...... 18

2.5.1. Situating Czech agriculture in the EU context ...... 18 2.5.2. Conventional agriculture ...... 19 2.5.3. Organic agriculture ...... 19 2.5.4. Maize ...... 20 2.5.5. The pest: European corn borer (ECB) ...... 21 2.5.6. Claimed benefits of MON810 ...... 22 2.6. Attitudes to genetically modified crops ...... 23

2.6.1. Farmers’ attitudes ...... 23 2.6.2. Discourse ...... 24 2.6.3. Czech GMO discourse ...... 24 2.7. Summary and the aims of the study ...... 25

3. Methodology ...... 26

3.1. Study design ...... 26

3.1.1. Research questions ...... 26 3.1.2. Case study ...... 27 3.1.3. Mixed method research ...... 28

3.1.4. Critical realism ...... 28 3.2. Data collection ...... 29

3.2.1. Semi-structured interviews with GM farmers ...... 29 3.2.2. Questionnaires to GM farmers ...... 31 3.2.3. Semi-structured interviews with conventional farmers ...... 32 3.2.4. Semi-structured interviews with organic farmers ...... 33 3.2.5. Comparison of the sample characteristics to the Czech official data ...... 33 3.2.6. Documents ...... 36 3.2.7. Observation ...... 37 3.3. Data analysis ...... 38

3.3.1. Sociological discourse analysis (SDA) of farmers’ attitudes ...... 38 3.3.2. Analysis of Czech GMO discourse ...... 40 3.3.3. Qualitative analysis of interviews ...... 41 3.3.4. Quantitative analysis of the questionnaires ...... 42 3.4. Credibility and limitations of the study ...... 43

3.5. Pre-analytic visions – the position of the researcher ...... 44

4. Results and discussion ...... 47

4.1. Farmers’ experience with claimed benefits of Bt maize ...... 47

4.1.1. Claim: “100% control of European corn borer during the whole period of cultivation” ...... 47 4.1.2. Claim: “Healthy production thanks to lower infestation with fungal diseases” 49 4.1.3. Claim: “Yield increase thanks to intact and healthy plants” ...... 50 4.1.4. Claim: “Reduction of insecticide usage and hence a significant relief for the environment” ...... 52 4.1.5. Claim: “Technology securing the profitability of maize cultivation through lowering the unit costs of maize production” ...... 54 4.1.6. Claims: “Simple manipulation” and “Time saving, no need for signalling of pest arrival” ...... 55 4.1.7. Claimed benefits: Conclusions ...... 57 4.2. Compliance with insect resistance management plan (IRM) ...... 60

4.3. How useful is the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire? ...... 62

4.3.1. Comparability of Bt and conventional maize ...... 62 4.3.2. Ability to notice potential differences between Bt and conventional maize .. 62 4.3.3. An effective collection of information? ...... 65 4.3.4. Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire: Conclusion ...... 67

4.4. Co-existence of Bt maize with conventional and organic maize production ...... 68

4.4.1. Czech co-existence legislation ...... 68 4.4.2. The control of compliance with the Czech co-existence legislation ...... 70 4.4.3. Extra co-existence measures at a farm level ...... 73 4.4.4. Comparison to other member states’ regulations ...... 75 4.4.5. Practical issues ...... 77 4.4.6. Co-existence: Conclusions ...... 86 4.5. Farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops ...... 88

4.5.1. Farmers’ perception of farming and farming strategies ...... 88 4.5.2. Farmers’ GMO discourse ...... 95 4.5.3. The situational context of the discourses ...... 102 4.5.4. Czech discourse ...... 107 4.5.5. The GM Seed Producer’s discourse ...... 116 4.5.6. Comparison of farmers’, Czech and Seed Producer’s discourses ...... 118 4.5.7. Farmers’ discourse partly constituted by the dominant public pro-GMO discourse 122 4.5.8. Supportive and opposing attitudes ...... 124 4.5.9. Attitudes: Conclusions ...... 127 5. Conclusions ...... 130

5.1. Partly realised benefits of Bt maize cultivation ...... 130

5.2. Post-market environmental monitoring ...... 131

5.3. Co-existence of GM and non-GM production ...... 133

5.4. Attitudes to GM crops ...... 135

5.5. From theory to practice ...... 137

List of tables ...... 138

List of figures ...... 138

Index of names ...... 139

References ...... 140

Appendices ...... 155

Appendix 1 ...... 156

Appendix 2 ...... 160

Appendix 3 ...... 162

Appendix 4 ...... 163

Appendix 5 ...... 168

Appendix 6 ...... 173

Appendix 7 ...... 177

Appendix 8 ...... 179

Appendix 9 ...... 181

List of abbreviations BP best practice Bt Bacillus thuringiensis CAFIA Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority CAP Common Agricultural Policy CC GMO The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products CDA critical discourse analysis CGT constructivist grounded theory CISTA Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture Co-op co-operative CR Czech Republic CRI Crop Research Institute CSM Case-Specific Monitoring DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DG Directorate General DNA deoxyribonucleic acid EC European Commission ECB European corn borer EFSA European Food Safety Authority EP European Parliament ERA environmental risk assessment EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAQ frequently asked questions GE genetic engineering GM genetically modified GMO genetically modified organism GS General Surveillance G-TwYST Genetically modified plants Two Year Safety Testing HT herbicide-tolerant IRM insect resistance management ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications JSC joint-stock company LLC limited liability company LPIS land-parcel identification system MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoE Ministry of the Environment MS member states MSE Member States Experts NGO non-governmental organisation PMEM Post-Market Environmental Monitoring SAIF State Agricultural Intervention Fund SDA sociological discourse analysis USA United States of America

1. Introduction

1.1. Genetically modified crops – a persisting issue The use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in agriculture has been highly controversial for almost the past three decades. Its advocates have often characterised agricultural GMOs as a safe means to increase food production in a sustainable manner and as a means to meet the challenges brought by climate change. By contrast, those opposed to the use of GMOs in agriculture have often depicted them as a threat to biodiversity, animal and human health and food sovereignty. Although usually portrayed as polarised, the scientific and policy debates about genetic engineering (GE) manifest a diverse spectrum of views (Millstone, Stirling, and Glover 2015). The commercialization of GM crops occurred almost 30 years ago, holding out a promising future for agricultural development. This same optimism has carried over in respect of more recently developed new plant breeding techniques predicting more precise breeding methods, higher yields, resistance to diseases, decreased use of pesticides, drought tolerance and improved nutritious quality (Borlaug 2000; Cerier 2018; Cressey 2013; James and Krattiger 1996; Parrett 2015). However, the claimed benefits have been reviewed with inconsistent results, see, e.g. (Apiolaza 2014; Benbrook 2012; Gilbert 2013; Gurian-Sherman 2009; Heinemann et al. 2014). In practice, the mooted benefits of GM maize cultivated in the EU have only been in part realised (Wolf and Vögeli 2009). In some cases, the benefits were not realised in terms of decreased yields and increased unit costs of maize production (ibid.). Furthermore, the realisation of the claimed benefits may be attributable to other causes such as variation in pest activity, climatic conditions, seed price and risk management obligations (ibid.). Regrettably, the experience of European farmers with some of the claimed benefits has only been reported on in three publications (Gómez-Barbero, Berbel, and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2008; Křístková 2009; Schiefer et al. 2008). Furthermore, the scientific assessment of the risks of GM crops has been widely criticised. A substantial body of research has demonstrated that the scientific advice provided to the decision-makers in the EU is seriously compromised (Bauer-Panskus et al. 2020; Bøhn 2018; Chvátalová 2019; Cotter and Mueller 2009; Hilbeck, Meier, and Trtikova 2012; Kruse- Plass et al. 2017; Levidow and Carr 2007; Then 2015; Then and Pothof 2009; Wickson and Wynne 2012). Considering that the risk assessment of GM crops performed before their placement on the market has been challenged, the post-market monitoring and risk management is gaining higher importance. Nevertheless, even the post-market environmental monitoring has been criticised (EFSA 2009:Annex G; EFSA et al. 2017, 2018; EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). Additionally, its scrutiny

2 indicates that it has been founded on certain assumptions. In this thesis, I examined those assumptions in the light of evidence obtained from the practice of farmers. Moreover, the accumulating criticism of the risk assessment and the evidence of risks to the environment and animal health (Ferment et al. 2017) require to secure the safe co- production of GM and non-GM crops. The co-existence of GM and non-GM production on the farm level relies heavily on the compliance of farmers with co-existence rules. Such compliance may vary depending on the attitudes and practices of individual farmers. However, studies aimed at understanding European farmers’ perception of, and attitudes to, GM crops are largely missing. Therefore, my thesis also explores the attitudes of farmers and the relationships among growers farming in GM and non-GM regime, offer and availability of seed and contamination cases. As little attention has been paid to the practice of agriculture by farmers and to their perspectives and experience, it is my intention in this thesis to explore this omission.

1.2. The research presented in this thesis This thesis focuses on exploring Czech farmers’ attitudes and experience in order to find out how the claimed benefits of GM maize MON810 are reflected in their practices, and to what extent risk management assumptions were fulfilled in reality. Genetically modified Bt maize MON810 has been the only GM crop grown commercially in some states of the European Union (EU) over a more extended period. However, the experiences of European farmers with this GM maize have not been fully explored. Although the Czech Republic was one of the few member states of the EU where it had been grown, comparably less literature focused on the Czech farmers’ experience than on the Spanish and Portuguese experience. Only the experience from the first three initial years (2005–2007) of the cultivation in the Czech Republic has been evaluated, and the profitability of the commercial cultivation was assessed in one season (Křístková 2009). Moreover, the acreage of Bt maize has been decreasing since it reached its peak in 2008 (Ministry of Agriculture undated b). Furthermore, as mentioned above, the literature assessing European farmers’ experience with the alleged benefits has been limited and inconclusive. For these reasons, I explored the Czech farmers’ experience against the benefits claimed by the producer of the MON810 seeds. Furthermore, the producer’s methods of post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) and its reports have been criticised by the risk assessor of GMOs in the EU, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and EFSA, in turn, has been criticised for its own risk assessment (Cotter and Mueller 2009; Dolezel et al. 2009, 2011). Therefore, I scrutinised the PMEM of MON810 maize and the co-existence regulations and explored how the assumptions identified therein are reflected in the practice of farmers. Finally, the research on European farmers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards GM crops has largely focused on the economic aspects and the interest of farmers in growing GM

3 crops. Consequently, I also explored the attitudes of Czech farmers towards GM crops in the context of the Czech discourse about GMOs. With this study, I aimed to contribute to the assessment of the claimed benefits and to the recommended risk management practices based on the practical experience of farmers covering the entire period of Bt maize cultivation in the Czech Republic (2005-2016). Furthermore, I aimed to explore the attitudes of Czech farmers towards GM crops. This study was performed from the perspective of a critical realism that retains “an ontological realism while accepting a form of epistemological relativism or constructivism.” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:151). From that perspective, “individuals’ social and physical contexts have a causal influence on their beliefs and perspectives” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:157). Similarly, critical discourse analysts understand discourse as “a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices” (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002:61). Therefore, it is acknowledged here that the attitudes of farmers towards GM crops not only shape their practices but also the same attitudes are influenced by the various general discourses on GMOs. I chose a case study design to comprehensively investigate multiplicity of issues in their real-life settings (Harrison et al. 2017:28). The farmers’ experience with the cultivation of MON810 was explored in the context of the official information about its cultivation, the regulation and control of compliance. I undertook this exploration in the context of the relationships among neighbouring farmers who practiced GM, conventional and organic production methods, and also in the context of farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops, which in turn were situated in the GMO discourses. I used mixed method research, simultaneously combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to determine research goals, to collect, analyse and interpret data, and to draw reasonable inferences of fact. A variety of data were collected from multiple sources which included 22 semi-structured interviews, a quantitative questionnaire, documents and observations. Firstly, I interviewed ten farmers who cultivated Bt maize in 2015. Then their neighbours who farmed on adjacent fields in non-GM conventional and organic way were interviewed. This comprised seven and five interviews, respectively. In addition, I circulated an online questionnaire which was filled in by 27 farmers who had cultivated Bt maize in at least one year during the period 2005-2014. I then identified and collected publicly available documents and utilized the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999) in order to obtain additional material. In particular, I used the Scientific Opinion of EFSA regarding maize MON810 (EFSA 2009) as a primary source of information about the risk assessment & management of MON810. The documents regarding co-existence included the European Commission recommendations (European Commission 2003, 2010), the Best Practice Document for co- existence of GMOs (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010), the co-existence legislation 4 of the Czech Republic (Předpis č. 252/1997 Sb. Zákon o zemědělství 1997) and the publication of Ministry of Agriculture “Organisation and inspection of GM crops cultivation in the Czech Republic” (Trnková et al., 2017). Moreover, official publicly available documents regarding seed, food and feed controls were collected. These consisted of annual reports of the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA) and the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA). I relied upon additional data authored by actors of the Czech GMO discourse, which included Czech authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the Seed Producer. The collected material consisted of the actors’ press releases, publications, organisation statutes, conference materials, texts on the actors’ web pages and a Technical Guide (Monsanto n.d.), which was also used as a reference for the claimed benefits. Finally, I obtained further data for the discourse analysis of the Czech authorities by attendance at and observations made at public conferences organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and by The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO). The quantitative analysis was arrived at by merging data from the questionnaires and from the interview data. In doing so I relied upon proportions and percentages of answers. The data obtained from interviews, documents and observations were analysed qualitatively, using sociological discourse analysis, which in turn drew on constructivist grounded theory and critical discourse analysis. The main conclusion of the study is that most of the benefits claimed by the Seed Producer and some of the recommended risk management practices of Bt maize cultivation are not substantiated having regard to the agricultural practice as reported by the sampled Czech farmers and described in the published literature. The assumptions embedded in the assessment of benefits and proposed methods to manage risks are met with the complex reality of the cultivation of GM crops and the human factor. Compared to other European farmers, Czech farmers have exceptionally positive attitudes towards GM crops. Their central discourse reproduced the Czech GMO discourse, whereas only a minority of farmers took a different view. The dominant Czech pro-GMO discourse and the claims of the Seed Producer were mirrored in the attitudes of most interviewed farmers. It may be the case that a separate study is merited into the correlation between the positive views of farmers towards GM crops and their uncertain compliance with risk management practices. Based on my conclusions, I have made specific recommendations in respect of agricultural practice, to assist Responsible Authorities, and have made suggestions for further relevant research.

The thesis is structured as follows: • the second chapter offers definitions and contexts of the objects of this research, convey the overview of existing literature with the identification of gaps in the current knowledge and poses the reasons for the research undertaken in this thesis. • The methodology chapter provides details about the study design, data collection and analysis, limitations of the study and the position of the author in the research. • The Results chapter is further divided to sections dealing with the secondary research questions. • The final chapter discusses and synthesises particular conclusions regarding the respective research questions. • Appendices provide an overview of the characteristics of the samples, interview and questionnaire guides, and further details.

2. Context of the study

2.1. Genetically modified organisms A genetically modified organism (GMO) is defined in the Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive 2001/18/EC:Part A, Article 2, Paragraph 2) as “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”. The definition is followed by a list of the techniques which do and do not result in genetic modification (Directive 2001/18/EC:Annex I A, Part 1). The first GMO made in 1973 was a bacterium Escherichia coli modified to be resistant to the antibiotic kanamycin (Genome News Network undated). The first animal was modified only a year later, incorporating virus in the mouse genome (Jaenisch and Mintz 1974). Both microorganisms and animals have been used commercially in the pharmacy and food and feed industry since the early 1980s (Roudná 2008). However, the first GM animal for human consumption, the AquAdvantage® fast-growing salmon, was approved in 2015 (Ledford 2015) and first marketed in 2017 (Waltz 2017).

2.1.1. GM plants The first GM plant was a tobacco made resistant to an antibiotic in 1983 (Lemaux 2008). However, the first commercially cultivated GM plant was virus-resistant tobacco in China in 1992 (James and Krattiger 1996). The delayed-ripening FlavrSavrTM tomato commercialised in the USA in 1994 was the first GM plant used for food (ibid.). Since then, a variety of plants and crops have been modified for various purposes. Despite that, only four crops occupy almost the entire commercially cultivated area. Soybeans, maize, cotton, and canola represent 99% of the global GM crop acreage (ISAAA

2017). Other commercially grown GM crops include alfalfa, sugar beets, eggplant, squash, papaya, potatoes, apples, and pineapple (ibid.). Crops are predominantly modified to possess two different properties. Forty-seven percent of the globally grown GM plants were herbicide- resistant, 12% insecticide-resistant and 41% combined both properties in 2017 (ibid.). Plants with other traits such as virus resistance, drought tolerance, and improved nutritional quality accounted for less than 1% of acreage (ibid.). Genetically modified plants have been grown commercially on a growing area globally since 1992 (James 2016; James and Krattiger 1996). However, only eleven countries represent almost the total area planted with GM crops: USA (40% of global total), Brazil (26%), Argentina (12%), Canada (7%), India (6%), Paraguay (2%), Pakistan (2%), China, South Africa, Bolivia and Uruguay (1% each) (ISAAA 2017). Furthermore, the number of countries growing them stopped increasing in 2011, and there has been a decreasing trend since then. In the EU, the situation is even more pronounced. The number of member states growing GM crops has been dropping, and it has predominantly been only Spain that keeps the area planted with GM crops in Europe fluctuating upwards (James 2016). Compared to tens of GM crop events1 for import, only three have obtained permission for commercial cultivation in the EU, and they have not been used by the majority of member states (James 2016). The first was the Bt maize event Bt176, which was grown in the years 1998-2005, mainly in Spain and Portugal, and withdrawn from the market in 2007. The second permitted GM crop was Amflora potato grown in an insignificant amount only in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Sweden in 2010-2011 before its withdrawal from the market in 2012. The third and only currently permitted event of Bt maize, MON810, has been cultivated since 2003, predominantly in Portugal and Spain (Alcalde 2006; European Commission 2017; Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 2012; BASF 2014; James 2016; ISAAA 2017).

2.1.2. Bt maize MON810 Bt maize MON810 was authorized in the EU in 1998 but first grown in 2003 in Spain, with the majority of European countries never joining in (James 2016; Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 2012). On the contrary, the number of member states that have ceased the cultivation of MON810 or imposed a ban on it has been increasing (Devos et al. 2014). It has been grown only in Portugal and Spain since 2017, with the most significant European cultivation area being in Spain (ISAAA, 2017, ISAAA 2018). In the Czech Republic, Bt maize was grown for commercial purposes from 2005 until 2016 continuously. The highest cultivation area, in 2008, did not exceed 3% of the total maize acreage (Křístková 2009). The decrease recorded since then was caused by problematic sales, negligible pressure imposed by the pest to which the plant is resistant, strict co-existence rules

1 A unique transformation of a plant by insertion of a particular transgene into its genome. 7 and the fact that some companies did not deliver GM seeds to the Czech Republic (Jordán 2015; Křístková 2009). This type of GM maize produces the Cry1Ab protein, which is toxic for certain lepidopteran insect pests, including the European corn borer (ECB) (Ostrinia nubilalis) and pink borers (Sesamia spp.) (Monsanto Company 2007a). Bt is an abbreviation of Bacillus thuringiensis, the soil bacterium whose gene was incorporated into the maize genome.

Figure 1 Bt maize MON810 area in the EU in the years 2006-2017. Source: ISAAA2 2017:93.

2 The data indicated for Poland by ISAAA disagree with other sources. According to Verriere (2014) Poland has had a national ban on MON810 since 2006. However, Monsanto’s annual monitoring reports concur with ISAAA that it was cultivated between the years 2007-2011 (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012a). Nevertheless, according to Kerssen (2010) the numbers provided by ISAAA are neither independently verified nor universally accepted as accurate. She posits that the data are not reliable as the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application is “an industry-funded advocacy group, whose mission is to promote the adoption of GM seed technologies in developing countries”. 8

Figure 2 Bt maize MON810 area in the Czech Republic in the years 2005-2019. Source of data: Ministry of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture undated b).

Size of the commercially cultivated MON810 area in the CR 9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 Area Area (Ha) 3000

2000

1000

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Table 1 Size of the MON810 cultivated area and the number of its growers in the Czech Republic (CR). Source: Ministry of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture undated b). Year Size of the Number of commercially MON810 cultivated MON810 growers area in the CR (Ha) 2005 270 51 2006 1290 82 2007 5000 126 2008 8380 167 2009 6480 121 2010 4680 82 2011 5090 64 2012 3050 41 2013 2560 31 2014 1754 18 2015 997 11 2016 75 1 2017 0 0 2018 0 0 2019 0 0

2.2. EU GMO legislation3 The legal framework of the EU aims to protect human and animal health and the environment, put in place harmonised procedures for risk assessment and authorisation of GMOs, and ensure clear labelling and traceability of commercial GMOs (European Commission undated b). The legislation differentiates among GMOs for contained use (regulated by Directive 2009/41/EC), GMOs for cultivation (Directive 2001/18/EC), and marketing of GM food and feed and derived products (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003). In all cases, a risk assessment is vital. Anyone planning to commence contained use activity must assess the risks to human health and the environment and notify competent authorities (Directive 2009/41/EC 2009). If the activity involves high risk, the authority must consent to the activity before it is commenced (ibid.). The introduction of GMOs into the environment for experimental purposes, i.e., field trials, must be authorised by the national authority upon the presentation of a risk assessment (European Commission undated a). The authorisation process for applications for the marketing or commercial cultivation of GM crops in the EU is considered by its proponents and the European Commission (EC) as one of the strictest in the world. Each new event of a GMO has to undergo a thorough risk analysis before a committee of member states votes on the approval for commercialization. The assessment of the first applications for genetically modified products (first authorised in 1995) was under the auspices of the Scientific Committees on Plants and Food. This task was taken over in 2003 by the then newly created GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The role of EFSA’s risk assessment is crucial in the whole decision-making process concerning GMOs. The European Commission bases its draft decision on applications for authorisation of GM food, feed, or growing of GM plants on EFSA’s risk assessment. The draft decision should then be adopted or rejected by a qualified majority of the member states Experts (MSE) Committee. When no qualified majority is reached, the draft is passed on to the Appeal Committee, which can again adopt or reject it or issue “no opinion”. In the third case, the draft is adopted by the EC. Indeed, final decisions have been adopted by the EC based on positive opinions issued by EFSA because neither the MSE nor the Appeal Committee reached a qualified majority since 2003 (Dolezel et al. 2011; European Commission 2015). The concern is that EFSA has been criticised for issuing favourable opinions despite inadequate information for environmental risk assessments (ERA) submitted by applicants and improvements to the Authority’s ERA have been suggested (Bauer-Panskus et al. 2020; Cotter and Mueller 2009; Dolezel et al. 2009, 2011).

3 Part of this chapter was adopted from an article published in Environmental Sciences Europe (Chvátalová 2019). The article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). 10

Until 2015, member states who refused to grow GM crops invoked the safeguard clause4 of Directive 90/220/EC and subsequently Directive 2001/18/EC enabling them to restrict or prohibit the use of a particular GMO on their territory if new evidence since the EFSA’s assessment became available that indicated it constituted a risk to the environment or human health. Following the implementation of the safeguard clause to introduce restrictions on planting in certain member states, EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate if the invocations were scientifically justifiable. The Authority concluded that its previous risk assessment conclusions remained valid in all cases and that the GM crops in question were safe (Devos et al. 2014). The EC attempted to resolve the contradiction between the official European safety assurance concerning GM crops and the challenges to it from member states in 2015 by creating an amendment to Directive 2001/18/EC that allows member states to restrict or prohibit cultivation on their territory or part of it5. According to this Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/412) however, member states can only prohibit the authorised GM crops cultivation on the grounds6 that do not “conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive”, thus ensuring the sovereignty of EFSA’s assessment as authoritative on questions of scientific risk (Directive (EU) 2015/412:Article 1). The Bt maize MON810 was authorised for cultivation and use as/in food and feed in 1998 for ten years. Monsanto applied for a renewal of the authorisation for MON810 cultivation in 2007. Despite a favourable 2009 EFSA Opinion (EFSA 2009) on the application, the EC has not decided yet (as of March 2020), and the Bt maize remains lawfully on the market. Relevantly, the DG Environment recommended to progress with the approval process only with an updated and complete ERA by EFSA and the European Parliament called on the EC to withdraw its draft (DG Environment 2016; European Parliament 2016).

2.3. Risk assessment “EFSA evaluates the potential impact of GMOs on human health, animal health and the environment. Its assessments are based on scientific dossiers presented by applicants and any other available relevant scientific information.” (EFSA undated). The assessment involves molecular characterisation of the newly created proteins, comparative analysis of the

4 The safeguard clause was invoked successively by Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Poland and Romania. 5 Nineteen member states opted out of the GM maize MON810 cultivation in the whole or part of their territory in 2015. 6 The grounds for prohibition of an authorised GMO may be related to: environmental policy objectives; town and country planning; land use; socio-economic impacts; avoidance of GMO presence in other products; agricultural policy objectives; and public policy (Directive (EU) 2015/412). Member states do not need to justify their wish to exclude their territory or part of it from the GM crop cultivation during the authorisation process or during the renewal of the authorisation of a GMO, only if this decision is contested by the applicant (Directive (EU) 2015/412). 11

GM plant with its conventional counterpart, evaluation of potential toxicity, allergenicity, and environmental impact (ibid.).

2.3.1. Environmental risk assessment (ERA)

“The objective of an e.r.a. is, on a case by case basis, to identify and evaluate potential adverse effects of the GMO, either direct and indirect, immediate or delayed, on human health and the environment which the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs may have. The e.r.a. should be conducted with a view to identifying if there is a need for risk management and if so, the most appropriate methods to be used.” (Directive 2001/18/EC:Annex 2, A)

ERA includes the assessment of environmental risks and assessment of the proposed post-market environmental monitoring plan. An ERA should be guided by general principles, such as following a step-by-step assessment approach, weight-of-evidence approach, it should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, and seven specific areas of concern should be addressed: persistence and invasiveness of the GM plant, gene transfer, interaction of the GM plant with target and non-target organisms, the impact of the specific cultivation, effects on biogeochemical processes and effects on human and animal health (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2010). A non-target organism is any species that is not targeted for control by toxins expressed in GM plants but will be exposed to them in the field conditions. The development of resistance to the Cry toxin expressed in Bt maize in the target pest was recognized as a relevant risk in the ERA of MON810 (EFSA 2009). EFSA, therefore, advised that the potential evolution of resistance continues to be monitored, and the high dose/refuge strategy continues to be employed. It agreed with the insect resistance management plan proposed by the applicants (ibid.). EFSA GMO Panel should also assess the scientific quality of the post-market environmental monitoring plan proposed by applicants. Risk managers do the final endorsement thereof. In the assessment of MON810, EFSA was of the opinion that “the structure of the post-market environmental monitoring plan provided by the applicant complies with the requirements.” (EFSA 2009:52). EFSA deems the two mentioned tools of risk management proposed by the Seed Producer adequate to manage the identified and potential risks of Bt maize cultivation. The proposed risk management tools will be scrutinised in the following to see to which extent they rely on farmers’ practice.

2.4. Risk management

2.4.1. Insect resistance management (IRM) plan Farmers cultivating Bt maize are required to implement specific measures to avoid and/or delay the development of insect resistance to the Bt toxin produced by the plant. When buying Bt maize seed, they obtain a Technical Guide7 that contains information on the growers’ IRM obligations.

“According to the Harmonised insect resistance management (IRM) plan for cultivation of Bt maize in the EU, farmers planting more than 5 hectares of MON 810 must have a refuge area planted with maize that does not express Cry1Ab and that corresponds to at least 20% of the surface planted with MON 810.” (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010:16).

Two questions arise which will be examined here in chapter 4.2. Assuming that this strategy is effective when applied as proposed, how is this requirement observed in practice, and what if each farmer plants less than 5 Ha in a particular area where Bt maize is accumulated without planting refuges? Indeed, although EFSA agreed with the IRM plan, it suggested that “if Bt-maize was adopted on a larger scale in a region, … [i.e.] in the case of a cluster of fields with an aggregate area greater than 5 ha of Bt-maize, there should be refugia equivalent to 20% of this aggregate area, irrespective of individual field and farm size.” (EFSA 2009:27). However, the suggestion of EFSA has not been reflected in the obligations for growers of MON810.

2.4.2. Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) GM crops undergo assessments of their properties and risks they might pose before authorisation for their release onto the market or cultivation for commercial purposes. Consequently, they are monitored in the scope of Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM). It is conducted by the applicant, and the objectives are:

“(1) Case-Specific Monitoring (CSM) to confirm that any assumption regarding the occurrence and impact of potential adverse effects of the GMO or its use in the ERA [environmental risk assessment] are correct, and (2) General Surveillance (GS) to identify the occurrence of adverse effects of the GMO or its use on human health or the environment which were not anticipated in the ERA ... and to determine the causality between the detected unanticipated adverse effects and the cultivation of GMPs [genetically modified plants]” (EFSA Panel on GMO 2011:6, 8).

7 The guide provides schemes for planting refugia, for an example see Appendix 9. 13

In the case of MON810, the case-specific monitoring consists of insect resistance management plan, irrelevant for the assessment of potential adverse effects on the environment or human and animal health. Those effects are monitored in the frame of the General surveillance, which is scrutinised in the following. 2.4.2.1. General surveillance (GS) General surveillance is mandatory for applications for authorisation or its renewal for GM crop cultivation submitted under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Despite a positive EFSA Opinion (2009), the European Commission has not yet adopted the renewal of the authorisation for the placing on the market of MON 810 for cultivation purposes (as of March 2020). The Bt maize thus remains lawfully on the market authorised under the Directive 90/220/EEC in 1998 without the obligation to conduct GS. However, Monsanto anticipated these changes in PMEM and started GS in 2005 voluntarily (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2006). The EFSA Opinion considered the GS plan to be in line with EFSA’s recommendations (EFSA 2009). General surveillance of maize MON810 consists of four elements: (1) farmers’ questionnaire, (2) alerts on environmental issues by authorities and existing networks, (3) the data gathered from publications related to maize MON810, and (4) company stewardship activities. 2.4.2.1.1. Farmers’ questionnaire Monsanto considers the annual farm questionnaire to be the central tool of general surveillance of MON810 (Monsanto Company 2007a). Farmers’ observations and assessment in and around GM fields in comparison to conventional fields are recorded based on their local historical experience (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010). A random sample of farmers cultivating Bt maize in each member state is surveyed yearly (ibid.). The questionnaire collects information about maize grown area, pest pressure, agronomic practices to grow maize, observations, and performance of Bt maize, and implementation of measures connected to Bt maize cultivation (ibid.). According to EFSA, the questionnaire is a useful method for collecting first-hand data, which can be used as an early warning (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011). At the same time, it acknowledges that “the information supplied by farmers will be limited to observations they can make within their areas of experience” (ibid.:15). A couple of member states have voiced doubts regarding the suitability of this tool for identifying the occurrence of adverse effects (EFSA 2009:Annex G). In general, farmers are not considered capable of delivering information on biodiversity and some other parameters (ibid.). The methodology of the questionnaire has also been questioned (ibid.). Furthermore, it has been proposed that Monsanto aims at shifting its responsibility for monitoring activities and reporting to the national level and external monitoring networks (ibid.).

Most of this criticism has not been translated to the EFSA Opinion (2009). However, EFSA has also observed weaknesses in the methodology of farmers’ questionnaire and has reiterated its recommendations over the years it has provided Opinions on the annual PMEM reports by Monsanto (EFSA et al. 2017, 2018; EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). Nevertheless, the EFSA’s admonitions remained mainly unaddressed by the Seed Producer. In its recent Opinion on the PMEM report in 2016, EFSA “reiterates previous observations on the methodology (e.g., sampling, comparator (non-GM) fields, type of questions and possible responses) and the analysis of data from the farmer questionnaire survey” (EFSA et al. 2018:16). EFSA acknowledges that data provided by farmers will be limited mostly to impact on organisms directly interacting with the crop and its management (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011). Other monitoring approaches, such as existing monitoring networks, are therefore suggested. 2.4.2.1.2. Alerts on environmental issues from existing monitoring networks Acquiring additional information from existing environmental networks was proposed in the Directive 2001/18/EC and has been reiterated yearly by EFSA (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011-2016, EFSA et al. 2017, 2018). The networks at the level of member states and the EU were identified only in the recent Monsanto’s report (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2017). However, it was concluded that data from such a network could not establish a relationship between a cause and an effect (ibid.). This source has thus remained unextracted over the years, and the alleged tool of GS unused. 2.4.2.1.3. Publications related to maize MON810 GS furthermore consists of “data collected from peer-reviewed scientific publications or reports relating to MON 810 and its comparative safety (to conventional counterparts) with respect to human, and animal health and the environment” (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2017:12). Although the literature search has improved over the years, EFSA has been providing assessments of Monsanto’s reports, certain shortcomings regarding methodology and reporting still pertain (EFSA et al. 2018). 2.4.2.1.4. Company stewardship activities The last tool of GS is comprised of “company stewardship activities designed to ensure and maintain the benefits of the product” (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2017:12). According to Monsanto’s annual monitoring reports, these activities include the education of growers, which focuses on the importance of insect resistance management, i.e., farmers’ obligation to sow so-called refuges of conventional maize (ibid.). However, that does not relate to the purpose of general surveillance to identify the occurrence of adverse effects. Besides that, Monsanto “urges users to notify any unexpected potential adverse effects observed that might be linked to the use of its products” (ibid.:14). No such effect has been reported up today 15

(ibid.). However, the limitations which have been described for the farmers’ questionnaire apply equally to these farmers’ reports. 2.4.2.1.5. GS summary: General surveillance in practice Apparently, general surveillance in practice consists of two instead of four tools. The identification of unexpected adverse effects of the Bt maize on human and animal health or the environment depends on reports from farmers and literature survey. Moreover, both of these methods have been criticized. The premise that the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire is a useful method to obtain first-hand data despite the criticism will be examined in chapter 4.3.

2.4.3. Co-existence “Co-existence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling8 and/or purity standards.” (European Commission 2003:6). The goal is also to provide freedom of choice for consumers (European Parliament 2003). Conversely, Levidow and Boschert (2008) argue that any rules limit the choice of some farmers more than others; thus, the official language of free choice is contradicted. 2.4.3.1. Co-existence regulation European Commission provided at first non-binding recommendations to help the member states develop strategies for co-existence (European Commission 2003). Later, the European Coexistence Bureau was set up to develop Best Practice Documents intended to assist MSs in the development or refinement of legislative approaches to co-existence (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). A specific co-existence regulation has not been adopted in each member state. However, GM crops either have not been grown or have been banned in those states except for Spain (Verriere 2014). The co-existence legislation in the Czech Republic was developed in late 2005 (Předpis č. 252/1997 Sb. Zákon o zemědělství 1997)9. Obligations for Czech GM maize growers consist of informing farming neighbours and authorized department of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund (SAIF); keeping minimum distances between GM maize crops and another land parcel with non-modified maize and state borders (the latter effective of 1st January 2017); labelling the GM maize product as GMO; keeping a record of GM maize handling and keeping the data in a company for at least five years (Trnková et al., 2017).

8 There is a threshold level of 0.9 % below which the marketed product which contains adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of GMOs authorised in the EU do not require labelling (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003). 9 Provisional co-existence measures for GM maize cultivation in 2005 similar to the measures required by the following legislation conditioned receiving of national subsidies in that year (Nařízení vlády č. 145/2005 Sb. 2005). 16

SAIF controls the minimum separation distances of GM maize crop from a different non-GM maize crop which is cultivated by a different user (ibid.). The distance can be substituted by sowing buffer crop consisting of non-GM maize (ibid.). Therefore, the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA) and the Crop Research Institute, p.r.i. (CRI) provide for further control whether the maize, which is declared as buffer crops, is made up of non-modified maize (ibid.). Apart from that, seed, feed, and food are monitored for unauthorized GMOs presence and correct labelling of authorized GMO products (Roudná and et al. 2011). Varying strengths of co-existence rules in different member states have been discussed (Verriere 2014). The focus here (chapter 4.4) will be on the feasibility of keeping them in practice, on relationships among neighbours farming in different regimes, on other practical issues emerging in farmers’ experience, and on the feasibility of the concept of co-existence as such. 2.4.3.2. Two approaches to co-existence Levidow and Boschert (2008) note that divergent meanings and policy agendas are attributed to the concept of co-existence. Binimelis and Strand (2009) differentiate between two approaches to co-existence. The one developed by the EC (2003) that focuses on farmers’ freedom of choice recognises only economic aspects, “the coexistence issue is a compensatory mechanism of the costs derived from the market-driven differentiation between GM and non-GM products” (Binimelis and Strand 2009:127). In this view, if GM crops are found safe for health and the environment, there is no need to treat them differently than non- GM crops; thus, the notion of “contamination” is rejected (ibid.). A strict line between risk assessment and risk management is drawn (ibid.). In this perspective, co-existence is desirable and technically feasible (ibid.). The second approach coined for example in the EP report (European Parliament 2003) have a broader scope where other impacts are taken into account, including, e.g., “regional and local land use and economic development, consumer and environmental protection, cultural aspects, and those related to local identities and to the integrity of organic agriculture” (Binimelis and Strand 2009:127). It focuses on consumer or societal rights and societal choices about the agricultural system (ibid.). This perspective recognises the possible difference between GM and non-GM production; the admixture is referred to as “contamination” (ibid.). Furthermore, Binimelis and Strand (2009) reject certain assumptions of the first approach based on Lleida (Spain) farmers’ experience. It is argued that isolation distances would make GM maize cultivation impossible due to the limited size of plots, which could be solved by regional clusters of GM and non-GM production. Moreover, the authors illustrate that power among different stakeholders is not equally distributed: “the inferior social, cultural, and economic position of organic farmers affects the possibility of cooperation and stakeholder involvement on equal terms” (Binimelis and Strand 2009:130). Levidow and 17

Boschert (2008) also describe an existential threat from the agro-industrial paradigm for alternative agriculture as an asymmetrical conflict. Finally, the social and cultural implications of raising liability claims in a community are found to be disregarded by the EC recommendations for the liability schemes (Binimelis and Strand 2009).

2.5. Agriculture

2.5.1. Situating Czech agriculture in the EU context Agricultural land of the Czech Republic covers slightly more than a half of its area (53%) which corresponds to the proportion of agricultural land in the EU (47%) (Eurostat 2019:19; Sálusová 2018:29). The agricultural and arable land area of the Czech Republic has been decreasing following the same trend in the EU and developed world. The size of Czech arable land has decreased by 22% over the last hundred years from 3814 thousand Ha in 1920 to 2959 thousand Ha in 2017 (Sálusová 2018:28–29). Czech farms have by far the largest average farm size (in physical terms) in the EU. The size of agricultural land farmed by an average business of 132 Ha is eight times higher than the EU average of 16.6 Ha (Český statistický úřad and Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2016a; Eurostat 2019:18). The same holds for Czech organic farms of an average size of 118 Ha compared to the EU average of 40 Ha (Šejnohová et al. 2018:16). Only 7% of agricultural businesses farms two-thirds of the total agricultural land in the Czech Republic. These businesses are the largest ones expressed with their ranking in the highest classes of economic size (more than 500 thousand EUR) (Český statistický úřad and Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2016b). Similarly, in other terms, physically large holdings (more than 100 Ha) farm 88% of the Czech agricultural area (Eurostat 2018). Almost three quarters (74%) of the Czech agricultural labour force is accounted for by non-family members, whereas approximately the same proportion (77%) of EU’s agricultural labour force is provided by family members (Eurostat 2018). The vast majority of the EU’s farms are family farms (96%) (Eurostat 2019:18). In the Czech Republic, family farms represent 86% of the farms (Eurostat 2019:151). The character of Czech agriculture is better understood in the context of the processes that have shaped it by the violent collectivisation which took place mainly in the 1950s during the communist regime. The European largest average farm size is a heritage of the merging of plots and transforming of vast areas of agricultural land into arable land which was pushed in the name of intensification. The Czech farms remained large even after the privatisation, which followed the fall of the communist regime in 1989. Furthermore, the property restitutions did not lead to a renewal of farming on farmer’s own land in most cases, which resulted in a high number of landowners lending their agricultural land. Despite the slightly decreasing trend of the proportion of hired arable land, 76% of the arable land was still hired

18 in 2016 (own calculation based on data from Farm Structure Survey – 2016 (Čermáková and Mácová 2016)). The collectivisation also changed the attitude of farmers to the land. The relationship to the soil and respect to the inherited land disappeared together with the sense of responsibility for the farmed land and adjacent landscape (Lapka and Gottlieb 2000). The attitudes of contemporary farmers do not appear to have restored (Lokoč 2009). Employees in agriculture represent only 4.1% of the total employment in the EU and even less in the Czech Republic (2.5%) (Eurostat 2019:151). There are less female farm managers in the Czech Republic than in the EU on average (12% versus 28%) (ibid.). On the other hand, Czech farmers are more educated than the EU average, 39% of Czech farm managers have full agricultural training, compared to only 9% of the EU ones (ibid.). Two-thirds of the output of Czech agricultural industry consists of cereals (mainly wheat and barley), milk, industrial crops and other crops and crop products (Eurostat 2019:150; Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:210). The rest comprises forage plants, pigs, cattle, other animals, other animal products and services (Eurostat 2019:150).

2.5.2. Conventional agriculture Conventional agriculture is usually defined as the opposite of organic agriculture and is usually described as a way of farming that uses synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, concentrated animal breeding and monocropping production, high-performance and heavy machinery. For this text, “conventional” is understood as the way of farming which is not organic and which does not use GMOs. The farming which makes use of GM crops is here referred to as GM farming.

2.5.3. Organic agriculture Organic agriculture produces healthy and high-quality food in a sustainable way. It is acknowledged as a principle alternative for the future of agriculture. Organic agriculture is regulated by EU and Czech legislation. It is defined as

“a special type of farming that takes care of the environment and its components by prescribing restrictions or prohibitions to use agents and practices which burden, pollute or contaminate the environment or increase the risk of contamination of food chain, and that minds the outer life manifestations and behaviour and welfare of bred farm animals.” (Zákon č. 242/2000 Sb.)

The acreage of Czech agricultural land farmed in the organic regime has been increasing continually to 12% of the total agricultural land in 2017 (Šejnohová et al. 2018:11). That is a higher percentage than the EU’s 7% share (Eurostat 2019:21). However, it is represented mainly by permanent grasslands.

A typical form of Czech organic agriculture is extensive farming of beef cattle in less favoured agricultural areas. Other reared animals include sheep, poultry, goats, horses and pigs (Šejnohová et al. 2018:29). The arable soil sown with organic crops accounts only for 2% of the total utilised arable soil (53 thousand Ha) compared to the EU’s 3% share (Eurostat 2019:22; Šejnohová et al. 2018:15). Most of the organic arable land is sown with grain cereals (mainly wheat and oat) and forage crops (over 40% each), the rest with legumes, industrial crops, potatoes and sugar beet (Šejnohová et al. 2018:27). The whole production chain is strictly controlled, and the organic label is awarded only to products where no failing was identified (Ministry of Agriculture undated a). The cost of control is born by controlled subjects. The organic businesses are inspected at least once a year (with and without prior notification). Breach of the rules leads either to revocation of the organic certification or a fine. However, the number of these cases is rather small, around 40 out of six thousand controls a year (ibid.). In contrast to conventional farmers, the organic ones must keep a set of rules and do extra administrative work. Most importantly, it is forbidden to use GMOs, mineral nitrogen fertilizers, conventional feed and ionizing radiation (Ministerstvo zemědělství 2018). The use of antibiotics and plant protection products is allowed only in exceptional cases and only from a list of products authorised for the use in organic agriculture. Furthermore, farmers must keep organic and conventional production separate (the cultivation of same plant varieties and same animal species is forbidden) and keep isolation between organic and conventional fields (ibid.). Other rules for the whole organic agricultural system, plant production and animal husbandry not mentioned here apply. The administrative part includes registration as an organic farmer, application for an exception from rules (related with administrative fees), keeping a record, labelling and undergoing inspections (again subject to a cost born by farmers) (ibid.). Comparing the two special cases of agriculture, organic and GM, the production rules are much more strict for organic farmers than for farmers growing GM crops. Similarly to GM farmers, organic ones often contend with the sales of their production. Three quarters of farmers who could have sold their products with organic certificate were forced to sell part or the entire production on conventional markets (more than half only on conventional markets) in 2016 (Šejnohová et al. 2018:48). This situation is also described in Lokoč (2009:3.9.2) with the main identified obstacles being lack of processing operations and their distance from organic farms.

2.5.4. Maize The acreage of grain maize has increased from 0.4% of the total sown area in 1920 to 3.4% in 2017 (Sálusová 2018:32–33). Total maize acreage (both grain and silage) has accounted for 13% of the utilised arable land in 2016 (own calculation based on data from Farm Structure Survey – 2016 (Čermáková and Mácová 2016)). Bt maize was sown on 2.91%

20 of the total maize acreage in the peak year 2008 (Statistika Ministerstva zemědělství in (Stratilová 2015:11)). In comparison, the acreage of organic maize accounted only for 0.24% of the total maize acreage in 2017 (own calculation based on data from Farm Structure Survey – 2016 (Čermáková and Mácová 2016) and Statistical survey in organic agriculture (Šejnohová et al. 2018:24–26)).

2.5.5. The pest: European corn borer (ECB)10 European corn borer (ECB), the pest to which this Bt maize is resistant, is currently the most critical arthropod pest for maize in Europe (Meissle et al. 2010). It infests 20-60% of fields, resulting in 5-30% yield losses when no control measures are undertaken (ibid.). Additional damage in the Mediterranean region is caused by the Mediterranean corn borer (MCB) Sesamia nonagrioides Lefebvre, another pest to which MON810 is resistant (Meissle, Romeis, and Bigler 2011). The European corn borer occurs in all maize grain production areas in the Czech Republic, with an estimated 10-20% yield losses (Kocourek and Stará 2012; Křístková 2009). A complex of control methods that rely, besides direct treatment, on cultural measures is advised in order to combat the ECB (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2018). The direct measures that are practised include chemical and biological control (Meissle et al. 2011). The application of relatively cheap chemical insecticides requires specialised and expensive machinery because of the height of maize stands (ibid.). Broad-spectrum insecticides that control several arthropod pests at once are usually used (ibid.). The area of maize in Europe treated with insecticides that act against ECB varies up to a quarter of the maize acreage, except for Spain, where more than half of conventional maize is sprayed (Gómez-Barbero, Berbel and Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2008; Darvas et al., 2011; Skevas et al., 2012). In the Czech Republic, half of the maize grain area was treated with insecticides against the ECB in 2008 and less than a quarter of the total maize acreage in 2009 (Kocourek and Stará 2012; Křístková 2009). Insecticides were applied to less than 20% of the maize areas monitored in 2016 and 2017 (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2017, 2018). Biological control consists of the air or hand application of the Trichogramma wasp spp., which parasitizes on ECB eggs (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2018). Its efficacy compares to that of chemical insecticides under optimal conditions (Meissle et al. 2011). The maize area treated with the parasitic wasp shows an increasing trend in the Czech Republic (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2018).

10 This chapter was adopted from an article published in Acta Mendelu (Chvátalová 2020). The article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND).

Another possible way to fight infestation is to plant GM maize resistant to ECB. These plants continuously produce Bt toxins that are active against the larvae of the pest. The control is thus independent of the weather and farmers’ chances to monitor pest arrival and apply insecticides or parasitic wasps.

2.5.6. Claimed benefits of MON81011 Bt maize MON810 is promoted as being beneficial for farmers and the environment. Some of the benefits listed by the Seed Producer include 100% control of corn borers, healthy production, increased yield, lowering the unit costs of maize production, reduction of the usage of insecticide and hence a relief for the environment, simplicity of manipulation and saving time (Monsanto n.d.). It is conceivable that the benefits will be influenced by limiting factors in the practice. Farmers’ obligation to keep specific rules regarding time and/or space for sowing, managing separate harvesting, handling and storing of Bt maize, together with some administrative duties will probably demand some extra time and effort. Would this be balanced by no need for pest monitoring and insecticide application? Would the higher price for Bt maize seeds be compensated by saving money on insecticides and work and by higher yields? Indeed, would Bt maize yield better than the conventional one under various field and climatic conditions and pest pressure? Moreover, would the amount of insecticides decrease, or is it uncommon to use them already? Furthermore, is the Bt toxin as specific and thereby safe for any non-target species as supposed? Finally, how long will this GM event provide effective control against the corn borer (thereby securing also healthy production) given the known development of pest resistance to plant protection products? Research has been undertaken to evaluate the claimed benefits in the European context. The efficacy against the ECB and fungal infestation was investigated in field trials (Folcher et al. 2010; Kocourek and Stará 2012) and commercial fields (Darvas et al., 2011; Selwet, 2011; Thieme et al., 2018). The yield was also evaluated in fields trials (Andersen et al. 2007; Kocourek and Stará 2012; Křístková 2009; Schiefer et al. 2008) and under commercial cultivation (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008; Křístková 2009; Schiefer et al. 2008). Křístková (2009) reported on the profitability of Bt maize cultivation that was assessed by cost-benefit analysis based on farm data, Gómez-Barbero et al. (2008) and Schiefer et al. (2008) indicated gross margin difference between Bt and conventional maize cultivated commercially. Relevantly, a European review by Wolf and Vögeli (2009) and the data from the abovementioned studies suggest that the benefits concerning fungal diseases, yields,

11 Part of this chapter was adopted from an article published in Acta Mendelu (Chvátalová 2020). The article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND).

22 insecticides and costs have been manifested only partly, or even negatively (in opposite to the claimed benefit), and are often influenced by corn borer infestation, climatic conditions, seed price and risk management practices. Furthermore, apart from some indications based on the advantages and disadvantages reported by Czech Bt maize growers, the alleged simplicity of manipulation and saving time have not been evaluated (Křístková 2009). Only three European publications reported on, among other things, farmers’ experience with some of the claimed benefits. Gómez-Barbero et al. (2008) evaluated yield, economic performance and the use of insecticides based on data from over 400 Spanish farmers who cultivated Bt (Bt176 and MON810) and/or conventional maize in the years 2002- 2004. Křístková (2009) analysed data on yield and economic performance from over 150 Czech farmers who cultivated Bt maize in the years 2005-2007. The German assessment of farms’ yield drew on the experience of nine farmers who cultivated Bt maize in 2007 (Schiefer et al. 2008). Moreover, Schiefer et al. (2008) suggest that in order to evaluate the economic performance of Bt maize planting, further research should include observation in practice, not only conducting field trials. The experience of Czech farmers with the claimed benefits of Bt maize MON810 will be explored here (chapter 4.1) in an attempt to contribute to the scarce evidence from the commercial cultivation from the perspective of the growers.

2.6. Attitudes to genetically modified crops

2.6.1. Farmers’ attitudes A general definition of an attitude posits that it is “a relatively enduring organization of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner.” (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences July 10, 2020). The compliance of farmers with risk management rules presupposes that farmers employ certain practices. Various factors, probably including the farmers’ attitudes, influence the implementation of those practices. Besides the attitudes towards norms, attitudes towards GM crops seem relevant in this context. However, the literature about the attitudes of the primary producers of GM food and feed in Europe is rather underrepresented. Even on the global level, Almeida and Massarani (2018) note that incomparably more research has been devoted to understanding consumers’ views on GM food in contrast to exploring the perceptions of farmers. The reviewed literature revealed that most studies in the European context evaluate the economic outcomes, identify barriers to the adoption of GM crops, or explore farmers’ motivations to potentially grow (or not) GM crops. Research partially concerned with attitudes was performed, for example, to describe the experience with co-existence, the reasons for adopting/rejecting Bt maize, and the profile of adopters on Spanish, Portuguese, and Czech farms (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008; Křístková

2009; Skevas, Wesseler, and Fevereiro 2009). Other studies focused on farmers’ willingness to grow a GM crop if a new type was permitted or if a national ban on the cultivation of GM crops was lifted (Areal, Riesgo, and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2011; Breustedt, Müller-Scheeßel, and Latacz-Lohmann 2008; Jones and Tranter 2014; Keelan et al. 2009; Lawson et al. 2009; Skevas et al. 2012; De Steur et al. 2019). However, studies aimed at understanding farmers’ perception of, and attitudes to, GM crops are an exception (Hall 2008; Lassen and Sandøe 2009).

2.6.2. Discourse Previous studies employed discourse analysis to explore farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops (Almeida and Massarani 2018; Hall 2008) and their perception and behaviour in other contexts (Fleming et al. 2018, 2019). Fairclough, a representative of critical discourse analysis (CDA), understands discourse as “a way of speaking which gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective” (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002:66–67). Critical discourse analysts interpret discourse as “a reflection of the ideologies of the subjects who engage in it” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:38). For Fairclough, the concept of discourse is restricted to text, talk and other semiological systems. A critical realist approach to CDA involves “not simply analysis of discourse per se, but analysis of the relations between discourse and non-discoursal elements of the social, in order to reach a better understanding of these complex relation.” (Fairclough 2005:924). Therefore, the subject’s particular viewpoint is analysed in the context of the non- discoursal elements and hence may be interpreted as reflecting the subject’s attitudes. The form of sociological discourse analysis (Ruiz Ruiz 2009) which draws on CDA may thus provide a method for the exploration of farmers’ attitudes. The discourses and attitudes of Czech farmers towards GM crops and related agricultural issues are analysed and discussed here in chapter 4.5.

2.6.3. Czech GMO discourse Furthermore, in CDA, discourse is understood as “a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices” (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002:61). The discourse of the farmers naturally does not develop in a vacuum but is in a dialogue with other discourses circulating in the social space. Therefore, the consideration of the context in which the subject’s discourse emerge helps to understand what it means for the subjects who produce it (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:36). The exploration of the relationship between the subject’s discourse and the public discourses also enables to assess if and to what extent farmers’ discourses are influenced by the discourses projected from the sources of power (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:42).

Farmers’ discourses are explored here in the context of the Czech discourse about GMOs, the discourse of the GM Seed Producer, and other related discourses circulating in the Czech social space. Unlike other European countries, GMOs have not been a big case in the Czech Republic. There were only a few public actors at the turn of the millennium when it was a hotly debated issue in Europe (Stöckelová 2004). Nevertheless, a specific Czech discourse shaped predominantly by the state authorities and one NGO that advocates GMOs and one that opposed them was described (Stöckelová 2004, 2008). The discourses circulating in the Czech public space are analysed in chapter 4.5.

2.7. Summary and the aims of the study Firstly, although Bt maize MON810 has been cultivated in the EU for 17 years, there are gaps and inconsistencies in the published literature regarding the benefits the GM crop was supposed to bring. The literature review indicates that the benefits concerning fungal diseases, yields, insecticides and costs have been manifested only partly, or even in opposition to the claimed benefit. Moreover, it is reasonable to suspect that the organisation of sowing in line with the rules for GM farming, the separation of GM and non-GM production through the whole production chain from sowing, across harvesting to the storage, and the administration might impact on the realisation of the claimed benefits of simple manipulation and saving of time. Secondly, the current and pending authorisation to grow Bt maize MON810 in the EU and the co-existence legislation include several assumptions concerning farmers’ experience and practice. Bt maize growers are required to adhere to the insect resistance management plan in order to avoid or delay the evolution of the resistance of the pest. They must also comply with specific measures to secure the co-existence of GM with conventional and organic production. Furthermore, the post-market environmental monitoring of the crop relies heavily on Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire, which has been criticised widely. Farmers are supposed to be able to compare GM and conventional production locally and historically and to notice and report potential unforeseen adverse effects. Thirdly, the compliance of farmers with risk management rules presupposes certain attitudes and practices on their side. However, the literature about European farmers’ attitudes to and perceptions of GM crops which would span beyond the economic concerns and their motivation to grow it or not is rather underrepresented. The aim of this study was, therefore, to contribute to the assessment of the recommended risk management practices and the claimed benefits based on farmers’ experience covering the entire period of Bt maize cultivation in the Czech Republic (2005- 2016). Furthermore, I aimed to explore how Czech farmers perceive and conceive of GM crops.

3. Methodology This chapter presents a detailed account of the design of the study, data collection and analysis, the reasons for the philosophical stance taken, as well as the author’s reflection of her position in the research. It is opened by posing the research questions that guided the process. The next paragraph summarises this chapter. The philosophical stance I take in this study is critical realism. This research was designed as a case study where a mixed method research approach was applied. The research goals have been determined, data collected, analysed and interpreted, and inferences drawn in a simultaneous combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The need to study the issue in its complex context resulted in a collection of data from multiple sources which included 22 semi-structured interviews with farmers and a quantitative questionnaire filled by the farmers, a variety of documents available publicly and obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999), and the author’s observation at public events related to GMOs. The data from the questionnaires were analysed using quantitative analysis (percentages of answers), whereas the interview, observation and document data were analysed qualitatively using sociological discourse analysis which included grounded theory analysis and critical discourse analysis.

3.1. Study design

3.1.1. Research questions The identified gaps and inconsistencies from the literature review led to the determination of research goals and the subsequent formulation of the research questions. Main research question How do promised benefits and recommended risk management practices of Bt maize MON810 cultivation correspond to Czech agricultural practice? Secondary research questions 1. How do the benefits claimed by the Bt maize MON810 Seed Producer correspond to the experience from agricultural practice as reported by Czech farmers? 2. Did Czech farmers comply with insect resistance management plan? 3. How useful is the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire for the General Surveillance of Post-Market Environmental Monitoring of Bt maize from the perspective of Czech farmers’ practice? 4. How do GM and non-GM agricultural production co-exist in the Czech Republic in respect to regulations, the degree of compliance, farmers’ practices and experience? 5. What are farmers’ attitudes towards genetically modified crops in the context of the Czech discourse about GMOs and the discourse of the GM Seed Producer?

The research questions were modified in the course of the study to become more precise and to keep the thesis concise. The fifth question on the attitudes was posed after the field research only had begun. The potential topic of further research has emerged during the first interviews during which farmers spontaneously expressed their opinions on GM crops. That led me to acknowledge that farmers’ attitudes are an essential and inseparable context of their interpretation of their experience. Subsequently, I formulated the research question: “What are farmers’ attitudes towards genetically modified crops?”. That question was complemented during the analysis of the interview transcripts by adding a qualifier “in the context of the Czech discourse about GMOs and the discourse of the GM Seed Producer”.

3.1.2. Case study The aim of the study and the initial broad research question: “How do promised benefits and recommended risk management practices of Bt maize MON810 cultivation correspond to agricultural practice?” guided the choice of the case study research design. It was deemed most suitable for the comprehensive, in-depth investigation of a complex issue in real-life settings (Harrison et al. 2017:28). Furthermore, case studies are “recommended to answer how and why or less frequently what research questions.” (ibid.). Another condition qualifying it for this particular research design was that the farmers’ experience is embedded in a context, “where the boundary between the context and issue is unclear and contains many variables” (ibid.). The case study explored the farmers’ experience with the cultivation of MON810 in the context of the official information about its cultivation, regulation and control of compliance with the rules; in the context of the relationships among GM, conventional and organic farming neighbours; and in the context of farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops, which in turn were situated in the GMO discourses. The geographical boundary of the case was set to the Czech Republic because it was one of the few member states of the EU where it had been grown continuously over a more extended period. The other states included Spain, which would be an extreme case with the largest cultivation area, and Portugal and Slovakia (see introduction 2.1.2). Another reason was that comparably less literature focused on the Czech and Slovakian farmers’ experience compared to research published on the Spanish and Portuguese experience. Finally, the choice was also guided by practical reasons as I have been familiar with the broader issues of Czech agriculture and expected easier access to farmers and documents as a citizen of the Czech Republic. The case can be considered an “exemplifying case” (Bryman’s (Bryman 2008:56) paraphrase of Yin’s (2003) typical case) in the sense of the farmers’ experience with the cultivation of Bt maize in the EU that are shaped by the same risk management rules (except for the varying strength of co-existence rules, see introduction 2.4.3) and the same expectations towards the claimed benefits. On the other hand, from the perspective of the

27 farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops that probably differ in dependence on the particular local discourse, the Czech case as any other case will be unique.

3.1.3. Mixed method research In a case study research design, “the use of multiple methods to collect and analyse data are encouraged and found to be mutually informative” as “together they provide a more synergistic and comprehensive view of the issue being studied.” (Harrison et al. 2017:30) The mixed method research approach has been applied in this study. The research goals have been determined, data collected, analysed and interpreted, and inferences drawn in a simultaneous combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. This approach was chosen in an attempt to overcome “the biases inherent in universalizing, variable-oriented quantitative methods” and “the tendency to ignore complexity and to focus on typical characteristics and shared concepts and themes” of qualitative methods (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:160). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were planned to get a deeper insight into farmers’ experience, to allow for unexpected topics of interest to emerge and to test the questions for the use in a questionnaire. The combination of the methods proved useful when the interpretation of the quantitative data from the questionnaire was put in the context of the statements from the interviews. Besides, the interview questions could be addressed to a higher number of participants to see whether the experience of the interviewed sample was reflected in the broader population of farmers. Furthermore, the quantitative interview data from questions phrased in the same way as in the questionnaire was merged with the data from questionnaires for the quantitative analysis.

3.1.4. Critical realism The philosophical stance I take in this research is critical realism that retains “an ontological realism while accepting a form of epistemological relativism or constructivism.” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:151). The standpoint that a case study “is not assigned to a fixed ontological, epistemological or methodological position" (Rosenberg and Yates 2007:447 in Harrison et al. 2017) allowed me to choose this philosophical stance based on my worldview and the character of the study. Critical realism was chosen as “a productive stance for mixed method research because it is compatible with both qualitative and quantitative research and treats the two perspectives as equally valid and useful.” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:160). The approach was also found suitable to study both, the physical and mental nature of the phenomena as it “treats mental entities as equally real to physical ones and as relevant to causal explanations of individual and social phenomena.” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:156). I mean here the physical reality of maize growing in the fields on a certain acreage giving a certain amount of yield, and farmer’s activities in the physical reality as, e.g. spraying the fields, observing any differences between GM and conventional fields and informing their 28 neighbours. The farmers’ activities do not happen in a vacuum but are shaped in a context. The context of mental entities that shape farmers’ practices considered here is their attitudes towards GM crops. At the same time, in the perspective of critical realism, “individuals’ social and physical contexts have a causal influence on their beliefs and perspectives” (Maxwell and Mittapalli 2010:157). Put differently by critical discourse analysts, discourse is understood as “a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices” (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002:61). Therefore, it is acknowledged here that the attitudes of farmers towards GM crops not only shape their practices but also the same attitudes are influenced by the context as, for instance, by public discourses on GMOs. Furthermore, the methods used here were chosen to be compatible with this stance. The kind of sociological discourse analysis (SDA) I use employs constructivist grounded theory (CGT) and critical discourse analysis (CDA). Charmaz explicitly names critical realism as an approach which is congenial with CGT (Charmaz 2006:184), and CDA draws from critical realist discourse theory (Angermuller 2015). The quantitative analysis of questionnaires and the qualitative analysis of documents was also performed in agreement with the stance of critical realism. In line with ontological realism and epistemological constructivism, the data were treated as representation of the real world but unlike the positivist stance that “scientist’s conceptualization of reality actually directly reflects that reality” (Bryman 2008:14) the constructed interpretation of the reality was acknowledged.

3.2. Data collection

3.2.1. Semi-structured interviews with GM farmers The farmers who cultivated Bt maize in the most recent season were interviewed to get a more in-depth insight into their experience and to test the questions for the use in the questionnaire follow-up. All the Czech farmers who grew Bt maize in 201512 (N=11) were invited to interviews at the beginning of February 2016. Their contact details were found by searching the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS)13 using Bt maize field location data which were obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999). Interviews with ten14 farmers who signed informed consent to participation in the research were carried out by the author in February and March 2016, in most cases directly on their farms. The interviews lasted between 47 and 151 minutes, with an

12The Bt maize acreage accounted only for 0.3% of the total maize acreage in the Czech Republic in 2015 (Jordán 2015). 13 See Appendix 9. 14The contact details of farmer G10 were obtained later, so that he was contacted at the beginning of the season and refused to have a personal interview for time reasons. Only a short telephone interview was conducted. Additional information was adopted from interviews he provided to farmers’ magazines which are not referenced here to ensure the anonymity. 29 average of 1.5 hours. A map (Figure 11) of the districts where Bt maize was cultivated in 2015 and where the interviews took place is available in Appendix 9. It also indicates places of the occurrence of European corn borer (ECB) in that year. The semi-structured interviews were based on an interview guide15 provided to the interviewees before the meetings. However, after the initial questions on the experience with Bt maize cultivation, the farmers usually started to talk freely about other aspects of their experience relevant to other not-yet-asked questions from the guide. Therefore, I let them continue in their natural flow and followed which questions they have answered in this way to keep in mind which other questions needed to be asked explicitly. I kept returning to the questions which had not been addressed yet, which in turn usually triggered next waves of interviewees’ spontaneous narration. These iterations brought some recurrent topics which yielded a more detailed account of those topics. In the course of performing and transcribing the first interviews with GM farmers, I noticed an interesting theme emerging in the free parts of the interviews. I deemed this theme potentially relevant for answering the research questions I had posed because it related to farmers’ perception of GMOs. Therefore, I added the fifth research question asking about farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops and in the following interviews, I continued in letting the interviewees express their opinions about GMOs and supported them in doing so by follow-up questions. The interviews focused on agricultural practice, maize pests, biodiversity, co- existence, motivations to begin, continue or discontinue Bt maize growing, overall experience with Bt maize and attitudes to GM crops. When preparing the guide, I drew on the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010:Appendix 7) to formulate questions on maize grown area, typical agronomic practices to grow maize and observations of Bt maize as I considered the understanding of the questions for farmers proven by Monsanto. The Monsanto’s questions on the refuge and occurrence of wildlife were adapted according to the recommendations from EFSA (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011; EFSA Panel on GMO 2011) and further questions were added to test how refuge risk management practices are employed in practice and to test if and to what extent farmers can assess biodiversity. Furthermore, I included questions to test other assumptions made in the risk management and the claimed benefits and to explore farmers’ attitudes and experience regarding GM crops. Eight interviews were audio-recorded with the farmers’ consent. One farmer declined the recording because of his perceived speech impediment, and another farmer consented only to a short non-recorded telephone interview. Extensive notes were taken during these two

15 The interview guide is available in Appendix 5. 30 interviews and immediately afterwards. The Bt maize farmers who were interviewed are presented here under the codes G1 to G10 to ensure anonymity. The data from the interviews with Bt maize farmers were used to answer the research questions 1–5. An overview of the characteristics of interviewed GM farmers and their farms is presented in Appendix 1.

3.2.2. Questionnaires to GM farmers A quantitative survey was planned to see if the findings from the interviewed sample reflected the experience of all Czech GM farmers. A list of all the Czech growers cultivating Bt maize MON810 in 2005-2014 was obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999). The list included 216 subjects with address detail that were eligible for the research.16 The aim was to survey the total population because of its small size. A total of 216 agronomists were asked by email or mail to fill in an anonymous online questionnaire17 or its paper version in the second half of February 2017. The questionnaire drew on the guide that had been used for interviews with GM farmers in 2016. The response rate achieved after two reminder emails equalled 13% (n=27). In order to increase the sample size, the interview and questionnaire data from questions phrased in the same way was merged for the analysis. The overall response rate thus increased to 16% (37 respondents out of 226). The characterization of non-respondent farmers is based on the feedback some agronomists provided when replying negatively to the invitation to fill in the questionnaire. The primary reported reasons for not filling the questionnaire were that it had been a long time since the end of Bt maize cultivation (the responsible agronomist was not in charge any more or s/he did not have sufficient information to answer the detailed questions) or the fact that they only tried Bt maize on a small scale in one season and did not feel competent to answer. The only data the competent Czech authorities provide is the number of growers per year and the overall size of the commercially cultivated Bt maize area (see Table 1), which does not permit comparison with the data of the respondent sample.18 Each farm with identification details that had grown Bt maize for at least one year since the beginning of its cultivation in the Czech Republic was invited to participate in the

16216 out of 233 subjects with address details were eligible for the research. The seventeen excluded subjects were: ten farmers interviewed in 2016, four subjects that ceased to exist in the course of the years, two school farms and one research institute. 17 The questionnaire is available in Appendix 6. 18Surprisingly, some farmers responded that they did not cultivate GM maize. This might be explained by the fact that any subject growing Bt maize must notify this to the competent Czech authority, regardless of the scale of cultivation. Farmers usually try new crop varieties in small field trials, which was reportedly the case of some GM maize growers. They might therefore not have been aware of Bt maize cultivation on their farm (especially if it was many years ago). 31 research. Different durations of cultivation (1-10 years) and each year of cultivation (2005- 2016) are covered. The questionnaire provided data from farmers growing Bt maize in the period 2005- 2014. The farmers who were interviewed reported on the year 2015 (respectively also the period for which Bt maize was cultivated on their farm), including the only farmer who continued to grow Bt maize in 2016. The total sample thus covers the entire period for which Bt maize was grown in the Czech Republic from 2005 to 2016. The data from the questionnaires were used to answer the research questions 1–4. An overview of quantitative characteristics of GM farmers and their farms is presented in Appendix 1.

3.2.3. Semi-structured interviews with conventional farmers The intention was to interview conventional farmers whose fields neighboured with Bt maize fields of the previously interviewed GM farmers (covering the season 2015). These fields and subsequently, the farmers were identified through LPIS19. The inclusion criteria were: a user of a standard arable soil field immediately neighbouring with a Bt maize field in 2015, maize production and no experience with GM crops’ cultivation. Additionally, only farmers with legal person as a form of business were contacted, as the initially approached farmers as natural persons did not cultivate maize. One out of eight eligible farmers consented to the interview. The same criteria were therefore used to identify farmers neighbouring with a Bt maize field in 2014 (i.e. the second most recent season) which resulted in six interviews out of seven eligible farms. In total, seven out of 15 eligible farmers signed informed consent and agreed to an audio-recorded interview. Telephone interviews20 with seven conventional farmers were carried out by the author in February and March 2019. The interviews lasted between nine and 42 minutes, with an average of 24 minutes. The semi-structured interviews were based on an interview guide21 including questions on maize pests, co-existence, farmer’s relationships with GM neighbours, attitudes to GM crops and the reasons for the refusal of Bt maize. The interviews had the same character as the interviews with GM farmers in that they followed the iterative pattern of asking prepared questions and letting interviewees narrate freely. The conventional farmers are presented here under the codes C1-C7 to ensure anonymity. The data from the interviews with conventional maize farmers were used to answer the research questions 4 and 5. An overview of characteristics of conventional farmers and their farms is presented in Appendix 2.

19 See Appendix 9. 20The first interview with C1 was performed at the farm. 21 The interview guide is available in Appendix 7. 32

3.2.4. Semi-structured interviews with organic farmers The fields of organic farmers which neighboured with Bt maize fields were identified through LPIS22. As only seven organic farms neighboured Bt maize fields in 2015 and three in 2014, farmers with both types of neighbouring fields, arable soil and permanent grassland, and not necessarily growing maize, were included. Five of them signed informed consent and provided an audio-recorded interview. The telephone interviews were carried out by the author in February and March 2019. The interviews lasted between 10 and 50 minutes, with an average of 33 minutes. The semi- structured interviews were based on an interview guide23 including questions on co-existence, farmer’s relationships with GM neighbours and attitudes to GM crops. Similarly to the interviews with GM and conventional farmers, also these were performed in a way in which the interviewees spoke freely and were asked the rest of the unanswered questions. The organic farmers are presented here under the codes O1-O5 to ensure anonymity. The data from the interviews with organic farmers were used to answer the research questions 4 and 5. An overview of characteristics of organic farmers and their farms is presented in Appendix 3.

3.2.5. Comparison of the sample characteristics to the Czech official data Neither farms’ nor farmers’ characteristics compare to the representative data for the Czech agrarian sector. However, the interviewed GM, conventional and organic farmers, were not sampled to secure representativeness, in line with the qualitative methodology where “the people who are interviewed are not meant to be representative of a population” (Bryman 2008:391). Concerning the quantitative part of the research, the intention was to survey the total population because of its small size (226 farmers who have cultivated Bt maize). As the response rate to the questionnaire achieved after reminders equalled 16%, the comparison of certain characteristics of the sample with the whole population could confirm or disprove if the sample was representative. Unfortunately, the comparison of the GM sample with official Czech data for GM farmers is not possible, as the only data the competent Czech authorities provide is the number of growers per year and the overall size of the commercially cultivated Bt maize area. The degree to which the GM sample is representative of the Czech GM agriculture thus remains unknown. The characteristics of GM farmers were, therefore, compared to the official data for Czech conventional farmers. The following provides the comparison of the researched GM, conventional and organic farmers to the Czech official data.

22 See Appendix 9. 23 The interview guide is available in Appendix 8. 33

The proportions of arable land farmed by different forms of businesses in the Czech Republic are almost equally balanced (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:146) which is not reflected in the current samples of GM, conventional and organic farms (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, the GM and conventional sample have a higher average size of arable land than the representative Czech farms (see Table 2) (ibid.) However, the average size of arable land of the organic sample (114 Ha) corresponds to the average size of the Czech organic farm in 2017 (118 Ha) (Šejnohová et al. 2018:16). Regarding farmers’ characteristics, neither the age nor the highest education level achieved of the farmers reflected the representative sample of the Czech farmers. In contrast to the national 12% of young farmers up to 30 years of age, there were no GM and conventional farmers in this age group. On the contrary, the organic farmers were younger than the representative sample (see Fig. 4) (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:179). All sampled farmers were more educated compared to the data from the Report on the state of agriculture24 (see Fig. 5) (ibid.). Moreover, all the farmers in this research were men, whereas there was 32% of women in Czech agriculture in 2017 (ibid.).

Figure 3 Percentage of farm arable land by the form of business. For GM farms, only data from interviews are included. Data for the CR are for the year 2017 (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:146). LLC=Limited liability company, Joint- stock company=JSC, Co-op=Co-operative.

24 The lower education level probably reflects that only 9% of the Report sample were managers and specialists. 34

Table 2 The average size of arable land. Data for the CR are for the year 2017 (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:146). Form of Average size of Average size of Average size of Average size of Average size of business farmed arable arable land of arable land of arable land of arable land of land in the CR interviewed all GM farms conventional organic farms (Ha) GM farms (n=36) (Ha) farms (n=7) (n=5) (Ha) (n=10) (Ha) (Ha) Business 362 2433 N/A 1366 79 companies (LLC, JSC, Co-op) Natural person 24 242 N/A - 166 All forms 54 1995 1933 1366 114

Figure 4 Age of the farmers. Data for the CR are for the year 2017 (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:179).

Figure 5 Highest education level achieved by farmers. Data for the CR are for the year 2016 (Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací 2018:179).

3.2.6. Documents The primary document that I used as a source of information about the risk assessment & management of MON810 is the “Scientific Opinion of the EFSA GMO Panel on Monsanto’s applications for renewal of authorisation for the continued marketing of food and feed including the use of seed for cultivation of maize MON810” (title shortened) (EFSA 2009), referred to here as the “EFSA Opinion”. Farmers buying Bt maize seed receive a Technical Guide for the cultivation of YieldGard® Corn Borer maize issued by Monsanto. It contains information about the plant, the pest to which it is resistant, farmers’ obligations and a list of benefits introduced by the quote “What does the YieldGard® insecticide protection technology mean?” (Monsanto n.d.). Seven out of ten claims concerning its benefits were chosen for the analysis as they relate to farmers’ experience. The document was also used for the analysis of the discourse of the Seed Producer (see below). The documents used for assessing the feasibility of co-existence regulation in practice and the robustness of control of compliance included European Commission recommendations on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures (European Commission 2003, 2010) and the Best Practice Document for co-existence of genetically modified crops developed by the European Coexistence Bureau to assist member states in the development or refinement of legislative approaches to co-existence (Czarnak- Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). Further sources included the co-existence legislation of the Czech Republic (Předpis č. 252/1997 Sb. Zákon o zemědělství 1997) and the publication of Ministry of Agriculture “Organisation and inspection of GM crops cultivation in the Czech Republic” (Trnková et al., 2017). The exploration of control of compliance with the co-existence regulation and breaches of the rules drew from official publicly available documents. Those consisted of

36 annual reports on seed (Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) and feed control of the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA) (Fiala 2012, 2016, 2017; Fiala and Šubrtová 2015; Vyskočil and Fiala 2014), and annual reports on activities of Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA) which controls the food (Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018). The data on the period until 2010 was sourced from a publication “Genetic Modifications in the Czech Republic and National Biosafety Framework” issued by Ministry of the Environment (Roudná and et al 2011). Further information was obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999). The actors and subsequently, the documents for the analysis of the Czech discourses about GMOs were chosen based on previous research findings (Stöckelová 2004, 2008) and own experience in the field. The strong actors in the public arena included scientists’ civil association Biotrin, the Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture, The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO) and the Czech branch of Greenpeace. The analysed data consisted of the actors’ press releases, publications, organisation statutes, conference materials and texts on the actors’ web pages. Other strong players who have been shaping public discourse about GMOs are the multinational companies producing and marketing GM seeds and complementary agrochemicals. The actor chosen here was the producer of MON810 seeds, Monsanto. The analysis focused on the Technical Guide for the cultivation of YieldGard® Corn Borer maize issued by Monsanto (Monsanto n.d.) which accompanies the purchase of MON810 seeds (see above). Further data were drawn from web pages of Bayer, the company that has recently acquired Monsanto. I refer to the Seed Producer rather than name individual companies throughout this thesis because in the course of my work Monsanto, the producer of the MON810 seeds and the applicant for the renewal of the authorisation for its cultivation in the EU was taken over by Bayer. Monsanto is named as the author of its documents and as the implementer of risk management tools or when the cited literature explicitly refers to this specific producer. The same applies for Bayer. No criticism of Monsanto or Bayer per se is intended.

3.2.7. Observation The analysis of the Czech GMO discourses was supplemented with direct observation at public conferences organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and by The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO). I attended the conferences from a research interest and with a curiosity to observe the actors who are responsible for the safety of GMOs in the Czech Republic and the use of GM crops in agriculture. Notes were taken during and immediately after the events. They comprised a description of the language used by the presenters and the audience, which included quotes, and a description of their relevant

37 appearance and behaviour. Furthermore, I noted my actions and reflections of the whole event. The observation remained covert to the participants of those events.

3.3. Data analysis

3.3.1. Sociological discourse analysis (SDA) of farmers’ attitudes Farmers’ attitudes were explored in the frame of sociological discourse analysis (SDA) which involves three steps: textual analysis which characterises the discourse, contextual analysis which elicits an understanding of the discourse and sociological analysis which provides a sociological explanation of the discourse (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:10). Although the steps follow linearly from the textual analysis to the sociological analysis, it is also a “circular, on-going process in which the different types of analyses feed back into one another” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:11). Constructivist grounded theory guided the textual analysis (Charmaz 2006). The contextual analysis consisted of the analysis of the situational and intertextual context. The sociological analysis drew on Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis (CDA). The respective steps are presented in greater detail in what follows. 3.3.1.1. 1st SDA level: constructivist grounded theory All recordings from the interviews were transcribed verbatim soon after their obtaining. The emphasis, emotions, non-verbal sounds and pauses were noted too. The transcriptions were analysed together with the notes from the non-recorded interviews in Atlas.ti. The analysis was guided by constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2006). As mentioned, the textual analysis using this approach was only the first step of the SDA, and thus the aim was not to create a theory which is the goal of the standalone grounded theory analysis. The analysis was started with initial line-by-line coding. Firstly, I coded the transcripts of interviews with GM farmers. Some of the codes from this stage were adopted or modified for the later analysis of interviews with conventional and organic farmers, and others remained valid only for the GM interviews. The later analysis yielded, of course, also new codes. The GM interviews were, therefore revisited to apply those adapted and new codes. Subsequently, some of the codes were merged, and others split to reflect multiple dimensions of a code. In the course of the analysis, the interviews were revisited repeatedly to check how the newly developed codes fit the data and modified accordingly. I used the form of a verb where possible in order to stay as close to the data as possible and prevent conceptual leaps to theoretical concepts. Some specific terms used by the participants were taken as a so-called in vivo code. Charmaz argues that these codes help to “preserve participants’ meanings of their views and actions in the coding itself” and “develop a deeper understanding of what is happening and what it means.” (Charmaz 2006:55–57).

Examples of in vivo codes used here include: “It must pay off”, “Humans improve nature”, “Lobbying eco-terrorists”, “GM crops are an intrusion into nature”, “GM crops are useless”. Secondly, the initial codes were shifted into more conceptual focused codes that sift through larger segments of data. Not all initial codes were grouped under the focused codes and remained as particularities of the individual interviews that could not create any analytical category. This step also involved the constant comparative method of checking how the focused codes represent the initial ones and if it pertinently represented the data. The initial codes read for instance: “Arguing for safety by own experience”, “Arguing for safety with external information”, “Challenging the legitimacy of scientific evidence”. Thirdly, I searched for relationships among the focused codes. Codes that conveyed a similar meaning were grouped under superordinate categories that were more theoretical than the focused codes. Sketching focused codes in a network supported the exploration of possible links among them and the subsequent shift to the categories. Initial codes were then added into the network to control if the relationships among categories, focused codes and initial codes provide the best fit for the data. The network also served as a basis for the writing of the results and an overview table of the codes and categories. Example of the categories includes: “Constructing safety”, “Perceiving risks”. The categories related to how farmers perceived and conceived about GM crops were considered building blocks of farmers’ discourses about GM crops. The table which lists the elements of farmers’ discourses and their relation to initial and focused codes, including the assigned interviewees is presented in Appendix 4. Lastly, it was observed that the building blocks were used almost exclusively in the respective interviews and formed opposing pairs, e.g. “Constructing safety” and “Perceiving risks”. This observation provided the logic for the classification of the categories into two coherent and distinct discourses about GM crops. The discourses were called “discourse supporting GM crops” and “discourse opposing GM crops”. The process involved writing a different kind of memos consisting of descriptive notes on the meaning of the codes, the changes made in subsequent coding and reminders of what to consider when analysing and reporting. It also served as a space for reflection on the data and sketches of ideas that were further developed in the analysis. That fostered the overall reflection on the development of the project and helped to keep it on track with the research aims. 3.3.1.2. 2nd SDA level: situational and intertextual analysis The second level of the sociological discourse analysis focused on the situational and intertextual context in order to understand what the discourses produced by farmers meant for them (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:36). The situational analysis consisted of “a detailed description of the circumstances in which the discourse has been produced and the characteristics of the subjects that produce it” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:28). Specifically, I focused on farmer’s motivation to participate in the interview, their willingness to cultivate GM crops, their perspectives on GM 39 crops, agriculture and nature, the characteristics of farms and farmers, and the source of information for farmers about GM crops. Furthermore, farmers’ claims of benefits of Bt maize and GM crops in general were compared with their experience with the cultivation of Bt maize. The next step focused on the intertextual context of the interviewees’ discourses. The intertextual analysis “permits us to understand discourse by referring to all of the discourses that circulate in the social space” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:34). Here I followed the concept of intertextuality proposed by Foucault: “the meaning of discourse emerges in reference to other discourses with which it engages in dialogue, be it in an explicit or implicit manner” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:35). I compared fragments of the farmers’ discourses to other discourses with which it engaged in dialogue and searched for similarities and differences to assess the relationship among those discourses. 3.3.1.3. 3rd SDA level: critical discourse analysis The final level of the SDA “involves making connections between the discourses analysed and the social space in which they have emerged.” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:38). The farmers’ discourses were compared to discourses that circulate in the social space and with which they engaged in a dialogue. Furthermore, and in line with a critical realist approach that analyses not just the discourse per se but also its relationship to non-discoursal elements (Fairclough 2005), the farmers’ discourses were considered in the context of their farming practice, the characteristic of their farms and socio-demographic indicators, and other perspectives that they held. I considered discourse as “a reflection of the ideologies of the subjects who engage in it” and accordingly interpreted the discourse as ideology (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:38). That means that the farmer’s particular viewpoints were interpreted as reflecting their attitudes towards GM crops together with the non-discoursal elements. This interpretation yielded two distinct attitudes towards GM crops: a supportive and an opposing attitude. Furthermore, this type of analysis draws on critical discourse analysis “which aims to demonstrate how social discourses are impregnated by dominant discourses projected from sources of power” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:42). Therefore, a new look at the results of the intertextual analysis explored how farmers’ discourses reproduce the dominant discourses circulating in the public space.

3.3.2. Analysis of Czech GMO discourse The literature review revealed only two publications addressing the Czech discourse about GMOs (Stöckelová 2004, 2008). Therefore, an analysis that would cover the more recent developments was needed. The analysis did not follow the complex process of SDA as it was used instrumentally – to provide context for the farmers’ discourses. The relevant actors were chosen based on previous research findings (Stöckelová 2004, 2008) and my own experience in the field. Once identified, the webpages of these

40 actors were searched for the material to be analysed, which included press releases, publications, organisation statutes, conference materials and texts on the actors’ web pages. When analysing the web pages, attention was paid to the actors’ presentation of their organisation and their definition of themselves. Furthermore, that was compared with the account of the activities of the actors and their acknowledged partners. Additionally, personal interconnection with other analysed organisations was noted. The content of discontinued webpages was searched through web.archive.org. The publications, web articles and press releases issued by the actors were examined critically with the focus on how GMOs are presented, particularly noting normative statements. Consequently, the claims were compared to information from other scientific publications. Finally, it was described which information the actors chose to emphasise and which other evidence is downplayed or completely omitted, thus advocating a particular position. The analysis of texts was supplemented with the author’s observation at public conferences organised by the relevant actors. I drew on the notes taken during and immediately after the events. The analysis focused on the spoken presentation of the speakers and their interaction with the audience. Attention was paid to how GMOs are framed, if and how they are supported or opposed, and what kind of arguments are used for that. I also interpreted attributes of the appearance of an actor which were relevant for the context of his narrative. The discourse of the Seed Producer was analysed through an analysis of the Czech version of the Technical Guide for the cultivation of MON810. Additionally, the presentation of GM crops on the website of the Seed Producer was analysed. I focused on the producer’s characterisation of GM crops, the framing of their benefits and risks and the kind of argumentation used in favour of their cultivation.

3.3.3. Qualitative analysis of interviews The initial grounded theory coding described in chapter 3.3.1.1 also yielded codes relevant for answering other research questions. The data that could be analysed quantitatively were inserted in the excel spreadsheet that contained the data from the questionnaires. The quantitative data from interviews and questionnaires were merged for the quantitative analysis (see chapter 3.3.4). The initial codes were grouped under categories that were relevant for answering respective research questions. Some of the categories were preconceived based on the research and interview questions (e.g. “Reasons for not cultivating Bt maize (conventional farmers)”), others emerged from the data (e.g. “Implicit reasons for Bt maize cultivation (GM farmers)”). The first research question regarding the claimed benefits of Bt maize was analytically linked with the category “Seed Producer’s benefit claims” and the category “Characteristics

41 of Bt maize”. The second category provided the context for the preconceived one. It included qualitative codes such as “Bt maize perceived nice” and “Conventional maize: losses by boars”. The second research question addressing the farmers’ compliance with insect resistance management plan was linked only to one category which nested codes providing details not only if farmers observed the rules but also how (e.g. “Refuge: yes”, “Buffer strips”, “Refuge: adjacent conventional field”). The third research question regarding the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire was linked to the category under the same name and included codes such as “Agronomist present in the field rarely”, “Monsanto’s questionnaire perceived senseless”. The analysis that addressed the question of the co-existence of different agricultural production built upon the categories: “Co-existence”, “Reasons for not cultivating Bt maize (conventional farmers)” and “Reasons for stopping Bt maize cultivation (GM farmers)”. Additionally, the categories “Agro-technique practices” and “The use of maize” provided further context when interpreting the results. The fifth research question regarding the farmers’ attitudes was addressed using the sociological discourse analysis, where categories were developed in a different way (see chapter 3.3.1). Additionally, codes from the categories “Characteristics and opinions of the farmer” and “Source of information about GMOs” were used to provide the situational context of the farmers’ discourses. The following categories nested codes which were used to analyse farmers’ motivation to farm in a particular way: “Reasons to farm organically”, “Explicit reasons for Bt maize cultivation (GM farmers)”, “Implicit reasons for Bt maize cultivation (GM farmers)”, and their stance to a hypothetically permitted new GM crop: “Reasons for an interest in a new GM crop” and “Reasons for no interest in a new GM crop”.

3.3.4. Quantitative analysis of the questionnaires The data from the online questionnaire were downloaded in the excel format and checked for their completeness and potential redundancy. The questionnaire and interview data from questions phrased in the same way was merged for the quantitative analysis. These data are referred to throughout the text as the data from a “quantitative survey”, or it is referred to “surveyed farmers”. The participants had the opportunity to skip questions and to reply “I do not know” to the majority of the questions. The number of valid answers (other than “I do not know”) thus varies between 25 and 37 for the respective questions, and between 21 and 36 for the respective farm and farmer characteristics. The small size of the sample did not permit statistical analysis. Therefore, only the percentage and a proportion of particular answers out of the total valid answers to a particular question are indicated. The quantitative data were used for the analysis of farmers’ experience with the benefits of MON810, their compliance with the insect resistance management plan, to assess

42 the usefulness of the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire, application of extra co-existence measures, farmers’ satisfaction with the availability of maize seeds, and their reasons to grow (or not) Bt maize and other hypothetically permitted GM crops.

3.4. Credibility and limitations of the study A framework for assessing the quality of qualitative research was followed to secure the credibility of the study. The employed framework is the list of criteria developed by Spencer et al. (2003) that draws on critical realism. According to Bryman (2008:380), it is “probably the most comprehensive list of criteria around.” I followed that list when planning, performing and reporting about the research. In the following, the limitations of the study are reflected. Concerning the quantitative part of the research, the intention was to survey the total population of 226 farmers who have cultivated Bt maize because of its small size. As the response rate to the questionnaire achieved after two reminders equalled 16% (n=37), the comparison of specific characteristics of the sample with the whole population could confirm or disprove if the sample was representative. Unfortunately, the comparison was not possible, as the official data on GM farmers are not available. The degree to which the GM sample is representative of the Czech GM agriculture thus remains unknown. The characteristics of GM farmers were, therefore, compared to the official data for Czech conventional farmers. The farms of the surveyed GM farmers had a larger average size of arable land than the representative Czech farms. The GM farmers were also somewhat older as there were no GM farmers up to 30 years of age in contrast to the national 12% of young farmers in that age group. Furthermore, the surveyed GM farmers were more educated compared to the official data. Moreover, all the GM farmers in this research were men, whereas there was 32% of women in the Czech agricultural sector. A statistical analysis of the quantitative data from GM farmers could not be performed due to the small sample size (n=37). However, two of the three publications reporting on the EU farmers’ experience with Bt maize did not use statistical analysis either even for a higher number of respondents (Křístková 2009: n=152) or provided only qualitative data on an even smaller sample (Schiefer et al. 2008: n=10). Only Gómez-Barbero et al. (2008) performed a statistical analysis of the sample of 402 farmers. The strength of the presented research is that it covers the entire period of Bt maize cultivation in the Czech Republic (2005-2016); it includes different durations of cultivation (1-10 years) and each year of the cultivation. Furthermore, the qualitative aspect of the research allowed placing the quantitative results in the context of farmers’ experience. Besides, where comparison was possible to the literature reviewed, the current findings compared to experience reported in other Czech and European studies. Furthermore, conventional and organic farmers were sampled to interview the neighbours of GM farmers in order to explore the co-existence on the farm level. The findings

43 of attitudes of non-GM farmers could thus suffer a potential bias. It is conceivable that only the farmers who did not suppose an opposition against GMOs from their farming neighbours adopted the Bt maize cultivation. Surveying non-GM farmers who have not neighboured with GM farmers would reveal if they differ in their attitudes towards GM crops. However, finding such non-GM farmers would probably prove difficult as GM maize and potatoes were cultivated at many farms spread across the whole territory of the Czech Republic. It is often argued that “it is impossible to know how the findings [of qualitative research] can be generalized to other settings.” (Bryman 2008:391). Williams (2000:215 in Bryman 2008:392), therefore proposes “moderatum generalizations – that is, ones in which aspects of the focus of enquiry … ‘can be seen to be instances of a broader set of recognizable features’.” I followed this approach when making inferences; I drew comparisons with other studies conducted with comparable groups.

3.5. Pre-analytic visions – the position of the researcher It is impossible to remain impartial when working for a longer time on a controversial issue of which GMOs are an excellent example. However, from an anti-positivist perspective, the seeming of objectivity in scientific research is unattainable. As Maxwell and Mittapalli (2010:150) put it: “All theories about the world are grounded in a particular perspective and worldview, and all knowledge is partial, incomplete, and fallible.” Charmaz, therefore, suggests that researchers “are obligated to be reflexive about what we bring to the scene, what we see, and how we see it.” (Charmaz 2006:15). Therefore, I am offering a sketch of my background, values, beliefs and assumptions which have along with the research during the six years of the doctoral study, shaped my attitude towards GM crops. Although I studied biology for bachelor’s and master’s degree and before that attended a grammar school with a specialisation on natural sciences, I have long remained ignorant of GMOs. I cannot recall any situation in which GMOs or genetic engineering would be presented critically during the studies nor any discussion among peers. We were taught about its technical aspects and not encouraged to ask critical questions. The experience I gained during my undergraduate research on the influence of parasites on their hosts’ behaviour made me reflect on the infallibility and objectivity of scientifically produced facts. I became painfully aware of (what I later learned are termed) framing assumptions that influence what questions are to be asked, who can ask and answer them, what methods are deemed relevant in the research and how should results be interpreted. Equally disturbing was the realisation of the predominant increasingly reductionist approach of contemporary biology. Coincidentally, in about that time, I became exposed to the GM controversy during my stay in Berlin in 2013. Unlike in Czechia, the issue was alive in the public discourse there, which awoke my interest. I approached anti-GM documentaries with a dose of suspicion but

44 was alarmed by the idea that (some of) the allegations of impacts on health, the environment and society could be true. In contrast, interviews with Czech experts broadcast on the radio dismissed any concerns as unevidenced and irrational fears of an uneducated public. However, I soon learned about other scientists’ critical stance towards GMOs, in particular to the ways their risks have been assessed. When I read documents regarding the only GM crop grown commercially in the EU, Bt maize MON810, issued by the Seed Producer (Monsanto) and the risk assessor (EFSA), I became prudent concerning the conclusions about safety and benefits of the plant. It seemed that certain assumptions and extrapolations were involved that had been rarely acknowledged and which seemed questionable. Moreover, the Seed Producer’s methods and reports have been criticised by EFSA, and EFSA, in turn, has been criticised for its own risk assessment (Cotter and Mueller 2009; Dolezel et al. 2009, 2011). Consequently, the scepticism triggered my interest in exploring Czech farmers’ experience in order to find out how the claimed benefits are reflected in their practices, and how far are certain assumptions from the risk assessment & management fulfilled in farmers’ reality. Apart from the topics presented in this thesis, I have conducted research on other related issues. As I was also concerned with the quality of scientific evidence about the safety of GMOs provided to the EU decision-makers, I have performed a critical evaluation of a part of EFSA’s environmental risk assessment of MON810, namely the assessment of risks of MON810 cultivation to honeybees and earthworms (Chvátalová 2019). I gained further insights into scientific controversies when working on a G-TwYST project25 in 2018. Our team analysed normative dimensions of scientific controversies and their relationship with the scientific issues by comparing three cases regarding whole-food animal toxicity studies for risk assessment of GMO, Aspartame and Bisphenol A. In that project, I developed my understanding of how values and facts are inherently intertwined in science for policy. Besides, the doctoral study of environmental humanities and my deepening interest in agricultural issues at large together with my appreciation of sustainability, quality and equity have shaped my preference for organic and agroecological agri/cultures26. In short, the project was started with some doubts about a particular set of assessment procedures and benefits of a particular plant, and over the time my scepticism deepened and broadened to other types of GM crops and other jurisdictions. However, the research has been driven by a curiosity to question “whether”, to find out “how”, not by a desire to prove “that”.

25 Genetically modified plants Two Year Safety Testing (https://www.lisconsult.nl/projecten/g-twyst) 26 The term agri/cultures was introduced by Herrero et al. to “specifically emphasise the important socio-cultural aspects of agricultural systems and the way in which they are entangled with the biological- material dimensions.” The plural is used to highlight the existence of different cultures of agriculture. (Herrero, Wickson, and Binimelis 2015:11323–24) 45

Importantly, I have not revealed my attitude towards GM crops, neither in the media nor in the interviews. Only when the interviews finished and when farmers were interested in my opinion, I revealed my position. The analysis of the discourses about GM crops produced by the state authorities was performed in the time my attitude towards GM crops and their risk assessment has evolved to a more critical one. I was aware of it and strived to take an equally critical attitude to all actors and discourses I have focused on. Particularly, I compared the analysed claims with the existing scientific literature to assess to what degree they reflected the available evidence and how the evidence was interpreted in the actors’ accounts. In this way, the claims were taken apart to reveal, besides the scientific, the normative dimensions concealed in purportedly objective statements, something which I had been trained in from the critical evaluation of EFSA’s risk assessment and the research in the G-TwYST project.

4. Results and discussion This chapter presents the results, which are discussed continuously. The subchapters in this section reflect the respective secondary research questions. Conclusions drawn for each research question are presented at the end of the respective subchapters. The particular conclusions will be synthesised in the final chapter Conclusions.

4.1. Farmers’ experience with claimed benefits of Bt maize27 The MON810 maize belongs among those GM crops designed to bring benefits to growers. The agronomic characteristics and performance were tested before the product was introduced onto the market. However, the alleged benefits manifest themselves to various degrees during commercial-scale cultivation (Křístková 2009; Wolf and Vögeli 2009). Moreover, the level of the benefits that are claimed tends to be overestimated. A survey among European farmers with no experience with the cultivation of GM crops showed that the expected rate of increase in sale prices and yields is much larger than the real increases recorded in Spain (Tillie, Dillen, and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2016). This chapter explores the topic guided by the research question “How do the benefits claimed by the Bt maize MON810 Seed Producer correspond to the experience from agricultural practice as reported by Czech farmers?” Each subchapter assesses a respective claim of benefit (Monsanto n.d.) based on the results of the analysis of data from the quantitative survey and interviews with farmers who cultivated Bt maize and literature review. 4.1.1. Claim: “100% control of European corn borer during the whole period of cultivation” The farmers who were interviewed characterized Bt maize plants as pretty, healthy and not broken, thanks to which they are not infested with fungal diseases. Although two farmers noticed “bite marks” in Bt maize plants, they emphasized that this variety was more resistant to the European corn borer (ECB) than the conventional one. Similarly, farmer G5 described Bt maize as not being infested at all or only minimally. Despite the traces of this pest activity in Bt maize fields, all the farmers who were interviewed concurred that Bt maize provides efficient protection against the ECB. Eighty-five percent (28 out of 33) of the surveyed farmers reported a difference in the rate of ECB infestation between Bt and conventional maize. The farmers did not comment on the nature of the difference, but since no one complained about the susceptibility of GM

27 This chapter is a slight modification of an article published in Acta Mendelu (Chvátalová 2020). The changes consist of different coding of farmers (need to distinguish farmers who cultivated Bt maize from those who farm conventionally and organically in the later chapters) and connection of the results with discussion in the respective subchapters. The article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND). 47 maize to this pest, I interpret this as meaning that Bt maize was better protected compared to the conventional type. The answers of 76% (26 out of 34) of the Czech farmers indicate that they complied with the refuge requirements, i.e. non-Bt maize was planted on minimally 20% of the Bt maize acreage. Where its form was described, the refuge was always sown as a buffer crop (a means to ensure the co-existence of Bt and non-Bt maize). Nearby conventional maize fields belonging to the particular GM maize farmers were also often considered a refuge. The efficacy of the Bt maize reported by the farmers agrees with other Czech and European evidence. MON810 showed 100% efficacy in the reduction of the number of tunnels caused by the ECB in field trials in the Czech Republic (Kocourek and Stará 2012). The Czech Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture monitored the biological efficacy of commercially grown Bt maize between 2006 and 2015. Their results did not indicate the development of ECB-resistant populations as no infested Bt plants, or only a few, were identified (Křístková 2009; Lvončík 2010; Radová 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014; Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2015, 2016). As the Bt toxin kills the larvae upon ingestion, they need to feed on the plant tissue and short tunnels may thus be observed. Isolated findings of caterpillars’ activity may also be explained by their immediate identification after they got to the Bt maize from another host plant (Křístková 2009). Other studies also reported a negligible extent of damaged stalks and ears of Bt maize plants in field trials in Europe and the USA (events MON810, Bt176 and stacks28 including MON810) but overall highly effective control of the ECB (Bohnenblust et al. 2014; Magg et al. 2001; Mihalčík et al. 2012). Moreover, no field-evolved resistance has been documented for the ECB in Europe or North America (Thieme et al. 2018). However, resistance to MON810 maize was reported for a Lepidopteran pest in South Africa as a result of low refuge compliance, among other factors (ibid.). European farmers cultivating Bt maize are required to sow non-Bt maize in part of the fields to form a refuge where the ECB could feed without developing resistance. Three- quarters of the Czech farmers who were sampled indicate that they complied with the refuge requirements. In comparison, Spanish farmers increased their refuge compliance from an initial 58% in 2004 to around 90% in recent years (EFSA et al. 2018). In conclusion, the Czech GM maize farmers confirmed the highly effective control of the European corn borer reported from field trials and the monitoring of commercial fields in the Czech Republic and Europe.

28 A “stack” or “gene stacked event” refers to a GMO with more than one engineered trait. 48

4.1.2. Claim: “Healthy production thanks to lower infestation with fungal diseases” Sixty-one percent (17 out of 28) of the surveyed farmers reported the same rate of infestation with plant diseases in Bt and conventional maize. No extra observation was recorded in these cases, and so it was assumed that both types of plants were disease-free. Prior to Bt maize cultivation, the ECB was a significant pest on 41% (seven out of 17) of these farms. A difference in the infestation rate reported by 39% (11 out of 28) of the respondents was interpreted as less infection in Bt maize compared to conventional maize (again, no extra observation was reported). The corn borer was a significant pest on the majority of these farms (91%, 10 out of 11). Once blighted by the European corn borer, maize plants are easily susceptible to secondary infestation with fungal diseases (Nedělník, Lindušková, and Kmoch 2012). Fungi produce mycotoxins that may be dangerous for human and animal health (ibid.). The protection against ECB should then assist in assuring a healthy production. Less infection in Bt maize compared to conventional maize was reported by 39% of the farmers in the current survey. The corn borer was a significant pest on the majority of these farms. In comparison, according to a previous survey of Czech GM maize farmers, two- thirds of them recorded lower levels of fungal infestation (Křístková 2009). No difference was reported from farms with very low or no corn borer infestation or from farms with a high ECB pressure where insecticides were applied (ibid.). Lower levels of infection with the Fusarium genus and mycotoxin levels in Bt maize hybrids compared to their conventional counterparts were also recorded in field trials in the Czech Republic (Kocourek and Stará 2012; Slezáková 2005; Slezáková et al. 2006). Kmoch et al. (2011), on the other hand, did not identify any significant difference in the intensity of Fusarium infection between the two varieties and mixed results were reported by Nedělník, Lindušková and Kmoch (2012). Bt maize was infected less, more or the same as the conventional variety, depending on the particular species of Fusarium (Nedělník et al. 2012). European field research also showed lower levels of Fusarioses and mycotoxins in MON810 maize compared to conventional varieties, although the efficacy of Bt maize differed for various mycotoxins (Darvas et al. 2011; Folcher et al. 2010; Selwet 2011). In conclusion, thanks to its resistance to the European corn borer Bt maize usually protects against some fungal diseases. On the evidence of this and a previous survey of Czech GM farmers, this effect seems to be more pronounced on farms where the ECB causes significant damage. It can save additional costs on these farms related to the removal of mycotoxins from feed and the negative impact on the health and productivity of farm animals (Křístková 2009).

4.1.3. Claim: “Yield increase thanks to intact and healthy plants” The farmers were asked if they had recorded differences in the yield amount between Bt and conventional maize under comparable conditions (maturity class FAO, hybrid, acreage, soil) in the same seasons.29 Bt maize was compared to untreated conventional maize on 64% (21 out of 33) of the farms and to insecticidally treated conventional maize on 36% (12 out of 33) of the farms. The same yields for conventional and Bt maize were indicated by 55% (18 out of 33) of the surveyed farmers. Bt maize was compared to untreated conventional maize in 78% (14 out of 18) of the cases. The ECB had been a significant pest on 67% (12 out of 18) of these farms in the past. Thirty percent (10 out of 33) of the farmers recorded higher yields of Bt maize compared to the conventional type (compared to untreated maize in 60%, six out of 10 cases). The ECB was a significant pest on 60% (six out of 10) of these farms prior to Bt maize cultivation. The yield increase averaged 12% (a range of 5-40%); however, this figure is rough because it is based on six cases in which the respondents provided details. Fifteen percent (five out of 33) of the farmers reported lower Bt maize yields compared to conventional maize (compared to untreated maize in 20%, one out of five cases). The ECB represented a significant pest on 60% (three out of five) of the farms in the past. The difference in yield indicated in two cases ranged from -5 to -15%. The farmers who were interviewed gave possible explanations for the lower yield of the Bt maize. According to farmer G9, lower yields reflect Bt maize’s overall worse quality caused by a lack of innovation in GM varieties compared to conventional varieties (which can make better use of nutrition and water). Farmer G4 stated that wild boars caused the yield losses of Bt maize observed in some seasons. The farmer explained that boars feed on maize ears which are available sooner or in fields closer to a forest, which was the case of his Bt maize plants. This experience contrasts with two other farmers, who stated that boars prefer conventional maize fields. The reasons, in farmer G8’s opinion, are the earlier maturity of conventional maize, its better availability because of the shorter plants, or a substance produced by ECB that is attractive for boars. Some of the farmers who were interviewed said that the yield is dependent on climatic conditions and pest infestation. Bt maize reportedly gives higher yields only in a normal season (average precipitation), and when conventional fields are infested with the ECB, under an unfavourable climate (heat, drought), the yield is the same.

29 The farmers who were interviewed were asked to provide actual figures for Bt and conventional maize grain and silage yields. Since some of them did not have actual numbers and only provided estimates, the questionnaire was simplified in such a way that they could choose from options of the same/higher/lower/don’t know Bt maize yield compared to the conventional type. The estimation of the percentage difference between the two yields was encouraged. 50

The European corn borer is currently the most important arthropod pest of maize, occurring in 20-60% of European fields (Meissle et al. 2010). Yield losses range from 5 to 30% in areas highly infested with the ECB where no control measures are applied (ibid.). The occurrence of the ECB and the damage caused by it have been increasing in the Czech Republic, with an estimated 10-20% yield losses in grain maize (Kocourek and Stará 2012). Bt maize should secure higher yields thanks to its protection against damage by the European corn borer. The majority (55%) of the farmers who were surveyed reported the same yields of Bt and conventional maize. Only 30% indicated higher Bt maize yields and 15% of the farmers recorded lower Bt maize yields compared to conventional ones. Previous studies in the Czech Republic documented higher Bt maize MON810 yields both in commercial cultivation and trials (Křístková, 2009; Kocourek and Stará, 2012). Although a minority of Czech farmers recorded lower Bt maize yields, over 60% experienced an average 8% yield increase in the seasons from 2005 to 2007 (Křístková 2009). Field trials in other European countries also showed MON810 yields to be higher than yields of conventional maize (Bereś 2010; Mihalčík et al. 2012). However, mixed results were reported from trials and commercial cultivation, ranging from a lower Bt maize yield through no difference to higher Bt maize yields (Andersen et al., 2007; Gómez-Barbero, Berbel and Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2008; Wolf and Vögeli, 2009). The farmers who were interviewed found the yield to be dependent on climatic conditions and pest infestation. Their observations agree with studies reporting that the yield increase depends highly on the climatic conditions of the growing season (Kocourek and Stará 2012) and ECB pressure (Křístková, 2009; Wolf and Vögeli, 2009; Mihalčík et al., 2012). Bt maize MON810 provided a small increase in yields or almost none at all in years with low corn borer infestation and 15-25% increase under high pest pressure in Czech variety trials (Křístková 2009). An extensive analysis of commercially grown GM crops worldwide also reported that Bt maize likely increased yields approximately 7-12% when the ECB infestations were high compared to little or no advantage when the infestations were low to moderate (Gurian-Sherman 2009). Contrary to that, Schiefer et al. (2008) reported no difference in yield between MON810 and non-Bt hybrids in trials despite greater damage caused by the ECB to untreated conventional maize. Nevertheless, German farmers recorded higher MON810 yields compared to conventional maize despite low levels of ECB damage to conventional maize (ibid.). In conclusion, the differences between Bt and conventional maize yields appear to be highly variable and dependent on many conditions. The “yield increase thanks to intact and healthy plants” is usually manifested when the occurrence of the ECB is high. However, it also depends on the pressure from other pests (e.g. damage by boars) and climate. In seasons with no or low European corn borer infestation, Bt maize provides similar yields or sometimes even lower ones than conventional varieties. 51

4.1.4. Claim: “Reduction of insecticide usage and hence a significant relief for the environment” The surveyed farmers were asked if they used insecticides against the ECB before, during and after the Bt maize cultivation period and if the amount of insecticides applied per hectare of maize changed. Insecticides were used against the European corn borer on 51% (19 out of 37) of the farms before Bt maize was adopted. Although the ECB was considered a significant pest prior to Bt maize cultivation on 68% (25 out of 37) of the farms 36% of these farmers did not treat it with insecticides (nine out of 25). The number of farms using ECB insecticides decreased while Bt maize was being cultivated, compared to the times before and after its cultivation (Fig. 6). Fifty-three percent (10 out of 19) of the farmers who used to spray these pesticides prior to GM farming kept on doing so on conventional maize fields, while 47% (nine out of 19) abandoned the chemical treatment of conventional maize when they adopted Bt maize. The amount of insecticides used per hectare of maize decreased with the adoption of Bt maize on 42% (15 out of 36) of the farms. The ECB was a significant pest before the adoption of Bt maize on 87% (13 out of 15) of these farms. Fifty-eight percent (21 out of 36) of the farmers did not record any change in the amount of insecticides applied. The ECB was only a significant pest on 52% (11 of 21) of these farms prior to Bt maize cultivation.

Figure 6 Changes in the use of insecticides against the European corn borer. The numbers in columns indicate the numbers of farmers.

Changes in the use of insecticides against ECB

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prior to Bt maize cultivation 18 19

During Bt maize cultivation 25 12

After returning to conventional maize 10 17 cultivation

No use of insecticides against ECB Insecticides against ECB used

The Seed Producer argues that growing Bt maize reduces insecticide usage and thus brings about significant relief for the environment (Monsanto n.d.). That assumes that insecticides used to be applied against the ECB before the adoption of Bt maize and that the

52 amount used decreased on farms where Bt maize was employed; and that Bt maize is toxic only for the pest. The argument of insecticide usage reduction is not very convincing in the sample of Czech GM maize farmers. Half of them did not apply insecticides against the ECB before adopting Bt maize anyway. Of those who did, only 47% abandoned this praxis during the time they were cultivating Bt maize. Additionally, the amount of insecticides used decreased on 42% of the farms. These results are comparable to other available Czech data. Although the European corn borer occurs in all the maize grain production areas in the Czech Republic, only half of this area was treated with ECB insecticides in 2008 and less than a quarter of the total maize acreage in 2009 (Kocourek and Stará 2012; Křístková 2009). Insecticides were applied to less than 20% of the maize areas monitored in 2016 and 2017 (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2017, 2018). Hungarian farmers do not use insecticides against the ECB as the yield losses tend to be small (Darvas et al. 2011). Only 14% of Greek farmers used insecticides against the ECB, although it was considered a significant pest (Skevas et al. 2012). The European exception is Spain, where 58% of conventional maize was sprayed with insecticides against the ECB in 2002-2004 (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). This compares to the extent of insecticides applied to maize in general, reviewed by Meissle et al. (2010). Zero to 11% of the maize crop area was treated in Italy, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, and 20-50% in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Spain (ibid.). Another question is whether the use of insecticides can be reduced in the long term, as the need to apply them can arise with secondary pest outbreaks (Catarino et al. 2016; Meissle et al. 2011). On the basis of a model Catarino et al. (2016) predicted that if no additional measures are taken, the damage caused to crops by secondary pests can increase with the expansion of Cry1Ab Bt maize cultivation in Europe. Moreover, it is generally assumed that the replacement of chemical insecticides with plant-based toxins is beneficial for the environment as their mode of action is believed to be specific for certain species pest (Meissle et al. 2011). However, according to a review by Hilbeck and Otto (2015), an increasing body of evidence suggests a significant cross-order activity of Cry toxins. The class of Cry1 proteins (to which the MON810-maize-produced Cry1Ab toxin belongs) has been reported to be toxic against non-lepidopteran non-target organisms (Latham, Love, and Hilbeck 2017). Moreover, the significant activity of MON810 maize itself against caddis flies, water fleas and earthworms has been documented (Hilbeck and Otto 2015; Latham et al. 2017). Latham et al. (2017:87) therefore argue that GM crop- produced toxins “deserve much greater attention and may be of equal or greater concern than conventional pesticides”. In conclusion, the present results show in agreement with European data that the reduction of insecticide usage is only partial. Additionally, if the application of insecticides 53 decreased rapidly, a secondary pest outbreak could increase the need for chemical treatment. Moreover, the toxins produced by Bt maize may not necessarily be less harmful to beneficial organisms than insecticides. The claim of “significant relief for the environment” as a result of the cultivation of Bt maize, therefore, seems ambiguous, especially in the long term.

4.1.5. Claim: “Technology securing the profitability of maize cultivation through lowering the unit costs of maize production” The farmers were asked how the unit costs of maize production changed after the introduction of Bt maize cultivation.30 Forty-three percent (13 out of 30) of the farmers who were surveyed reported no changes, 33% (10 out of 30) indicated higher costs and 23% (seven out of 30) of the farmers recorded lower unit costs of maize production. The same costs were experienced by the farmers irrespective of yields (the same or a higher or lower Bt maize yield compared to the conventional one was reported by 54%, 31%, 15% of these farmers, respectively) and independently of insecticide usage. Insecticides against the ECB were applied by 46% (six out of 13) of these farmers, and the amount of insecticides remained unchanged after the adoption of Bt maize in 46% (six out of 13) of the cases or decreased in 54% (seven out of 13) of the cases. The farmers who were interviewed reported the same costs before and after the introduction of Bt maize explained that the higher yields of Bt maize were balanced out by the higher prices for purchasing its seed. The corn borer was a significant pest before Bt maize was adopted on 54% (seven out of 13) of the farms. The unit costs of maize production increased on farms with the same (80%, eight out of 10) or lower (20%, two out of 10) Bt maize yields compared to conventional ones. An insecticide against the ECB was only used on 10% (one out of 10) of the farms, and the amount of insecticides used decreased on other 10% (one out of 10) of the farms. The corn borer was a significant pest before Bt maize was adopted on 60% (six out of 10) of the farms. Farmers whose costs of maize production unit decreased declared that they had the same (60%, three out of five) or higher (40%, two out of five) Bt maize yields compared to conventional ones (two did not know the difference in yield). Twenty-nine percent (two out of seven) of these farmers used insecticides, and the amount of insecticides remained the same in 43% (three out of seven) of the cases or decreased in 57% (four out of seven) of the cases compared to the times before the cultivation of Bt maize. The corn borer was a significant pest before Bt maize was adopted on 71% (five out of seven) of the farms with lowered costs. The profitability of Bt maize cultivation depends on the seed price, market price of the harvest31, yield and pest control costs (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). Bt maize seeds are about

30 The respondents could choose from the options of the same/higher/lower/don’t know unit costs of maize production compared to the period before the adoption of Bt maize. 31Only 11% (four out of 36) of the farmers in the current sample sold Bt maize. In a previous survey farmers expressed having experienced problems with selling it (Křístková 2009). 54

30% more expensive than conventional maize seeds because of a royalty fee (Křístková 2009; Wolf and Vögeli 2009). As described above, differences in yields and insecticide usage vary considerably. Only 23% of the farmers who were surveyed recorded lower unit costs of maize production. The decreased costs were experienced by farmers with at least the same Bt and non-Bt maize yields and the same or a decreased amount of insecticides used, which outweighed the higher cost of the Bt maize seed. Increased costs reported by a third of the respondents were incurred on farms where higher yields did not balance the higher price of Bt maize seed and where the money spent on insecticides was not saved. The same costs were experienced by 43% irrespective of yields and insecticide usage. The results compare to the higher profitability of Czech commercial Bt compared to conventional maize grain cultivation reported in 2007 (Křístková 2009). That season was characterized by higher Bt maize yields and savings on the application of chemical insecticides (ibid.). Bt maize showed higher economic efficacy compared to insecticidally treated or Trichogramma controlled conventional maize also in Czech field trials (Kocourek and Stará 2012). A Spanish study reported that farmers growing Bt maize (MON810 and Bt176) obtained a higher gross margin than conventional maize farmers for three consecutive years (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). However, the benefit ranged widely, depending on the region, from 3 to 135 Euro/ha (ibid.). According to Schiefer et al. (2008) and Wolf and Vögeli (2009), increased returns can be achieved when ECB infestation is severe to very severe (compared to low and moderate) and the increased yield exceeds the cost of Bt maize seed. In conclusion, as documented by the experience of the current sample of farmers and by Europe-wide literature, a higher yield exceeding the price of the expensive seeds and a significant corn borer infestation condition the profitability of Bt maize cultivation. Based on its economic performance, the adoption of Bt maize could thus only be recommended in areas with persistent high corn borer pressure. In agreement with Bohnenblust et al. (2014), these results suggest that for farmers to maximize profits, they should choose hybrids that are well adapted to the local conditions. 4.1.6. Claims: “Simple manipulation” and “Time saving, no need for signalling of pest arrival”32 Thirty-nine percent (13 out of 33) of the farmers who were surveyed experienced time saving. Ninety-two percent (12 out of 13) of them used to apply insecticides against ECB to maize before Bt maize was adopted and 69% (nine out of 13) of them also continued spraying

32 Farmers’ experience shows that the two claims about manipulation and working time go hand in hand; therefore, they will be addressed together. 55 conventional maize while cultivating Bt maize. Furthermore, ECB was a significant pest before the adoption of Bt maize on 85% (11 out of 13) of these farms. The same time requirements before and during Bt maize cultivation were reported by 39% (13 out of 33) of farmers. Ninety-two percent (12 out of 13) and 100% (13 out of 13) of them did not apply insecticides before and during Bt maize cultivation, respectively. The ECB was a significant pest prior to Bt maize cultivation on 62% (eight out of 13) of these farms. Increased time requirements after adopting Bt maize was indicated by 21% (seven out of 33) of the farmers. They did not change their practice of insecticide application with their adoption of Bt maize. Only 29% (two out of seven) stopped the application, whereas 14% (one out of seven) continued the application and 57% (four out of seven) sprayed neither before nor during Bt maize cultivation. The ECB was considered a significant pest on 29% (two out of seven) of these farms before Bt maize cultivation was initiated. The farmers with this experience who were interviewed mentioned reasons such as organizing sowing, paperwork, keeping records and official farm inspections. Another feature of time and manipulation that was quantified was the number of entries into Bt maize cover compared to conventional maize. Forty-seven percent (17 out of 36) of respondents reported fewer entries into Bt maize fields. Thirty-five percent (six out of 17) of these farmers entered Bt maize fields fewer times, although they did not apply insecticides against the ECB in conventional fields. Fifty-three percent (19 out of 36) of the respondents did not record any change in the number of entries. Almost no one (5%, one out of 19) used insecticide in conventional maize fields. The Seed Producer promises farmers simple manipulation of Bt maize and time savings as they need not monitor the arrival of the pest (Monsanto n.d.). In practice, however, these benefits could be hindered as Bt maize cultivation implies holding to specific rules of co-existence and insect-resistant management. Czech GM farmers are obliged to inform their neighbours and the state authorities, keep isolation distances, label the product and keep a record (Trnková et al., 2017). Furthermore, non-Bt maize must be planted on at least 20% of the Bt maize acreage if the latter exceeds 5 Ha (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010). Based on the current results, the cultivation of Bt maize has the potential to save time (39% of the respondents), but only for farmers who used to apply insecticides to maize before and during Bt maize cultivation and rather in cases where the corn borer was a significant pest before the adoption of Bt maize. On the other hand, Bt maize cultivation can even increase the time requirements (21% of the respondents), as evidenced by those farmers who did not change their insecticide usage practice and who did not consider the ECB a significant pest on their farm. Approximately half of the sample (47%) reported fewer entries into Bt maize fields. These findings compare to the previous survey among Czech farmers. Czech GM growers reported simple protection, the elimination of mechanization, easy harvesting and fewer entries into the maize cover as the most frequent advantages of Bt maize cultivation 56

(Křístková 2009). The most common disadvantages identified previously, consisting of the administrative burden, keeping records and farm inspections, were also complained about in the current sample (Křístková 2009). In comparison, other European GM farmers consider these co-existence measures as the least burdensome (Tillie et al. 2016). Less numerous disadvantages identified previously agreed with those reported by the farmers in the current sample: more labour-intensive sowing, harvesting, manipulation and drying, and more complicated organization of sowing (Křístková 2009). To conclude, the higher demand for farm operations, work organization and administration entailed by co-existence and the rules of insect resistance management impact on the claimed benefits. The extra time costs decrease with an increasing Bt maize acreage (Schiefer et al. 2008). The results suggest that Bt maize cultivation can save time and ease the manipulation for farmers who would have to apply insecticides and on farms with significant corn borer infestation. However, on other farms, the time requirements did not change or even increased.

4.1.7. Claimed benefits: Conclusions The experience of the surveyed Czech farmers who used to grow Bt maize confirms the mooted benefits only partly. The only claim fully corresponding to farmers’ practice regards the resistance of Bt maize to the European corn borer. The lower fungal disease infestation of Bt plants was more pronounced on ECB infested-farms where conventional maize was infected. On the other hand, the claim of a reduction in the usage of insecticide was not very convincing in the current sample. Only half of the farmers used to apply insecticides against the ECB before they adopted Bt maize. Of these, half stopped it when they started to cultivate Bt maize. Furthermore, the amount of insecticides used decreased on 42% of the farms. More importantly, even the opposite of the claimed benefit manifested itself in a certain proportion of the sample for the rest of the claims. Bt maize yields were higher, the same or lower compared to conventional maize. The unit costs of maize production decreased, remained the same or increased after the adoption of Bt maize. The costs were influenced by seed price, yield and insecticide usage. Handling was made easier and time saved where farmers would have to apply insecticides and under high ECB pressure. However, the time requirements remained the same or even increased on other farms. Manipulation and working time were affected by co-existence and insect resistance management rules.

Table 3 Comparison of the Seed Producer’s benefit claims with Czech GM farmers’ experience and results reported in European literature. A. Difference refers to the difference between Bt maize and conventional maize. B. Synthesis drawn from the literature cited in chapter 4.1. Studies report results from trials and commercial cultivation in European countries. Row in green: Claim corresponds to farmers’ practice. Row in orange: Claim or its opposite manifested, or no difference, depends (among other things) on ECB pressure. Row in blue: Claim corresponds partly. Seed Producer’s benefit Czech GM farmers’ experienceA European literatureB claim (Monsanto n.d.) “100% control of Difference in ECB infestation (85% of Highly effective control of the European corn borer the farmers). No infested Bt maize ECB. No field-evolved during the whole plants. resistance. period of cultivation” “Healthy production Difference in disease infestation (39% Bt maize infected less, the thanks to lower of the farmers). No infested Bt maize same or more as conventional infestation with fungal plants. maize. diseases” Conventional plants also disease-free (61% of farmers). Difference on ECB- infested farms. “Yield increase thanks Yield increased (30%), the same (55%) Difference variable. Yield to intact and healthy or decreased (15% of the farmers). increased (usually under high plants” ECB pressure). Yield the same when no or low ECB pressure. Yield also decreased. Influence of climatic conditions. “Reduction of 51% of the farmers used insecticides Insecticides against ECB insecticide usage and against ECB before Bt maize applied on up to a quarter of hence a significant cultivation. 47% of them stopped maize acreage (more than half relief for the usage when they started cultivating Bt in Spain). Fewer Spanish Bt environment” maize. Amount of insecticides the farmers used insecticides same (58%) or decreased (42% of the compared to conventional farmers). farmers. “Technology securing Costs decreased (23%), the same Improvement in profitability profitability of maize (43%) or increased (33% of the varies. Profitability cultivation through farmers). Influence of seed price, yield conditioned by higher yield lowering unit costs of and insecticide usage. exceeding the expensive maize production” seeds, and by high ECB pressure. “Simple manipulation” Manipulation eased and time saved Time saving, higher time “Time saving, no need where farmers would have to apply requirements. Simple or for signalling of pest insecticides and under high ECB complicated manipulation. arrival” pressure (39%). Time requirements Influence of co-existence and the same (39%) or increased (21% of insect resistance management the farmers) on other farms. Influence rules. of co-existence and insect resistance management rules.

The Bt maize MON810 is promoted as being beneficial for farmers and the environment. Seen from an economic viewpoint, the cultivation of Bt maize can be recommended in areas with persistent high corn borer pressure. Concerning the environmental effects, farmers’ experience shows, however, that the reduction in the use of insecticides is only partial. Moreover, an increasing body of evidence draws attention to the adverse effects of Bt plant-produced toxins on non-target organisms (Latham et al. 2017). The benefit to the environment is thus challenged. In the light of the above, and because of the increasing pressure of Diabrotica virgifera (another pest to which this Bt maize is not resistant), it is recommended in accordance with the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2018) that farmers should employ a complex of cultural control methods.

4.2. Compliance with insect resistance management plan (IRM) “According to the Harmonised insect resistance management (IRM) plan for cultivation of Bt maize in the EU, farmers planting more than 5 hectares of MON 810 must have a refuge area planted with maize that does not express Cry1Ab and that corresponds to at least 20% of the surface planted with MON 810.” (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010:16).

Farmers who cultivate Bt maize are obliged to observe those rules to avoid and/or delay the development of the pest resistance to the Bt toxin produced by the plant. This short chapter assesses how the proposed risk management plan works in practice. The research question “Did Czech farmers comply with insect resistance management plan?” guided the analysis of the data obtained in interviews with GM farmers and a questionnaire filled in by GM farmers. Unlike the monitoring of keeping other co-existence rules, the compliance with insect resistance management plan is not controlled in the Czech Republic. The answers of 76% (26 out of 34) of the Czech farmers who were surveyed indicated that they complied with the refuge requirements, i.e. non-Bt maize was planted on minimally 20% of the Bt maize acreage. In cases the form of refuge was described, farmers always sowed it as a buffer crop (i.e. a means to ensure the co-existence of Bt and non-Bt maize). Nearby conventional maize fields belonging to the particular GM maize farmers were also often considered a refuge. EFSA regularly reiterates the need for full refuge compliance, especially in regions where Bt maize is cultivated in a larger area, in order to delay the evolution of pest resistance (EFSA et al. 2018). The full compliance was not the case of the Czech farmers who were surveyed, only 76% sow the refuge. In comparison, Spanish farmers increased the refuge compliance from the initial 58% in 2004 to around 90% in recent years (EFSA et al. 2018). However, no decrease in the susceptibility of corn borers to the Bt protein has been reported in Europe yet (EFSA et al. 2018; Thieme et al. 2018). The Czech Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA) monitored biological efficacy of Bt maize between 2006 and 2015. Their results did not indicate the development of ECB resistant populations either (Křístková 2009; Lvončík 2010; Radová 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014; Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2015, 2016). The pest susceptibility to the toxin despite the lack of refuge compliance might be owed to the low Bt maize adoption rate. However, if Czechs broadly embraced cultivation of another crop requiring farmers to sow refuges, the understanding of reasons for non- compliance could help to improve that situation. All interviewed farmers indicated full compliance and most of the non-complying surveyed farmers were not keen to provide more details in the anonymous questionnaire. The only two indicated reasons for not planting a refuge were: “a small Bt maize acreage” 60

(although higher than the threshold of 5 Ha for an establishment of refuge) and not comprehending the sense of a refuge (“Bt maize was cultivated separately with a sufficient distance to conventional maize”). No farmer cultivating less than 5 Ha of Bt maize sow a refuge voluntarily. Spanish farmers who did not follow the IRM obligations reported reasons as no/not enough information about the technical guidelines, concern about yield losses, refuges from neighbours considered sufficient, refuge smaller than 20%, planting refuges complicates sowing (EFSA et al. 2018). In conclusion, the refuge planting that is vital for managing the pest resistance was not entirely held by Czech and Spanish farmers. One-quarter of the Czech sample and a decreasing proportion of Spanish farmers did not comply with refuge requirements. Thus, an essential tool of risk management is not employed in the practice of each farm. Although it did not pose a problem at the small scale of Bt maize cultivation in the Czech Republic, it should be taken into account if crops entailing similar obligations were foreseen to be cultivated. Research should focus on an understanding of the reasons for non-compliance and possible remediation.

4.3. How useful is the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire?

This chapter pursues the research question “How useful is the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire for the General Surveillance of Post-Market Environmental Monitoring of Bt maize from the perspective of Czech farmers’ practice?” by presenting and discussing the results of an analysis of interviews with GM farmers and questionnaires sent to GM farmers.

“[Farmers] can give details on GM plant-based parameters (referring to species/ecosystem biodiversity, soil functionality, sustainable agriculture, or plant health) ...based on their historical knowledge and experience on parallel non-GM cultivation.” (Monsanto Company 2007a:23)

“Questionnaires, directed at farms where GM plants are grown, are considered a useful method to collecting first hand data on the performance and impact of a GM plant and for comparing it with conventional plants” (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011:15)

Monsanto, together with EFSA, assumes that farmers can provide an empirical assessment of the performance and impact of the GM maize. This assumption rests upon several conditions which will be explored in the respective subchapters, namely: i) the comparison of Bt and conventional maize is possible locally and historically (i.e. farmers cultivate conventional maize during each season of Bt maize cultivation, farmers used to grow conventional maize before they started to cultivate Bt maize); ii) agronomists (and plant production workers) can notice potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields; iii) the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire is an effective way to collect the information.

4.3.1. Comparability of Bt and conventional maize Concerning the first condition, the comparability of the two regimes of cultivation, 89% (24 out of 27) of the surveyed farmers grew non-GM maize during each season of Bt maize cultivation. The rest (11%, 3 out of 27) grew conventional maize only in a refuge (as part of the insect resistance management, for more details see the previous chapter). All farmers cultivated conventional maize before they adopted Bt maize (n=37). The data of the Czech sample thus confirm the underlying assumption, the possibility to compare Bt and non- Bt maize locally and historically.

4.3.2. Ability to notice potential differences between Bt and conventional maize Regarding the next supposition, that farmers can notice potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields, plant production workers were instructed to observe and

62 report these only at 35% (12 out of 34) of the farms. The observation and report are mainly the responsibility of agronomists. Nevertheless, 47% (16 out of 34) of them disagreed that it occurred to them to observe potential differences out of their interest. Moreover, 40% (10 out of 25) of the agronomists thought that an agronomist is not able to notice potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields. That figure is in agreement with the proportion of answers “not able to assess” to the occurrence of fauna at their Bt maize fields and surroundings in comparison to the conventional maize fields (see Fig. 7).

Figure 7 Occurrence of fauna and flora on Bt compared to conventional maize fields. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of valid answers to the respective question. Occurrence of fauna and flora on Bt compared to conventional maize fields 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Insects (n=34)

Beneficial insect predators (n=34)

Butterflies (n=34) same higher Pollinators (n=33) lower not able to assess Birds (n=34)

Mammals (n=35)

Plants (n=30)

The question on biodiversity in the Monsanto’s questionnaire was initially phrased as follows: “General impression of the occurrence of wildlife (mammals, birds, and insects) in MON 810 compared to conventional maize fields” with possible answers: As usual/More/ Less/Do not know (Monsanto Company 2007b:Annex 7). It has been divided into own questions on the occurrence of insects, birds and mammals based on EFSA’s recommendation since the survey in 2009 (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010:Appendix 7). The questions I used here drew on further EFSA’s suggestions that have not been reflected by Monsanto in its questionnaire (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011). 63

About a half of the surveyed farmers were not able to assess the occurrence of insects (16 out of 34), beneficial insect predators (15 out of 34), butterflies (18 out of 34), pollinators (16 out of 33) and birds (15 out of 34). A third of farmers (12 out of 35) were not able to assess the occurrence of mammals. A potential explanation of the higher percentage of those who were able to report same/higher/lower occurrence of this group of animals on Bt compared to conventional maize fields is that the interviewed farmers often surrogated wild boars for mammals, a species easily noticeable. The ability to determine possible differences in the occurrence was even higher for plants, namely only five out of 30 farmers were not able to assess it. These results indicate that only approximately half of the surveyed farmers could provide useful information about the potential unanticipated effects of the GM maize cultivation on the biodiversity of most of the wildlife species. Regarding shifts in the abundance of species caused by the introduction of Bt maize, the majority of interviewed farmers stated that the biodiversity does not differ between Bt and conventional maize fields. Three of them explicitly stated that it is possible to notice differences, but they were referring only to pest. Some farmers stressed they are not biodiversity experts. They thought they were capable of assessing the occurrence of pest species (i.e. wild boar, roe deer, hare, vole, aphids, maize diseases and weed) but they lack skills and time to assess the total biodiversity. Still, one thought that the questions in Monsanto’s questionnaire are banal. On the other hand, two other farmers were not able to answer questions relating to the occurrence of fauna. Some interviewees stated that their farming practice does not allow them to inspect fields often. They observe fields only when using machinery (herbicide application, harvesting) or when installing and controlling insect traps, which adds to two to four visits in the cover. The lack of time may also be the reason why farmers had no interest of their own in observing potential differences between the fields. An exception among the interviewed farmers was one who visits his fields every other day. As the economic viability of the farm is of the highest importance for farmers33, their closest interest lies in the performance of the cultivated plants and bred animals. Farmers’ capability of providing useful information depends on the opportunity to notice changes and their knowledge to determine differences, both of which are rather limited in the surveyed sample. Therefore, the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire may rather work as an early- warning tool for revealing unexpected performance and characteristics of the cultivated GM plants and bred animals fed with those plants than for identifying potential adverse effects on other species.

33 See subchapter 4.5.1.1 Productivism. 64

4.3.3. An effective collection of information? Let us now turn to the last assumption that a farmers’ questionnaire is an effective way to collect the information. It supposes that farmers are willing to respond to the questionnaire and can answer questions in the sense of understanding the questions, having the required information and comprehending the point of the monitoring. Seventy-six percent (19 out of 25) of the farmers who were surveyed in the current research had obtained Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire at least once during the time they cultivated Bt maize. However, only 60% (six out of ten) of the farmers filled it out while 40% (four out of ten) did not respond to it (nine farmers replied they did not know). Czech farmers were surveyed by Monsanto between the years 2005 and 2013. Monsanto’s annual PMEM reports indicate the response rate of 74, 96, 90%, respectively for the years 2011–2013 which shows quite a high co-operation34 (Monsanto Europe S.A. 2012b, 2013, 2014). The non-respondents indicated they did not have time to fill the questionnaire (ibid.). A similar response rate (90, 75, 77%, respectively) was accomplished for short questionnaires sent by the Czech Ministry of Agriculture which examined the seasons 2005– 2007 (Křístková 2009). The reluctance of returning the questionnaire might result in non-response or unreliable outcomes. The interviewed farmer G4 admitted that once he refused to fill the questionnaire, an interviewer from the Czech Agricultural University (i.e. the collector of questionnaires for Monsanto in the Czech Republic) filled it himself. Regarding the ability to answer the questions, no interviewed farmer expressed having difficulties in understanding Monsanto’s questions. However, as documented above, a considerable proportion of them lacked the information required for certain parts of the questionnaire. Furthermore, some farmers overtly displayed a dislike to the questionnaire because its purpose of revealing unanticipated effects makes no sense for them.

“Monsanto wanted various nonsenses [in the questionnaire].” (G4)

“I think that [the monitoring of the possible differences between the Bt and conventional maize arranged by the Monsanto’s questionnaire] is senseless, that it is already senseless today, that it is decidedly harmless for the health probably … above all only the one crossed-in gene, so I think that it is totally useless.” (G3)

The farmer G3 is not interested in observing potential differences because he does not believe any differences might occur due to Bt maize cultivation. His strong confidence that it is principally not possible for the Bt maize to cause shifts in biodiversity leads the farmer G3

34Interestingly, there were no refuted questionnaires in other member states surveyed by Monsanto. 65 to perceive the PMEM as a needless bureaucracy. He wishes for deregulation of the cultivation of GM crops, the possibility to grow them without any monitoring and paperwork. The farmer fills Monsanto’s questionnaires the same way every year:

“I kept receiving the same questionnaire so that I rewrote the answers in the same way since there are the same questions. There are simply no differences [between the Bt and conventional maize].” (G3)

The interviewed farmers often vividly expressed their conviction that Bt maize is harmless for the environment and humans. Their reasoning was based on their hands-on experience with the cultivation and some assumptions related to a reductionistic view of the technology. First of all, some respondents argued that they had not recorded any adverse effects after a long time of Bt maize usage. Interestingly, one farmer displayed awareness about long- term effects which could be identified only after a long period as was the case with DDT. Nevertheless, he immediately added that chemicals cause more harm than GMOs. That argument disqualified any doubts about the safety of GM crops. Moreover, in the farmers’ view, safety has been proven by the long-term cultivation and consumption of GM crops around the world. This perspective is illustrated ad absurdum by a quote of farmer G4:

“If there were an adverse effect, antlers would have to grow on our heads already [after years of consuming GM ingredients in imported products].”

Furthermore, farmers did not observe any “big effects”. Big effects refer in the discourse of the interviewees to effects easily noticeable in everyday farmers’ practice. Farmer G9 referring to differences in biodiversity:

“it would have to be something extraordinary in order to be spotted.”

He admitted that there is a possibility of finding an effect observable only above his usual naked eye inspection of fields. Moreover, half of the interviewed farmers understood GM technology in the simple terms of introducing a new gene that causes the production of a new protein in the otherwise unchanged plant. In their view, the insertion of a gene and production of the toxin does not influence the rest of the plant:

“Do not ask this question [differences between Bt and conventional maize] anymore. It is simply clear, after all, you have to know from the school already, that the manoeuvring of one gene inside does not influence the rest of the plant at all.” (G5)

Using this oversimplification, farmer G2 argued for the safety of the Bt maize by a long experience of safe use of the sprays consisting of bacterially produced Bt proteins in organic agriculture. He considered the use of Bacillus thuringiensis beneficial for the environment compared to chemical insecticides and did not discriminate if it was bacterially- (applied in sprays) or plant-produced (GM plant). The farmers’ discourses and attitudes towards GM crops are discussed in greater detail in a separate chapter (4.5). Here it suffices to conclude, that all the interviewed GM farmers considered GM crops safe for human and animal health and the environment. Most of them spontaneously argued for their safety, implicitly and at times, explicitly saying that all the concern including Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire is exaggerated and has no reason. A constitutive power of discourses makes up people’s concepts of what things are like and how they should be treated (Bryman 2008:499). Accordingly, the farmers’ conviction of the safety and the equivalence of Bt and conventional maize (except for the insecticidal property) may be interpreted as shaping their perception of questions in Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire as senseless. It can be hypothesised along similar lines, that farmers who are convinced that Bt maize has no impact and do not admit the possibility of an adverse effect to occur would treat it as such and hence would be less likely to observe actively and probably even notice such an effect. If this were true, farmers with such attitudes might not notice and report a potential adverse effect to the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire.

4.3.4. Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire: Conclusion Concluding, it might appear at first sight as though the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire is an effective way to collect first-hand information. All farmers in the current sample had a chance to compare Bt maize production at their farms to the previous and concurrent experience with conventional maize cultivation. The response rate to the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire was relatively high, and farmers did not experience any difficulties in understanding the questions. However, they often lacked knowledge of the required information. Moreover, farmers were not motivated to answer questions regarding potential adverse effects as they were convinced about the safety of the crop and its complete equivalence to conventional varieties except for the excreted insecticide. These results confirm the previously criticised methodological shortcomings of the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire and limited farmers’ capability to identify potential adverse effects. Moreover, the analysis revealed another drawback consisting of farmers’ reluctance to observe and report these effects.

4.4. Co-existence of Bt maize with conventional and organic maize production Co-existence should ensure that farmers and consumers can choose among conventional, organic and GM crop production. An approach to co-existence that takes into account its societal aspects coined, for example, in the European Parliament report (European Parliament 2003) was adopted in this research (see chapter 2.4.3.2). This chapter builds upon the analysis which was guided by the research question “How do GM and non-GM agricultural production co-exist in the Czech Republic in respect to regulations, the degree of compliance, farmers’ practices and experience?” To assess the feasibility of co-existence of GM and non-GM maize in practice, I have devised a list of clues: • Existence and robustness of co-existence regulation • Existence and robustness of control of compliance • Breach of co-existence rules • Practical issues such as availability of seeds, economic viability, neighbours’ relationships

I followed the checklist to analyse official documents and to form interview and questionnaire questions. The text below presents the results and discussion of the analysis. It is divided into sections dealing with the legislation and the control of its compliance, extra measures and practical issues. Furthermore, the Czech co-existence legislation is compared to the rules effective in the other member states. Finally, conclusions regarding the feasibility of co-existence are drawn.

4.4.1. Czech co-existence legislation The concept of co-existence and the Czech legislation prescribing growers’ obligations was summarised in the introduction section. In the following, details of the respective rules are described and compared to European Commission recommendations (European Commission 2003, 2010) and Best Practice (BP) Document for co-existence of GM maize production intended to assist member states in the development or refinement of legislative approaches to co-existence (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). Palaudelmàs et al. (2009:584) list the leading causes of GMO admixture in non-GM material: “accidental seed impurity; seed planting equipment and practices; cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops; the presence of GM volunteers, and product mixing during harvesting, transport and/or storage processes.” Spatial isolation of GM and non-GM field is a recognised strategy to prevent the transfer of pollen between the same variety of a GM and non-GM plant. The Czech legislation prescribes the minimum of 70 m distance from conventional maize and 200 m from organic maize fields (Trnková et al., 2017). The Best Practice Document for co-existence of different 68 maize productions proposed isolation distances between GM and non-GM maize fields according to the type of maize production (grain or whole plant) and admixture levels (percentage of Bt maize in non-GM produce) (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). The lowest minimal isolation distance of 0-25 m is proposed for whole plant use at the 0.9% admixture level, and the greatest minimal distance of 105 to 250-500 m is proposed for grain maize at the 0.1% admixture level (ibid.). The figure of 0.9% refers to the threshold level below which the marketed product which contains adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of GMOs authorised in the EU do not require labelling (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003). There is no specific legally set threshold for the presence of unavoidable traces of GMOs in the organic produce (Verriere 2014). The limit thus falls under the requirement for all non-GM production set by the EU regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003) for labelling threshold for food of 1%. Importantly though, an organic product would be decertified if found to be contaminated with GMOs (ibid.). Furthermore, Verriere (2014) points out that the threshold level of 0.9% does not reflect industry practice. Organic food processors strive to ensure the level of 0.01-0.1% of GMOs in raw materials, and their conventional counterparts strive for the level of 0.1-0.3% (ibid.). This would correspond to 105-500 m and greater distance for organic production and 70-500 m distance for conventional production, based on the figures indicated in the BP document. The Czech requirement for 200 m distance for organic production thus corresponds to the middle range of distances proposed in the BP document, which reflects the industry practice. The required 70 m distance for conventional production corresponds to the lower bound of distances proposed by the BP document. The isolation distances set by the Czech legislation should thus ensure not only keeping the GMOs admixture below the labelling threshold, but also the level of purity of non-GM maize production required by industries. The whole isolation distance or a part of it from conventional maize may be substituted by sowing conventional maize around the GM maize field to create a buffer zone (Trnková et al., 2017). The strip of conventional maize may reduce the distance between the GM and conventional maize field down to 35 m. By using a buffer zone, the distance cannot be reduced under 100 m from organic maize. According to the BP document, “The complete isolation distance can be replaced by a non-GM maize buffer zone half as deep as the isolation distance.” (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010:50). The Czech legislation regulating buffer zones follows the BP document. This kind of spatial isolation between GM and non-GM maize should, therefore, suffice to ensure co- existence at the cultivation level. Furthermore, Czech growers are required to keeping a minimum distance of 400 m from the state borders (Trnková et al., 2017). This requirement had not been discussed in the BP document since it came into force after the opt-out from the cultivation of GM crops was 69 established in 2015. However, the obligatory distance seems sufficient, taking into account the greatest proposed minimal distance of 105-500 m from a non-GM maize field farmed by a different user. The EC recommends “Notification of farms located within the relevant perimeter of the planting plans for the next growing season.” (European Commission 2003:16). The Czech legislation complies with this recommendation. Farmers are obliged to informing about the intention to sow and later about the sowing of GM maize a neighbouring grower distant up to 140 m for conventional crop and up to 400 m for an organic crop (Trnková et al., 2017). The reporting need not take a written form (ibid.). Growers must also inform in written the authorized department of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund (SAIF) about sowing GM maize (ibid.). The harvested GM maize and conventional maize from buffer zones must be labelled as “genetically modified organism” including relevant identification code (Trnková et al., 2017). Finally, farmers must keep a record of GM maize handling and keep the data in the company for at least five years (ibid.). These requirements correspond to the EC recommendations (European Commission 2003:16–17). The rules in effect for ensuring co-existence at the farm level in the Czech Republic follow some recommendations put forward by the EC and Best Practice Document. However, those documents recommend a set of further practices that were not translated into the Czech regulation and will be addressed later in this chapter (extra co-existence measures). The next section discusses the control of compliance with the Czech legislation.

4.4.2. The control of compliance with the Czech co-existence legislation The GM farmers who were surveyed in this research were not asked about following the respective rules of Bt maize growing as I did not expect them to report their breaches. Instead, I analysed the documents informing about official monitoring and checked the obligation to inform farming neighbours with the bordering non-GM farmers. The interviewed non-GM farmers were asked if they were informed about the intention to sow and actual sowing of Bt maize by their immediate GM farming neighbours. Six out of twelve farmers stated that they were informed, two were not informed, and four could not remember.35 In comparison, Skevas et al. (2009) reported that almost all the surveyed Portuguese farmers informed their neighbours about their intention to plant GM maize. SAIF controls the spatial isolation (minimum separation distances and buffer crops) of GM maize crop from a different non-GM maize crop which is cultivated by a different user

35 Similar proportion was found in short telephone interviews with farmers who were not included in the sample as they did not meet the selection criteria. Eight out of 13 farmers were informed, two were not informed and three could not remember. 70 through LPIS for each field36 (Trnková et al., 2017). Subsequently, fields where there are (suspected) breaches, the field control takes place. The Czech Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (CISTA) and the Crop Research Institute, p.r.i. (CRI) inspect if the maize, which is declared as buffer crops, is made up by non-modified maize (ibid.). There is an imposing sanctions system for the cases of co-existence conditions breaches. An out-of-court settlement is preferred in the first step, but the breach can result in the initiation of administrative proceedings with a grower of GM crop on imposing a fine. SAIF can impose a fine up to 250 000 CZK (ibid.). According to the minutes of the meeting of CC GMO, the controls of the compliance with co-existence rules were foreseen to be dramatically limited as a result of austerity measures in the state administration from 2013 (Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty 2013). Nevertheless, the acreage of Bt maize was decreasing in that time, so that it went hand in hand with the lower frequency of inspections. The number of controls, breaches and fines was obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999). The number of breaches as well as the percentage of fields where rules were breached was in the order of units in the years 2011-2016 (except for 2016, see Table 4). The breaches had mostly the character of an incorrectly sown buffer crop, a neighbouring farmer sowed non-GM maize instead of another cereal on a neighbouring field, or GM maize crop was harvested before the inspection took place (which resulted in three fines in the order of tens of thousands of CZK in the years 2005-200737). The first two instances resulted in a sanction consisting of taking over the non-GM maize by the breaching farmer from the neighbouring subject which was handled as GM maize and handing over an adequate amount of conventional maize to the neighbouring farmer.

36 I use “field” throughout the text instead of the official term “Farmer’s Part of Land Block” for the sake of comprehensibility. 37 The number of imposed fines and their height are based on a personal communication with former employees without claim for correctness (as indicated in the reply from the Ministry). 71

Table 4 The number of controls and breaches of co-existence rules in the Czech Republic. Source: Ministry of Agriculture, reply to the request obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999) and own calculation (percentage). According to personal communication in the reply from the Ministry, the number of field controls was similar before the year 2011. The number of desk controls equalled the number of MON810 fields and was not indicated before the year 2008. Year Number of Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of desk controls field controls field controls breaches fields where of MON810 of MON810 out of the rules were fields fields total number breached of fields 2008 395 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2009 326 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2010 213 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011 264 3 1.14 1 0.38 2012 41 2 4.88 2 4.88 2013 125 2 1.60 2 1.60 2014 95 2 2.11 0 0.00 2015 55 3 5.45 1 1.82 2016 4 1 25.00 1 25.00

CISTA furthermore controls the presence of GMOs in seeds declared as non-GMO. However, only imported seeds are checked38 (Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Roudná and et al 2011). Czech seed production is thus not monitored for GM maize impurities. Furthermore, CISTA controls also feed. There was only one case of a feed mix containing non-declared MON810 maize in the period 2006-2016 (Fiala 2012, 2016, 2017; Fiala and Šubrtová 2015; Roudná and et al 2011; Vyskočil and Fiala 2014). However, it is improbable that the admixture was caused by GM contamination at the farm level since the feed producer regularly purchased MON810 labelled maize (Fiala September 20, 2018:personal communication). The detection of GMOs in food is carried out by the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA). There was only one case of MON810 found in a sample of maize grits which was not declared as a GM product in 2008 in the period 2006-2017 (Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Roudná and et al 2011). The food producer who was fined purchased the maize from a Czech farm which had declared the maize as non-GM (CAFIA, reply to the request obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999). The farm in question has never cultivated GM maize, but its fields are located in the same cadastral community as those of two farms which used to grow GM maize. Furthermore,

38 A MON810 admixture in conventional maize seed was detected in seeds imported in 2009 (Roudná and et al 2011). 72 according to their websites, the non-GM farm offers agricultural services to other farming subjects. The contamination of their non-GM maize could therefore most probably result from sharing machinery or cross-pollination. Concluding, there is an effective system of controls and sanctions that covers the crop cultivation, food and feed production, but not Czech seed production. Inspections are performed regularly. Thus, a potential admixture of Bt maize in non-GM maize at the farm level may be identified through random sampling by official controls in food and feed, but not in seed produced in the Czech Republic. The negligible number of mild breaches of co- existence rules at the farm level and one case of identified contamination with MON810 of food and feed products each indicates a high degree of compliance with the rules. The majority of non-GM farmers were also informed by their GM counterparts about Bt maize cultivation.

4.4.3. Extra co-existence measures at a farm level The Best Practice document further proposes the following measures which were not included in the Czech regulation. The BP document comprises measures regarding seed storage (transport and storage in the original GM seeds packaging, separately from non-GM seeds), seed drillers and harvesters (for details see below), dryer, transport, storage of harvest (cleaning or dedicated machinery and storage places), and temporal isolation of flowering (staggered sowing dates, different maturity classes) (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). The BP document follows many of the suggestions put forward in the EC recommendation. Additionally, the EC recommendation suggested these measures: pollen traps or barriers, suitable crop rotation systems to manage volunteers together with their monitoring and control/destruction, adequate soil tillage, managing populations in field borders, using varieties with reduced pollen production or male-sterile varieties, sharing seed drills and harvest machinery only with farmers using the same production type, and training courses for farmers and extension programmes that would provide technical knowledge for the implementation of co-existence measures. (European Commission 2003:14–17) This set of measures suggested by the EC for GM crops in general and by the BP document for GM maize in specific was not translated into the Czech regulation. Hence, the regulation is not as robust as it could be if these measures were incorporated. Farmers cultivating Bt maize were surveyed to find out if they provide for these extra measures to which they are not obliged. The interviewed GM farmers do not make use of the temporal isolation of Bt and conventional maize flowering. The sowing dates differ only for silage and grain maize regardless of Bt and conventional maize. Various maturity classes (FAO) are also used without the aim to time the flowering of GM and non-GM maize plants on different dates.

Some extra measures regard farmers who use machinery for different production systems: seed drillers should be cleaned thoroughly after using GM maize before they can be used for sowing non-GM seeds, this includes, e.g. cleaning with compressed air or “operating for a small distance on a GM field in sowing position” (Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010:48). When harvesting grain maize, “harvesters should be flush-cleaned by harvesting non-GM maize from at least 2000 m2”. (ibid.:51). Results of the current survey show that 57% (21 out of 37) of the farmers used only their machinery and 43% (16 out of 37) of them also used services of contractors during Bt maize cultivation. Although the Seed Producer’s Technical Guide describes how to clean the machinery (Monsanto n.d.:8), part of the farmers who shared the machinery did not undertake any measures to prevent contamination of other crops. Some farmers indicated cleaning of machinery (emptying, usage in a refuge, washing) and some stated they just controlled it. Furthermore, the EC recommendation that is not crop-specific lists i.a. “control/destruction of volunteers, in combination with suitable sowing times for the following season to avoid the development of volunteers.” (European Commission 2003:15). Specifically, regarding maize the guidelines state that: “This source of admixture may be more important in some crops (e.g. in oilseed rape) than in others, depending inter alia on climatic conditions (e.g. in maize, seeds may not survive frost).” (ibid.:11). Similarly, EFSA’s risk assessment of MON810 is of the opinion that this Bt maize “is unlikely to establish volunteers or survive over subsequent seasons or outside cultivation, or to establish feral populations under European environmental conditions.” (EFSA 2009:24). Nevertheless, GM maize volunteers (MON810) were recorded in Spain with a variable density up to around 10% of plants in the field (Palaudelmàs et al. 2009). Pollen from volunteer plants cross-fertilized conventional plants at a low level allowing for a certain amount of the transgene to be transferred from year to year (ibid.). However, the authors conclude that the influence of GM volunteers was not enough to reach the 0.9% adventitious GM threshold set in the EU. The potential for maize to form volunteers in colder European climate has been a debated issue. Recently, Pascher (2016) has provided evidence for volunteer and feral maize plants producing cobs in different parts of Austria. Maize volunteers found in Germany and northern latitudes of the USA and occasional findings of these plants in the UK and Ireland have also been reported (ibid.) GM farmers who were interviewed in this study also noticed maize volunteers at a field where maize had been grown in a preceding year. Conventional maize was sown after Bt maize at some of the farms and the occurrence of Bt plants from the previous year was not controlled. It is thus possible that a certain amount of conventional maize becomes contaminated by GM plants from the previous season and cross-fertilization. Although the level may not be high, volunteers are a source that can contribute to adventitious GM levels, especially at high initial densities (Palaudelmàs et al. 2009). 74

Eighty-six percent (24 out of 28) of the surveyed farmers did not control Bt maize presence in conventional maize or other crop yields, nor did 77% (24 out of 31) of them control the potential occurrence of Bt maize plants in successive crops. Moreover, only a few interviewed GM farmers tilled all their fields, the rest used minimalization of soil preparation to a certain degree and did not till each maize field. However, the GM admixture is of small concern in the present as 83% (30 out of 36) of the surveyed farmers used the conventional maize at their farm only and did not sell it. Concluding, extra measures recommended to secure the co-existence apart of the rules that are legally required are taken only at some farms. The temporal isolation of GM and non- GM production is not applied at any farm. Furthermore, the seeding and harvesting machinery is shared by half of the farmers and is controlled and/or cleaned only by some users. Regarding the management of volunteer Bt maize plants, the optimal GM/non-GM crop rotation is not a practice at all farms, only a few interviewed farmers use proper tillage, and overall farmers do not control Bt maize admixture in conventional maize or another crop yield. The responses of the farmers show that the measures not incorporated into the legislation are not taken voluntarily. As compliance with the legally binding rules was high, there is a reason to expect that making these measures obligatory could help to put them into practice. Moreover, a stronger regulation would better mirror the recommendations suggested by the European Commission and the Best Practice Document. That would increase the viability of co-existence of different forms of agriculture in the Czech Republic.

4.4.4. Comparison to other member states’ regulations A report issued by The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements presents an overview of EU co-existence rules on the national level (Verriere 2014). Thirteen member states (MS) did not have a specific co-existence regulation by 2014. However, these states either had a ban on the cultivation of GM crops or did not grow it except for Spain. The national ban was considered a means of co-existence in some countries (France, Greece, Italy and Poland) (ibid.). The number of measures and their specificity which are adopted in different MSs vary widely. Isolation distances whose range is very variable across the MSs are one of the most frequent types of co-existence measures. “For maize, distances range from five to 600 metres, but most countries have decided on a distance of 200 metres.” (Verriere 2014:13). Latvia proposes by far the greatest perimeter of 14 km around a GM field in which the same conventional plant or other GM crop may be grown. The distances are increased in some countries when GM fields neighbour with organic fields, beehives or protected areas. Besides, some MSs order to implement buffer zones, some allow decreasing the distances when buffer crops are sown. Other MSs set up also time separation, for example, non-GM maize may be

75 grown at the same field 1-10 years after GM maize had been grown there, or neighbouring farmers shall not sow at the same period and shall coordinate crop rotation (Verriere 2014). Farmers must inform the authorities and their farming neighbours before sowing GM crops in most of the member states. The term of a “neighbour” varies from state to state, from farmers who border directly to those operating further away behind the isolation distances. In some MSs the landowners and future owners must be informed too. The third parties and the general public is informed through a public register, whereby the precision of the location of GM fields varies from the regional scale to exact coordinates (Verriere 2014). Farmers wanting to plant GM crops must also undergo a training programme in some EU countries (Verriere 2014). Voluntary or mandatory training courses for farmers were suggested in the EC recommendation (European Commission 2003). Some MSs have developed specific liability rules that define compensation rules if contamination occurs, civil laws are supposed to apply in the rest of them. Member states are at liberty to decide who should bear the costs of the damage caused by GM contamination (Verriere 2014). Furthermore, “None of the national regulations clearly clarify who is responsible for the cost of implementing coexistence measures.” (Verriere 2014:14). In short, the Czech co-existence rules stand somewhere in the middle between no or very weak regulation and very detailed and robust regulation in the other member states. It is important to acknowledge though, that the states with no or weak regulation (Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) have not grown GM crops except for Poland (one year on a small scale), Romania and Spain. In other MSs where GM crops used to be grown (France, Germany, Slovakia) or are still grown (Portugal) apply co-existence rules that are at least as strict as the Czech ones. There is undoubtedly a space for improvement in the Czech regulation regarding the official recommendations that were not incorporated into it. Including rules which would request the application of temporal isolation, mitigation and management of volunteers (including informing landowners and future owners), and training of farmers who intend to grow GM crops, would make the regulation more robust. The updating of Czech co-existence rules would also profit from feedback from farmers (and other involved stakeholders) who have experience with the cultivation (or further handling) of GM crops (maize and potatoes) and those who strive for plant production with the lowest presence of GMOs possible (organic farmers, GM-free producers). Another source of the contribution could involve the authorities responsible for the monitoring of co- existence. Indeed, the present EC recommendation (European Commission 2010) suggests that the acceptable level of adventitious GMOs presence in non-GM production39, the objectives

39 Not affecting the mandatory 0.9 % labelling threshold 76 of protection and from those following strategies of GM crops cultivation, should be developed with the participation of farmers and other stakeholders at a national or regional level.

4.4.5. Practical issues The co-existence issues that have been covered so far focused on the legally required set of rules and official recommendations. However, that does not reflect the reality of the cultivation of GM crops in its complexity. There is another facet of co-existence, namely practical issues that could hinder the cultivation of GM, conventional or organic crops that will be examined in this section. The freedom of choice can be influenced, for example, by the availability of seeds and the relationships between neighbours farming or intending to farm in different regimes. Other practical obstacles may be identified among the reasons for stopping Bt maize cultivation or not starting it in the first instance. 4.4.5.1. GM farmers’ satisfaction with maize seed market The surveyed GM farmers were asked about their satisfaction with the offer and availability of Bt and conventional maize seeds to find out if the introduction of Bt maize influenced farmers’ freedom of choice of maize hybrids. Sixty-nine percent (22 out of 32) of the GM farmers were satisfied with the offer, and 74% (25 out of 34) of them were satisfied with the availability of Bt maize seeds. All of them were satisfied with the offer (n=36) and availability (n=36) of conventional maize seeds. The inclusion of Bt maize hybrids in the National Listing of Plant Varieties does not seem to have reduced the offer and availability of conventional maize seeds judging from the farmers’ satisfaction. However, not all farmers were satisfied with the freedom of choice of GM hybrids. Jordán (2015) explained that some companies did not deliver Bt maize seeds to the Czech Republic in 2015 because of the decreasing farmers’ interest in its cultivation. Additionally, 8% (three out of 37) of the GM farmers complained that Bt maize seeds were more expensive compared to conventional seeds and named it as one of the reasons to abandon Bt maize cultivation. In contrast, Spanish farmers have been experiencing a reduced choice of maize hybrids (Hilbeck et al. 2013). In Spain, the total number of maize cultivars decreased between the years 1997-2011, while the maize seed choices for farmers in the non-adopting European countries increased in the same period (ibid.). Moreover, an increasing number of non-GM cultivars has been replaced by GM cultivars in Spain (ibid.). 4.4.5.2. Relationships among neighbours All GM farmers who were interviewed concurred that their farming neighbours were not interested in the fact that Bt maize was grown on near fields. Some of them stated that their neighbours do not grow maize, others that they do not border with organic farmers and therefore their neighbours must not be concerned. Two GM farmers (G6 and G9) said that

77 they experienced difficulties finding appropriate fields for sowing Bt maize as their colleagues cultivated maize on neighbouring land parcels. The statements of the interviewed conventional farmers confirm GM farmers’ words about their lack of interest. Most of the conventional farmers were convinced of the safety of GM crops and instead were concerned for other farming issues. Therefore, they did not tend to ponder about the neighbouring with Bt maize fields. They emphasised the existence of a clear border between the GM and conventional field and a different crop that was grown on fields which neighboured Bt maize ones. Furthermore, conventional farmers did not feel limited or influenced by GM production. The strategy to cope with the concerns for risks of GM crops of one farmer was to jointly plan the maize sowing with his neighbour, which was possible thanks to their excellent relationship. Two farmers stated that they learned about the Bt maize cultivation from their neighbours informally as they were in a collegial contact related to other farming issues. Interestingly, neither organic farmers were concerned about neighbouring GM production. Some said that they were not interested as they did not feel influenced by the fact. The only farmer who grew organic maize and whose field happened to border on immediately the GM maize was not concerned at all about that breach of co-existence rules and risk of cross-pollination. That was due to his conviction of the health and environmental safety of GM crops. Other two farmers were more concerned about their neighbours using agrichemicals and the potential drift to their fields than by GM production as they did not grow maize. One farmer argued that not many of his fields bordered on those of his GM neighbour, and when it did, he used protective belts on own grounds. Only one farmer who was not sure if he received the information about the neighbouring Bt maize cultivation stated that he would like to be informed about that fact. He would be concerned about the neighbouring GM production if it were a plant that could pollinate his organic crop. Two organic farmers communicated with their GM neighbours regarding the exchange of fields and the use of chemicals near the organic fields. One farmer was in indirect contact through counsels and courts in the matter of acquiring land from the neighbouring GM farm (referring to ongoing property restitution). The cultivation of maize in different regimes seems harmonious from the farming neighbours’ perspective. Perhaps surprisingly, the fact that their neighbours cultivated Bt maize was not met with any particular interest on the conventional and organic farmers’ side. Neighbouring non-GM farmers argued that the Bt maize cultivation did not influence them and that there were more significant concerns for other farming issues than for GM crops. A potential explanation is that most of the conventional and the only organic farmer with maize production did not perceive the cultivation of GM crops risky; and that the other organic farmers did not grow maize. The perception of risk and overall attitudes to GM crops will be addressed in chapter 4.5.

These findings could result from a potential bias of this non-GM sample as I can hypothesise that only the farmers who did not suppose an opposition against GMOs from their farming neighbours adopted the Bt maize cultivation. Surveying non-GM farmers who have not neighboured with GM farmers would reveal if they differ in their attitudes towards GM crops. However, finding such non-GM farmers would probably prove difficult as GM maize and potatoes were cultivated at many farms spread across the whole territory of the Czech Republic. In comparison, other European farmers experienced a conflict with neighbours related to the unintended presence of GM materials (Tillie et al. 2016). A certain percentage reported having had conflicts related to the cultivation of GM crops with neighbouring farmers (Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian GM farmers) and with neighbouring beekeepers (Spanish, Romanian and German GM farmers) (ibid.). Skevas et al. (2009), on the other hand, reported that almost all the surveyed Bt maize Portuguese farmers did not have any problem with their neighbours. Neither conventional farmers stated that they had problems with their neighbours planting Bt maize (ibid.). However, more than a half of them expressed the wish to be informed about their neighbours’ intention to plant Bt maize as well as keeping the appropriate distances, while the rest was indifferent about this issue (ibid.). 4.4.5.3. Reasons to abandon Bt maize cultivation Besides the reasons for the adoption of Bt maize (see chapter 4.5.1.3) GM farmers were also asked about the reasons to stop cultivating Bt maize and not to renew its cultivation. Number one reason for not cultivating Bt maize anymore was the administrative burden (68% of the farmers, 25 out of 37). It was the most frequent answer in both groups of farmers, those who said that ECB was a significant pest at the farm before Bt maize cultivation and those who said it was not. As described above, farmers have to deal with extra paperwork consisting of informing farming neighbours and authorized department of the State Agricultural Intervention Fund about the intention to sow and actual sowing of Bt maize and keeping a record of GM maize handling (Trnková et al., 2017). Although the neighbours must not be informed in a written form, the amount of paperwork is higher compared to conventional maize farming. The second most frequent reason to stop growing Bt maize (for both groups of farmers, those with and without a significant ECB pressure) were the requirements of dairies buying milk from these farmers (24% of the farmers, nine out of 37). Initially German and consequently also Czech dairies refused to buy milk from cows fed with GM feed. Such milk may be traded as “GM-free”40. On a similar note, one farmer mentioned that his meat purchaser incentivizes pork from non-GM-fed pigs.

40 Livestock products are usually labelled “GM-free” if animals have been fed (for a certain time) a diet containing ingredients without GMOs (a threshold of no more than 0.9% GMOs usually applies) (Moses and Brookes 2013). 79

The next frequent reasons were controls by authorities, complicated management of Bt maize cultivation and problems with its sales (each 11% of the farmers, four out of 37). The first two were indicated by farmers regardless of the pressure of ECB. On the contrary, problems with sales were reported only by farmers with significant ECB pressure. The management of Bt maize requires extra planning from the beginning of choosing a suitable field, sowing a buffer crop where needed, and cleaning the machinery. Additionally, when intended to sell the maize harvest or non-GM-milk from maize-fed animals, harvesting and storing must be done separately, and the GM produce labelled. All these measures complicate the management of Bt maize cultivation perceived by some farmers as an unbearable hindrance. Some farmers also stated expensive Bt maize seeds (8%, three out of 37) among the reasons to stop its cultivation. Some of the interviewed farmers also complained about the difficulties to get a fair price for the produce from purchasers or to even find a purchaser. They were forced to use the harvest at the farm by feeding it to animals or using it in biogas facilities. It was a clear obstacle for those who could not use it in this way because of restricting diaries or because they did not possess a biogas station. Other reasons to stop Bt maize cultivation that were mentioned only by one or two GM farmers are listed in Fig. 8.

Figure 8 Reasons to abandon Bt maize cultivation. Numbers on the X-axis show the percentage of farmers who indicated the respective reasons. It is presented separately for farmers who stated that ECB used to be a significant pest on their farm before Bt maize cultivation, those who did not consider it significant, and irrespective of the ECB pressure. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of valid answers in the respective groups.

Moreover, the answers provided by some non-respondents41 followed the same pattern observed in the interviews and questionnaires. Additionally, they individually mentioned reasons such as that maize was an unimportant crop for them; Bt maize did not bring any economic profit; and a reaction of a neighbouring country. One farmer mentioned a negative reaction of an Austrian attaché and Austrian television to his Bt maize fields located near to the state border with this country. Cross-border cross-pollination represents a risk of the

41 See Methods 3.2.2. 81 contamination of Austrian conventional or organic production, which is of particular concern as the cultivation of GM crops is forbidden in Austria. The reasons for the intention not to renew the cultivation of Bt maize were the same as the reasons for its abandonment. Two farmers additionally mentioned the negative public opinion on GMOs, and one was concerned about the risk of adverse effects of the Bt maize on the environment, among other reasons. Overall, the co-existence rules and the situation on the market were the most important forces that have driven farmers to abandon Bt maize cultivation. That reflects the disadvantages of the administrative and economic character which were most frequently complained about in the previous Czech survey and the reasons given by former Bt maize growers (Křístková 2009). The findings also agree with the reasons named for the decreasing Bt maize acreage previously such as problematic sales, negligible pressure of ECB, strict co- existence rules and the fact that some companies did not deliver GM seeds to the Czech Republic (Jordán 2015; Křístková 2009). In comparison, other European GM farmers consider the same co-existence measures which were complained about by the Czech farmers as the easiest to implement (Tillie et al. 2016). Unlike Czech farmers, Portuguese ones found the planting of GM maize as easy as the planting of non-GM maize (Skevas et al. 2009). However, almost half of them recorded problems complying with segregation measures (ibid.). Skevas et al. (2009) conclude that the Portuguese ex-ante regulations reduce the co-existence of Bt and non-Bt maize growers as they work against the adoption of Bt maize. 4.4.5.4. A little excursion to organic farmers: the same disadvantages, a different approach Unlike conventional farmers for whom the administrative burden, controls, complicated management and problems with sales represented reasons to abandon GM crops, organic farmers were not discouraged by these disadvantages and did not hint at considering discontinuation of their way of farming. The way of farming seems to be more deeply rooted in the case of organic farmers. Two farmers mentioned that they have been experiencing problems with the sale of organic produce. Farmer O3 complained about difficulties with finding a fair purchaser. Farmer O2 has not sold anything for the appropriate price for organic production neither to slaughterhouses nor to end consumers. On the contrary, farmer O4 did not have problems with the sales. His production was limited by the farm’s capacities, not the demand for produce. The only disadvantage he mentioned was that plants’ suboptimal nutrition caused by drought could not be compensated for with chemical fertilizers as in conventional farming. The main drawback of official organic farming for farmer O1 was the administrative burden related to the process of certification and running the business. That is the reason why he did

82 not apply for the organic certification despite farming in an organic regime without the use of chemicals, antibiotics, hormones and GMOs. The difficulties with the marketing of organic produce in the current sample illustrate the findings of a statistical survey in Czech organic agriculture and agree with previous research (Lokoč 2009:3.9.2; Šejnohová et al. 2018:48). Farming unofficially in an organic way was also reported in a study of Czech organic farmers (Zagata 2010). Some farmers forfeit organic labels because of the formality of the official organic scheme (ibid.). 4.4.5.5. Reasons not to start Bt maize cultivation The farmers growing only conventional maize were asked if they ever considered cultivating Bt maize. One farmer (C2) said that it was recommended not to grow Bt maize in the agricultural press. Additionally, he stated that he did not need to risk “this new thing” because he relied on good agricultural practices which were efficient enough for the control of the ECB, which was not considered a significant pest at that farm. The ECB was not a significant pest and maize was not treated insecticidally against it at the farm of C3 either. However, there is a potential for the ECB to spread according to the respondent who would consider growing Bt maize if the legislation was not so strict. The main reason not to do so is the administration and complicated management. Although ECB used to be a significant pest at the farm of C4 and insecticides against it used to be applied there, the farmer did not opt for Bt maize cultivation. He was discouraged by administrative obstacles, complicated management and problems with the sale at the time that dairies still purchased milk from GM-fed cows. Additionally, he had just started to use biological control of ECB with Trichogramma parasitoids back in that time that he was offered MON810 seeds for the first time. Moreover, the farmer did not consider the option seriously as he did not want to grow GM crops until robust long-term research would confirm their safety. Nevertheless, the pressure of ECB has decreased in recent years, probably thanks to applying good agricultural practices at the farm, so that the pest need be controlled neither chemically nor biologically. ECB was a significant pest at the farm of C5 and insecticides against it were used in the time MON810 was propagated for the first time. However, the farmer did not start to grow Bt maize because of complicated administration and problems with its sale, and because of the requirements of dairies for GM-free milk later. The respondent relied on biological control of the pest and crop rotation instead. The dairy which buys milk from the respondent C6 incentivizes farmers to produce GM-free milk. Furthermore, ECB was controlled neither chemically nor biologically at the farm as it was not a significant pest there. The farmer thus had no reason to consider the Bt maize cultivation.

The farmer C7 did not start to grow Bt maize as the ECB was not a significant pest at the farm, and because of the extra administration workload. Concluding, farmers whose maize was plagued with ECB and who applied insecticides against it (two out of six) did not start to grow Bt maize because of administrative obstacles, complicated management, problems with the sale and requirements of dairies for GM-free milk. They successfully switched to biological control and good agricultural practices which reduced the pest pressure. At farms where ECB was not a significant pest (four out of six), farmers did not see the need to apply this control of the pest. Farmers were additionally discouraged from trying this GM crop by administrative burden and complicated management. Others mentioned reasons as incentivized GM-free milk, recommendations not to grow it by agricultural press and concerns of risk. The leading causes for Bt maize rejection are consistent with the Portuguese findings. The difficulty in applying co-existence regulation was the most frequent reason for not planting Bt maize by Portuguese non-adopters (Skevas et al. 2009). Other important reasons were the low level of ECB infestation, lack of information about Bt maize, uninteresting Bt maize market, the economic risk posed by segregation measures and operational costs (ibid.). Half of them wished to grow Bt maize in the future, while the rest was undecided (ibid.). On the other hand, Spanish farmers rejected Bt maize cultivation mainly because they preferred not to change the type of crop, did not believe in “these new kinds of a product”, because of much more expensive seeds, low pressure of corn borers, because they did not expect an improvement in economic returns and yields and were concerned for the contrary opinion in the society (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). 4.4.5.6. Comparison of GM and conventional farms’ and farmers’ characteristics The data from interviews were analysed to explore if and how farmers with experience with Bt maize cultivation differ from those who did not choose to grow it. All GM and most conventional farms were operating in a combined production (plant and animal). GM farms tended to be bigger than conventional farms in terms of more significant arable soil acreage (median 1650 versus 1200 Ha) and the number of employees (median category 50-99 versus 25-49 employees). The European corn borer was considered a significant pest at five out of 10 GM farms before adopting Bt maize and at one out of seven conventional farms. The GM farmers did not differ (considerably) from their conventional counterparts in terms of their age (median 47 versus 48 years) and education (22% of GM farmers and 17% of conventional farmers, respectively, had matura exam; 78% of GM farmers and 83% of conventional farmers, respectively, had university degree). However, GM farmers had a longer experience in their position on the farm than conventional farmers (median 13 versus 6.5 years).

The data do not suggest that their socio-demographic characteristics influenced the farmer’s decision to grow or not Bt maize. Nevertheless, the economic characteristics might have played a role, as Bt maize was rather adopted at larger farms. By comparison, there were no differences between Spanish Bt maize adopters and non-adopters in terms of the farmers’ age, education, dedication to farming, participation in co-operatives, farm size, and land ownership (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). Similarly, the range of age and education achieved and dedication to farming was comparable for Portuguese Bt and non-Bt maize farmers (Skevas et al. 2009). 4.4.5.7. GM contamination Although there have been only two identified cases of food and feed contamination by Bt maize MON810 in the Czech Republic, other GM crops happened to mix with non-GM food, feed and seed (Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture 2013, 2014, 2018; Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority 2013, 2016; Fiala 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019; Roudná and et al 2011). The difficulties to keep GMOs out of non-GM production is evidenced by almost 400 incidents of GM contamination that were recorded worldwide in the years 1997-2013 (Price and Cotter 2014). The GM contamination register includes even a few cases of contamination by GMOs in the experimental stage that were not authorised for commercial cultivation anywhere in the world (ibid.). Identified routes of contamination include cross-pollination, escape of seeds, illegal plantings, incorrect labelling and volunteers from previous plantings (ibid.). The high number of incidents in some countries probably reflects effective monitoring. As evidenced in Spain, in the absence of legal rules enforcing co-existence, it is virtually impossible to secure the choice of a way of farming. Many cases of GM contamination at the level of farms and food and feed production have been recorded, and many others are estimated to remain undiscovered (Binimelis 2008; Carrasco 2009; Herrero, Binimelis, and Wickson 2017). Non-GM farmers fight for existence in the conditions of no co-existence legislation and no official registers for GM field locations (Herrero et al. 2017). Conventional agriculture is being pressed into the margins and the organic one out of production (ibid.). The amount of organic maize has decreased as the result of contamination in certain parts of Spain, and its production has remained remarkably marginal over recent years despite a steadily significant increase in organic agriculture on the national level (ibid.). Carrasco (2009) argues that co-existence is non-viable because of huge costs it would entail for analysis and oversight by the state authorities, and for social and environmental reasons. Based on interviews with actors from GMO-free supply chain, Oehen et al. (2018) argue that co-existence in breeding and seed production is unfeasible. Additionally, non-GM sectors are found to be affected by additional costs and the management of the permanent prevailing risk of contamination (ibid.).

4.4.6. Co-existence: Conclusions Co-existence should ensure that farmers and consumers can choose among conventional, organic and GM crop production. The cultivation of GM crops in the Czech Republic has been managed through co-existence regulation, control of its compliance and a system of sanctions since its beginning in 2005. Although the rules follow the recommendations from the European Commission and the Best Practice Document, not all of the recommendations have been translated into the Czech legislation. The Czech co-existence regulation stands somewhere in the middle between no or very weak regulation and very stringent rules valid in the other member states. Despite not being maximally restrictive, the co-existence rules and the situation on the market were the main forces that caused the steady decline of Bt maize acreage leading to no cultivation in the last three years. The conventional non-GM farmers did not start to grow Bt maize because of the same reasons and due to low pressure of the pest to which it is resistant. Apparently, the co-existence rules have been one of the limiting factors of Bt maize adoption, hence limiting the farmers’ choice to use GM crops. On the other hand, the Spanish experience indicates that without co-existence rules, non-GM farmers, particularly organic ones, are being forced out of existence. Admixtures of GM maize have been identified in non-GM production regularly. In contrast, there were only isolated cases of food and feed contaminated with Bt maize MON810 in the Czech Republic. Assumingly only one case occurred at a farm level, probably through neighbouring GM and non-GM fields and shared machinery. The interviewed farmers neither had any experience of contamination nor were concerned about it. The control of compliance by authorities covers cultivation of the crop, food and feed production, but not Czech seed production. Regular inspections revealed only a few cases of mild breaches of co-existence rules at the farm level. Furthermore, most non-GM farmers in the current research were informed by their GM neighbours about Bt maize cultivation, which was in line with the regulation. Less positively, the measures that had been recommended by the EC and the Best Practice Document and which are not part of the Czech regulation were not implemented by all the surveyed farmers and some of those measures were not practised at all. Making those measures obligatory would better reflect the official recommendations and increase the robustness of the co-existence regulation in the Czech Republic. If the rules were to be updated, it should take into account feedback from farmers (and other involved stakeholders) who have experience with the cultivation (or further handling) of GM crops (maize and potatoes), those who strive for plant production with the lowest presence of GMOs possible (organic farmers, GM-free producers), and the authorities responsible for the monitoring of co-existence. Drawing on the broad range of experience would correspond to the present EC recommendation (European Commission 2010) on how to develop national co-existence regulation. 86

Furthermore, the farmers’ satisfaction with the offer and availability of conventional maize seeds suggest that they are not restricted in their choices by the inclusion of Bt maize hybrids in the National Listing of Plant Varieties. On the other hand, the choice of Bt maize seeds for GM farmers was limited to a certain degree. Additionally, the more expensive Bt maize seeds (among other issues) discouraged some of the farmers to continue with its cultivation. Finally, non-GM farmers felt neither interested in nor influenced by the Bt maize cultivation of their neighbours. That probably reflects the attitudes of farmers who did not perceive the cultivation of GM crops risky and the fact that most of the organic farmers did not grow maize. Only occasionally, GM farmers complained about difficulties finding appropriate fields for sowing Bt maize due to non-GM maize planted on neighbouring fields.

4.5. Farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops This chapter presents the results of the analysis of interviews with GM, conventional and organic farmers regarding their attitudes towards GM crops. First, it introduces the farmers’ general perception of farming, including the strategies they use, i.e. the reasons to farm organically or to grow Bt maize and their stance to potentially permitted new GM crops. That is followed by the description of the farmers’ discourses about GM crops. The next subchapter explores the situational context in which the discourses were produced. The focus is then shifted to the description of the public discourses about GM crops (chapter 4.5.4 and 4.5.5) in order to interpret the farmers’ discourses in the intertextual context (chapter 4.5.6). Conclusions are inferred in the third level of the sociological analysis. The results are discussed with literature continuously in the respective subchapters. The chapter is closed with the summary of the research on farmers’ attitudes to GM crops.

4.5.1. Farmers’ perception of farming and farming strategies 4.5.1.1. Productivism All farmers were well aware of their essential role in securing human alimentation. However, unlike organic farmers, most of the GM and conventional farmers emphasised that this is the ultimate goal of agriculture.

“Each profession shall fulfil a certain function in the society, and farmers fulfil the function that we have to feed the planet somehow.” (C6)

The same interviewees also emphasised that the economic viability of farming is the first and ultimate perspective when making decisions. Agriculture was called “business as any other business” (G7) and economic considerations were present implicitly, at times more explicitly:

“The money is always in the beginning and at the end, [using chemicals] must pay off” (G6)

“If wheat ends up for let’s say 3000 crowns here or for 5000 crowns in Germany because there is a bigger hunger for it – I am only an economist too, I need the money too so that I rather sell it abroad.” (C6)

However, the choices of how to farm and the time dedicated to it are restricted by rules and associated administrative burden. Various regulations regarding the application of agrochemicals, sowing of certain crops on particular fields, aims at animal welfare or co- existence and efficacy of GM crops were perceived as preventing conventional and GM farmers from fulfilling their mission:

“We [farmers] already have so many concerns with the erosions and how the state restricts us and with the chemical preparations … we are just about to end with agriculture it seems.” (C7)

“It is interesting that we visit various seminars, training, and everywhere they hammer into your head how the world population has been rising, there is not enough food … and on the other hand, we are being restricted; the production is becoming more expensive, no one wants to pay for the products.” (G7)

At least of the same importance as feeding the world was for farmers from each group equal access to new technologies and subsidies in order to compete and achieve economic prosperity. Therefore, those who preferred the biotechnological solution perceived the GMO legislation of the EU as putting them at a disadvantage on world markets. A couple of interviewees also complained about the system of agricultural subsidies. The remedy was seen in their complete abolishment, or improved allocation among different farms’ size and production type, or their granting conditioned by farmers’ professional development. Quite a few farmers across all interviewed groups were also aware of the impacts of intensive farming on the environment and human health. They drew attention to the malfunctioning processes and techniques aimed at high yields that cause environmental pollution, soil degradation and water scarcity:

“The agriculture in the Czech Republic is unnecessarily intensive, and this has to harm as the air and nature so human.” (O3)

“The way of a conventional farmer who simply strives to get the most out of it, that is a road to the hell and ruin because of drought and additionally the fact that the soil has not seen manure. It will not help to improve it.” (O2)

“Well, of course, residues may arise in those products from the use of chemicals.” (G9)

“Each spraying has its risks, and I must abide by certain rules, dose and so on. No herbicide is beneficial for health, but it is not possible without them.” (C3)

The administrative burden and agri-environmental regulations that were perceived by the interviewed farmers as obstacles to the actual farmer’s work, ultimately to securing human alimentation, were met with a comparable aversion of Czech farmers also in previous research (Lokoč 2009:3.5). The complaints about the system of agricultural subsidies and similar approaches to the remedy also correspond to the previous observations (ibid.). The complaints about subsidies and the EU bureaucracy correspond to the findings of Duspiva (2012), who argues that Czech farmers maintain a negative attitude towards the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU. The factors forming that attitude include the inequalities between the old and new member states, particularly the direct payment handicap lasting ten years until 2013, the import of agricultural products with added value at a lower price from other member states, and farmers’ dissatisfaction with the EU subsidies (Duspiva 2012; Toman, Codl, and Tuček 2012). The loss of competitiveness and sovereignty were among the main reasons for the negative attitude to the CAP (Duspiva 2012). The majority of the interviewed GM and conventional farmers clearly showed productivist attitudes as described in Wilson (2001). Productivist-oriented farmers emphasise production maximization as the ultimate goal of farming, regard new types of green policies critically or reject them outright, and perceive themselves as the best “stewards of the land” (ibid.). The productivism discourse conceives of farming as focused singularly on agricultural production with the priority of its increasing (Almsted et al. 2014). That is not to suggest that the farmers’ desire for a high production is driven only by economic profit. As seen in this research and argued by Tovey (1997), there is also a strong sense of morality, the need to feed the population and the hungry. Nevertheless, the productivist orientation of the farmers inevitably conflicts with the post-productivist CAP of the EU, which is focused on environmental sustainability. The answer to the challenges to produce enough quality food with lower environmental impact while staying competitive was for some interviewees organic farming, for some conventional farmers, good agricultural practices were enough, and others saw the hope in planting GM crops. The reasons for adopting each of these strategies will be addressed below. The reasons not to start Bt maize cultivation as well to stop it are discussed as a part of the practical issues of co-existence in chapter 4.4.5. 4.5.1.2. Reasons to farm organically All interviewed organic farmers shared the dislike for agricultural chemicals. It was natural to continue in a family tradition which did not use chemicals for the farmer O2. Apart from that, some of his fields were situated in the nature conservation area where chemicals are prohibited. One of the reasons for farmer O4 was the economy of the farm. His fields were located on poor soils with an unfavourable climate where even the use of chemicals would not increase yields. A notable characteristic of the organic farmers were the ties to their farms. Three of them run the business as natural persons, the other two as companies with acreage smaller than that of conventional and GM farms. Moreover, the parents of O3 and the entire line of O4’s ancestors worked in agriculture. The sense of responsibility for the agricultural land was present explicitly or implicitly. Farmers O2 and O3, for example, emphasised that unlike employees of big farms, they want to keep farming on their land, which binds them to use sustainable, i.e. organic practices. Additionally, farmer O5 is a member of the local action group NGO that aims at improving the quality of life and the environment in the countryside.

The reasons for farming organically by the interviewed farmers reflected the various factors, such as natural conditions, business profitability, and value orientations of farmers identified in previous research of the attitudes of Czech organic farmers (Zagata 2010). Zagata (2010) introduced three distinct frameworks in which the nature of “organics” is created by engaged actors, namely “organic farming as a way of life”, “as an occupation”, and “as an alternative food production”. Although it was not the aim of the current study to type the organic farmers, specific characteristics matching with Zagata’s category “organic farming as an occupation” could retrospectively be observed in the accounts of three interviewees. This group is not occupied entirely with organic issues, as is the case of the first group. These farmers are rather interested in the current agricultural issues from the perspective of the vocation of the farmer as such. They are also characterised by a certain pragmatism towards organic farming (ibid.). 4.5.1.3. GM farmers’ reasons to grow Bt maize Based on the quantitative survey, the main reasons for starting Bt maize cultivation on farms where the European corn borer (ECB) was a significant pest was the protection of maize against this pest (12 out of 24 farmers, 50%) and insecticide saving (7 out of 24, 29%). Further mentioned was also a desire for higher yields, better quality and a wish to try it (each reason indicated by 4 out of 24 farmers, 17%). Farmers for whom ECB was not a significant pest listed the reasons in an inverse sense, the main was better quality (5 out of 12, 42%) and a wish to try it (4 out of 12, 33%), less frequently mentioned were the protection against ECB and expectation of higher yields (each 2 out of 12, 17%), and saving of insecticides (1 out of 12, 8%). Two interviewees tried the biological control of the pest with a Trichogramma parasitoid but did not make a good experience and therefore considered Bt maize as the most effective and environment-friendly protection against ECB. The surveyed farmers who continued to grow Bt maize did so based on their experience of its higher quality (8 out of 20, 40%), secure yields (7 out of 20, 35%), effective protection against ECB (4 out of 20, 20%) and insecticide saving (2 out of 20, 10%). Additional reasons were noticed in the interviews not as a direct answer to the question about the reasons to continue, but in the course of the farmers’ accounts. Farmers mainly praised the security of this measure in terms of full reliability of pest control, and thus no need to monitor the pest and apply insecticides or to use the biocontrol (Trichogramma parasitoids) with uncertain results. They also often referred to the benefits for the environment, convenience compared to insecticide spraying in maize, and some mentioned saving of time and work.

“I was not interested if there was a difference in yield [compared to conventional maize], it was usually the same, but it was about that, that you have your peace during the year because you can take care of other things.” (G4)

“No one knows when a corn borer calamity happens … so that I used this preventative measure [Bt maize] and I was satisfied with that. … [Bt maize cover] was beautiful, healthy, and I have remained convinced that it is not harmful.” (G2)

The reasons given by Czech farmers for the starting and continuation of Bt maize cultivation agreed with those put forward by respondents in Spain: reliable pest control, higher/secure yields, saving of insecticides, a better quality of maize, a wish to try it, convenience. However, compared to Spanish and Portuguese farmers, Czechs did not list such a wide variety of reasons. Additional arguments reported in other studies were the ease of crop management, a recommendation of input suppliers and assisting technicians, health and environmental safety compared to agri-chemicals, perception of GMOs as the future, and higher yields observed at agri-neighbours (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008; Skevas et al. 2009). The Portuguese, in contrast, did not mention secure yields, higher quality and insecticide saving listed by Czech and Spanish respondents (ibid.). 4.5.1.4. GM and conventional farmers’ stance on new GM crops Only a minority (7 out of 36 farmers, 19%) of the GM farmers who were surveyed were determined to grow another GM crop if it was authorised. The main reasons given for the cultivation were saving of pesticides and benefit for the environment. One farmer perceived it as a solution to problems unsolvable with conventional technology, and another one would grow drought-resistant crops. The majority (17 out of 36, 47%) of farmers conditioned the adoption of a new GM crop by a variety of factors. Firstly, the legislation would need to be more user-friendly. Secondly, their decision would depend on the type of the trait and crop and what benefits would the new GMO bring, if it was economically advantageous and what would be the potential risks. One farmer conditioned it by a higher occurrence of a pest. Approximately a third (12 out of 36, 33%) of the farmers was however decided not to grow any new GM crops mainly because they produce GM-free milk, worry about sales and complicated legislation. Individually mentioned was also the satisfaction with the quality of conventional production, a concern about the contamination of the on-farm produced feed by GMOs, and a concern about public opinion. Half of the conventional farmers would grow a new type of GM crop if it were permitted. GM crops were perceived as time and work saving, cheaper, beneficial for the environment, of good quality and thus guaranteeing competitiveness. The other half, on the contrary, saw conventional crops as having good quality and did not want to undergo risks which GMOs may pose to the environment and human and animal health. The incentives for GM-free milk also played a role in maintaining the farm free of GM crops. Apart from that, farmers were satisfied with functional agro-techniques they have been applying on their farms and therefore did not have any motivation to try GM crops. The reasons that were given by Czech, Spanish and Portuguese farmers to adopt or not a hypothetically permitted new GMO for cultivation overlapped in economic, health and

92 environmental considerations. Spanish farmers who did not grow Bt maize would consider growing it if the pest pressure worsened and if they gained higher incomes from Bt maize (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). Half of the Portuguese farmers without the experience of Bt maize cultivation would cultivate it in the future mainly because of economic reasons, saving of insecticides, environment and health, secure yields and their perception of GMOs as the future (ibid.). Other studies focused on the hypothetical possibility to grow GM crops in member states where their cultivation is prohibited or to grow a newly permitted GMO. According to Skevas et al. (2012), more than a half of Greece farmers would be willing to grow Bt maize if the country’s ban on growing GMOs was lifted, while a third would not grow it. The prevailing motivations to adopt Bt maize were to save costs and to avoid exposure with insecticide sprays (ibid.). If new types of GM crops were allowed for commercial cultivation, half of Czech, German, and UK farmers would be willing to adopt GM HT oilseed rape, and a third of Spanish, French and Hungarian farmers would be willing to adopt GM HT maize (Areal et al. 2011). The most critical factors for the decision to cultivate these GM crops were economic considerations, whereas social pressure and the satisfaction from being at the forefront of progress were the least important (ibid.). Farmers who did not want to grow these crops argued with their faith in the current practice, i.e. use of herbicides, and higher price of GM seeds (ibid.). Breustedt et al. (2008) identified further factors important for German farmers to consider potentially allowed GM oilseed rape for cultivation. Except for economic factors, farmers were concerned about the liability from cross-pollination and flexibility in returning to conventional crop growing (ibid.). Furthermore, the main reason for German, Portuguese and UK conventional farmers’ rejection of GM crops is that they believe a majority in society is opposed to them (Tillie et al. 2016). Complicated management was another frequent reason for those and Romanian farmers. Spanish and Romanian farmers also preferred not to change their type of crop, cultivated the crop under specific standards that forbade GM and were concerned for a high price of Bt maize seeds and their limited availability. Furthermore, German and UK farmers thought that the GM harvest would be difficult to sell (ibid.). Finally, in another study the UK farmers rejected the cultivation of GM crops mostly because they had been already growing the crops under specific standards that forbid GMOs, and also because they did not believe in “these new kinds of crops”, they had more faith in the use of insecticides and did not expect an increase in economic returns (Jones and Tranter 2014). Concluding, the proportion of farmers willing to grow GMOs and the type of associated considerations of the surveyed Czech farmers was comparable to those found in other studies of European (including Czech) farmers. The common decisive factor for all 93 farmers was economic profit. Other widely shared grounds for GMO adoption were health and environmental benefits. The reasons not to adopt a new GM crop, the faith in and satisfaction with the current practice, operation under standards that forbid GMOs and concerns for public opinion, of Czech farmers, also agreed to previous findings. Other studies reported additional concerns about the liability and flexibility to switch back to conventional production, which were not reflected by the Czech farmers. On the other hand, the considerations of the GMO legislation and product quality were mentioned only in the current Czech sample. 4.5.1.5. The complexity of farmers’ decision making The farmers’ reasons and stances mentioned above result from complex deliberations that include various and often contradictory elements. The underlying factor is the economic viability of a farm which was in the view of the interviewees conditioned by a secure yield, saving of fuels, chemicals and human work, competitiveness on the world markets and fair subsidies. Practices aiming at sustainable farming, preserving soil quality and water level, reducing emissions and pollution, and protecting biodiversity were perceived by most farmers as necessary but, at the same time, by many GM and conventional farmers as threatening the economic efficiency. The need to increase yields in order to meet the growing demands for food and feed were also reflected and often seen in contradiction to environment-friendly farming. Lokoč (2009:3.4.2) has also described perspectives similar to the dilemma of the interviewed farmers regarding the awareness of negative impacts of intensive farming and the need for the economic viability of a farm and high productivity. Conventional farmers considered the use of chemical plant protection products and artificial fertilizers normal and necessary in order to be competitive, yet at the same time, they stressed the need for their appropriate use and the decreased amount of their use. Organic agriculture was in their view associated with low labour productivity and effectivity, was labour-intensive and not able to feed the world (ibid.). The various considerations took the form of contradictory statements in some interviews, for example, about the benefits and risks of GM crops:

“If I had the glyphosate-resistant soybeans here, I was longing for it; I would be probably breaking records [in yields]! … [growing GM soybeans] is not about me, about our money so much, but about the environment.” (G4)

“We do not have the merest reasons to undergo this risk [GM crops cultivation], because this is a new thing, so let others try it and smash their face. … personally, I think that [GM crops do not adversely impact nature] too.” (C2)

Similarly, the stance of some interviewees on GM crops was not black and white and fully formed but was instead a process of complex deliberation. They weighed benefits against risks and adverse effects, and implications for the ecosystems:

“What bothers me are [GM] Round Up Ready plants so that they can be air-sprayed in America … that is destroying the ecosystem, nature. … But a [GM] wheat that produces vitamins and minerals … on the one hand it is ethically good, because it is good for [African] people who suffer hunger, on the other hand, we are interfering with the environment and nature.” (O1)

“I do not see any problems with GM rice that produces vitamins, but too much [genes] should not be introduced … I would not authorise [GMOs] in a blanket manner but case by case.” (C3)

4.5.2. Farmers’ GMO discourse In the following subchapters, building blocks of farmers’ discourses about GM crops are described. The last subchapter presents two contradictory discourses about GM crops produced by the interviewees. These results of the textual analysis of the interviews represent the first level of the sociological discourse analysis. The table which lists the elements of farmers’ discourses and their relation to the lower units of the grounded theory analysis (initial and focused codes), including the assigned interviewees is presented in Appendix 4. 4.5.2.1. Constructing safety Almost all farmers spontaneously addressed the issue of safety of GM crops usually soon in the course of the interviews. The most frequent argument put forward was that GM crops are safer than agricultural chemicals:

“I would say that chemicals are much more harmful than any genetics.” (G2)

“I do not see any potential [risks]. In my opinion, the chemicals are a bigger potential risk than [GM crops].” (C3)

Furthermore, two lines of argumentation were used: farmers’ own experience with Bt maize cultivation and external information. Some interviewees were led by their own experience to state that there are no significant effects caused by the cultivation of GM crops and that the long-term cultivation and use of Bt maize prove their safety. Others drew on the information they learned and pointed out the safety of long-term cultivation and use of GM crops in the world and mostly in the USA. The safety of Bt maize was in one case derived from the permission to use an insecticide based on Bacillus thuringiensis in organic agriculture. One farmer also emphasised that no scientific research confirmed the fallacies about the harmful effects of GMOs that are spread on the internet.

Moreover, the way of the creation of a new plant variety was considered regarding safety. Two respondents likened the changes in a plant genome made in the process of genetic modification to those that occur naturally by chance. Apparently, natural processes serve as an arbiter for safety in their view. Besides, safety is warranted by the precise technique. One of these farmers continued by highlighting the precision of genetic engineering in contrast to the randomness of crossing in classical breeding. Interestingly, another farmer likened the methods of genetic engineering to the method of induced mutation used in classical breeding to make the same point of the safety of GM crops. Thus, the similarity of the new and old method of plant breeding is another guarantee of the safety of the outcome.

“It is like mutations … a mutation substitutes, a change happens, and principally the same is achieved with the genetically modified seeds, that we manipulate its genetic potential.” (C2)

4.5.2.2. Perceiving risks A couple of farmers perceived GMOs as risky. They either saw them as harmful or expressed doubts about its safety. They were also sceptical to industry studies which have been consistently reporting only results indicating the safety of GM crops. Three farmers problematized the legitimacy of scientific evidence about GMOs. The conflict of interests of companies producing GMOs and conducting or financing risk assessment was seen as leading to unreliable results. The interviewees wished robust independent research into the risk of GM crops be conducted.

“It is not verified, I would really rather wait until there is a research, but not that a company which markets it performs that research, but an independent institute does it. If such institutes still exist.” (C4)

This conventional farmer who maintained doubts supported the precautionary approach of the EU and did not want to grow GM crops himself until their safety is confirmed by robust long-term research. Another farmer did not believe the information about safety issued by the GM companies for their conflict of interests and missed independent long-term studies:

“[GM crops] have not been grown for a long time, and for [the research] to have some significance, it has to be done for more years and really independently.” (O3)

One interviewee farming organically (O1) expressed concern over the uncertainties and unknown unknowns present in the risk assessment. He, therefore, perceived the cross- pollination with non-GM varieties as an unacceptable risk to maintaining the diversity of unmodified varieties. Apart from that, in his opinion, GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops destroy nature. 96

The strongest opposer of GMOs, an organic farmer said straightforwardly that: “GM crops are useless and toxic” (O5). A few farmers doubted what is safer if the use of agricultural chemicals or GMOs. One farmer was aware of the adverse effects of chemical residues in food products. At the same time, he was not sure to what extent the information about risks of GMOs is right. In the other two interviews, there was a tangible difficulty of gaging the negative impacts of the overuse of chemicals taken as an unquestioned fact and the information that GMOs may pose risks approached with no definite opinion. Interestingly, as their argumentation developed during the interviews, those two farmers said later that GMOs are safer compared to chemicals. 4.5.2.3. Praising benefits The claims about the safety were closely followed by praising the benefits of GM crops. The quote of farmer G8 aptly summarised the perception of benefits:

“[GM crops] are certainly better than chemicals. I think that the load for the environment is dramatically lower, be it the consumption of fuel, pesticides, human time, work, everything.”

Bt maize was perceived as a quality product because it contains fewer mycotoxins and hence constitutes a quality food and feed.

“Certainly, one wants the yields, but the health condition of plants was what was relevant for us, so that everything was done in good quality, mainly the feed for cattle, that is important.” (G4)

Farmers were also satisfied with the healthy Bt maize cover that was not damaged by the pest. Many interviewees argued that the cultivation of GM crops is beneficial for the environment. They were referring to Bt maize and GM crops in general, even HT GM crops which enable the application of broad-spectrum herbicides. The argument was often put in the context of conventional farming or using chemicals in agriculture. Even one organic farmer considered the idea of GMOs right from the environmental perspective:

“I would consider the development of a Round-Up tolerant plant that survives and the sprinkler does not need to go there because of other [weed] as something tolerable. … I would see that as a positive influence, but of course, I do not know about the other impacts.” (O4)

Another organic one framed the use of GM crops as a provisional emergency measure that could be possibly employed to reduce the chemical load until organic production prevails.

GM crops were also seen as beneficial for human health. Two farmers acknowledged that some GM crops are designed to improve nutritious quality. Individually mentioned was also the health benefit for farm employees who do not need to apply pesticides when Bt maize is grown instead of conventional maize. Furthermore, many farmers portrayed GM crops as time-, work- and money-saving compared to conventional farming. 4.5.2.4. Questioning benefits The only argument questioning benefits of GM crops was raised by one organic farmer, who directly called them useless. One GM farmer mentioned that the repeated cultivation of HT GM crops in monocultures could lead to the development of weeds resistant to those herbicides. Nevertheless, he did not see it as a drawback providing that farmers use strategies to avoid the development of resistance. 4.5.2.5. GM crops ethically justified GM crops and plant genetic engineering (GE) was ethically acceptable for a couple of farmers. Some considered the processes of GE as equivalent to natural process.

“But this [GE] is happening in nature! After all, what is breeding?” (G2)

Two respondents considered the engineering of a plant DNA legitimate in contrast to human genetic material. In their opinion, scientists with expertise in the field have the right to manipulate genetic information. Additionally, another interviewee perceived the benefits of GM crops higher than the risks. Interestingly, GE was acceptable for one organic farmer under the condition that the engineered gene is not able to spread into wild populations. More pleading ethical accounts were expressed concerning the need for increased food production. GM crops were justified by the need to feed the world.

“We need to produce more and more food, agricultural soil is diminishing, the number of people is increasing … and [GE] is only about that to increase the genetic potential. The development of genetics is not as fast as the increase in the human population.” (G4)

“[The use of GM crops] must come, already from the simple perspective of the increasing number of people on the planet. We [farmers] are simply not able to manage that, that is not possible.” (C6)

4.5.2.6. GM crops ethically unacceptable In contrast, GM crops and plant GE were ethically unacceptable for two farmers. One of them perceived GE as unethical in its own right.

“I would not grow it [even if I could] because I have ethical objections against GMOs … because of the intervention into the genetic information.” (O2)

The other one, although not opposed to the principle of GE, saw GM crops as an intrusion into nature. 4.5.2.7. GM crops equated with progress Furthermore, a couple of interviewees enthusiastically called genetic engineering and its products a “progress” and innovation:

“There is not even a negligible risk. And the progress! The creation of GMO. There is no risk.” (C1)

Additionally, GM farmers were called as “enlightened” by one conventional farmer. 4.5.2.8. Looking up to the USA The same interviewees who referred to the progress and a couple of others also looked up to the USA where many GM crops have been employed on a large scale. The USA farming was seen as progressive and the USA open to GMOs, unlike the EU:

“I have seen that in America, we were gazing at how they can do it … they had a triple version of GMO maize resistant to the corn borer, diabrotica and glyphosate. … America is ten years ahead of us.” (G4)

“And when we look at America because one knows that they have been doing the GM soybeans and some crops for a long time, they do not have a problem with that. Again, only us here, we have prejudices because someone played with that [genome].” (C6)

Besides, one farmer complained about the precautionary principle of the EU GMO legislation for hindering the progress. 4.5.2.9. GM crops inevitable Some farmers held that the cultivation of GM crops is inevitably imposed on them by conditions out of their control. They perceived not adopting the cultivation of GM crops as an economic hazard for their farm. The costs of non-GM crops production were seen as higher compared to GM production and the competitiveness of their farm, thus in risk. At the same time, they were aware that the EU depends on the feed import (mainly on GM soybeans). Therefore, they wished to be able to grow GMOs or to be protected against the cheap import of GMOs.

“I would probably [consider growing another GM crop if it was permitted] in the future, because when the entire world makes GMOs and us not, we will probably not be able to compete or someone will have to pay for it.” (C7)

Besides, the development and use of GM crops were portrayed as the only solution to problems of ensuring the maximization of yields and minimalization of costs; maintaining the current comfortable level of alimentation with the fast rate at which the agri-chemicals are being forbidden; and achievement of sustainable development.

“And then we will not have another option, because with the current restrictions of all possible chemicals, if we use fertilizers, if we will spray – we will be left with no other option than to genetically modify plants so that they are more resistant to the given pests, weeds and diseases.” (C6)

4.5.2.10. Open attitudes to GM crops Four interviewees explicitly supported the cultivation of GM crops, and one even called his farm as “the advocates of GM crops” (G8).

“I tell you, I would be most happy if the GMOs continued!” (G4)

On the contrary, the other three farmers opposed GM crops.

“I notified you of that I am such a conservative so that you will not get a lot from me for the cultivation of GM crops.” (C4)

“I do not agree with [the cultivation of GM crops].” (O2)

“Unfortunately, GMOs are here, but perhaps someone will ban it as the glyphosates! Which will be good.” (O5)

4.5.2.11. Portraying the others More often, the strategy was not to explicitly say if they supported or opposed GM crops, but to describe the others. Many farmers portrayed the opposers of GMOs as being influenced and their arguments as not being right. The arguments against GMOs were described as lacking scientific grounds and based on political and market interests:

“This is only a trade war. There is nothing else to that because there is no scientific study, purely scientific, that would confirm that false information and fallacies [about harmful effects of GMOs].” (C1)

Additionally, GM-free products were seen merely as a marketing strategy generating higher profit for farmers producing them. One farmer described the fear of GMOs as irrational. The EU was described as an opposer of GMOs isolating itself from the rest of the world where GM crops are cultivated on a large scale. The farmers who were supportive of the cultivation of GM crops saw the strict EU regulation and not having more GM crops

100 permitted for cultivation as a result of a lobby. The lobbyists were either unspecified or were referred to as NGOs (also called “ecoterrorists”), chemical and seed companies, or European companies who intend to defend their market against the USA companies. Interestingly, the term “lobby” was also used in an inversed sense. Companies that produce GM crops and/or chemicals were regarded as lobbying for permissions of GMOs without a proper risk assessment.

“They [industry] quickly try it if it harms someone else, and when they find out that not, so, there is a lobby and much money under the table and what else more, and they start to sell this modification and sometime later we will learn if that has an impact or not, so, and perhaps we will never know.” (O1)

4.5.2.12. Two contradictory discourses The categories described above create two opposite discourses. By constructing safety, praising benefits, ethically justifying GM crops, considering GM crops inevitable, equating them with progress and looking up to the progressive USA, and by determining themselves as supporters by means of portraying GMO opposers and openly supporting GM crops, the speakers create the discourse which supports GM crops. In opposition, the perception of risks, questioning of benefits, not accepting GM crops on an ethical basis, and opposing GM crops explicitly and by the description of GMO supporters, these accounts form the discourse which opposes GM crops. These two discourses were usually used exclusively in individual interviews. Thirteen farmers stuck strictly to the accounts of the discourse supporting GM crops. In four other cases, the farmers used the supporting discourse in the significant part of the interviews and only made minor excurse to the opposite discourse. Three of them uttered some doubts about the safety of GM crops compared to chemicals, and one farmer referred to the risk of the development of weeds resistant to herbicides unless the HT GM crops are managed well. On the contrary, another three farmers adhered only to the building blocks of the opposing discourse. Two other farmers predominantly used the arguments of the opposing discourse, yet also resorted to the opposite one. One farmer only acknowledged the benefit of Bt maize cultivation which contains fewer mycotoxins. Another interviewee joined the supporting discourse in calling GM crops an innovation, considering some of them ethically right for fighting malnutrition and regarding GE as equivalent to natural processes. He would also reconcile to the cultivation of GM crops in exceptional circumstances as a provisional measure to reduce chemical load.

101

Table 5 Farmers' discourses. Discourse Farmers who Farmers who Discourse supporting GM used supporting used opposing opposing GM crops discourse discourse crops Constructing G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G9, C4, C5, Perceiving risks safety G6, G7, G8, G9, O1, O3, O5 G10, C1, C2, C3, C5, C7, O1, O4 Praising benefits G1, G2, G3, G4, G7, O5 Questioning G5, G6, G7, G8, benefits G9, G10, C1, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, O1, O4 GM crops G2, G4, G6, G7, O1, O2 GM crops ethically justified C1, C6, O1, O4 ethically unacceptable

GM crops G4, G8, C1, O1 equated with progress

Looking up to the G4, G7, C1, C5, USA C6

GM crops G3, G5, G6, G7, inevitable G8, C1, C5, C6, C7

Portraying GMO G1, G2, G3, G4, O1, O5 Portraying GMO opposers G6, G7, C1, C3, supporters C4, C6, C7, O4 Supporting GM G4, G5, G8, C1 C4, O2, O5 Opposing GM crops crops

4.5.3. The situational context of the discourses The second level of the sociological discourse analysis focused on the situational and intertextual context in order to understand what the discourses produced by farmers meant for them (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:36). This subchapter describes the situational context, i.e. the circumstances in which the discourse has been produced and the characteristics of the subjects that produce it (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:28). Specifically, I focused on farmer’s motivation to participate in the interview, their willingness to cultivate GM crops, their perspectives on GM crops, agriculture and nature, the characteristics of farms and farmers, and the source of information for farmers about GM crops. Furthermore, I compared the farmers’ claims of benefits with their experience with the cultivation of Bt maize. Firstly, attention was paid to why the discourse has been produced and for what aim (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:29). The GM farmers were invited to the interviews to share their experience

102 with the cultivation of Bt maize. They were also informed, that another interest is to explore the impact of Bt maize on ecosystems compared to conventional maize and that the interviews will provide space for addressing the issues important for them. The invitation for organic farmers described the intention of the interviews as exploring the relationships between them and their neighbours cultivating Bt maize, and their opinions about GM crops. The conventional farmers were additionally asked for the reasons why they did not adopt Bt maize cultivation. The motivation of some farmers to participate in the research was noticeable already in the first telephone contact before the interviews took place. The GM farmer G2 was interested in getting to know if Bt maize was going to be cultivated in that season and if it was possible to buy the seeds. He also inquired if I had contact with laboratories which identify genetic modification in plants. The conventional farmer C1 expressed his support of GM crops and his view that public education is necessary. Two organic farmers expressed their interest in the topic, which was also noticeable in their absorption in the interview (O1, O5). Another organic farmer agreed to the interview with the words:

“I don’t mind talking with you on such a topic. Perhaps I learn something too. I don’t know. Perhaps I will be cleverer.” (O4)

The motivation of others became clear towards the end of the interview:

“Keep on like this! And simply to push on the use of these new technologies that do not impact the environment through chemicals, transport and others, to push on that, so that no spanners are thrown in the works of the new technologies. That is a serious message. It is not a footnote, a footnote in a small type. It is serious. That is why I have accepted you because there is plenty of such research because we are one of the few who persist in doing it.” (G5)

The motivation of the farmer G8 to take part in the interview was not explicitly stated, but towards the end, he called himself an advocate of GM crops. He also presented his positive experience with Bt maize cultivation on a seminar organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and shared his experience in the publication which covered the first years of Bt maize cultivation in the Czech Republic (Křístková 2009). The interest of the other two farmers was noticed during the interviews. The conventional farmer C4 was keen to learn about the development of the cultivation of Bt maize in the Czech Republic and surrounding countries to inform his younger colleague who would be taking over the position of the chief agronomist in a year. The organic farmer O3 made suggestions as to what would be appropriate to cover in my thesis. His concerns went to

103 the disadvantage of small farmers compared to big farms caused by the state’s politics of agricultural subsidies and the outstanding property restitution. The motivation of farmers G2, G5, G8 and C1 to participate in the interview could be interpreted as supporting the cultivation of GM crops, either by supporting their cultivation (G2) or by creating a good picture in the hope of elicitation of public support (G5, G8, C1). The organic farmers O1 and O5 were interested in the topic of GM crops. Another organic farmer O4 and the conventional one C4 were interested to learn about GM crops. The motivation of organic farmer O3 was rather in raising broader agricultural issues than the one pertaining to GM crops. Furthermore, the willingness of farmers to cultivate Bt maize or to adopt a hypothetically permitted new GM crop concurred with the applied discourses. The vast majority of those who used the supporting discourse would grow GM crops if they were better marketable than now and the regulation eased. Only two farmers were not interested in growing GM crops as they were satisfied with their current cultivation techniques. On the other hand, the only opposing conventional farmer would not grow any GM crop. Besides, specific perspectives on GM crops, agriculture and nature were observed in some interviews. The attitudes of farmers who employed the supporting discourse could often be characterized as techno-optimistic, anthropocentric, reductionistic and productivist. A couple of supporting farmers displayed openness to farming innovations and techno-optimism. They believed that technology would fix various (agricultural) challenges, and were willing to try any outcomes of new findings on their farm. For example, C1 posited that:

“The arable soil has been diminishing … but new technologies are being developed that do not need arable soil so that this does not pose a risk.”

In contrast, one opposing interviewee described himself as a conservative farmer. Furthermore, two techno-optimistic interviewees and other supporters maintained anthropocentric perceptions of nature. Biodiversity was seen as a competitor to production, and pollinators were referred to only from the perspective of human dependence on them. In their perspective humans improve nature and want to possess control of genetics:

“We are not damaging nature. We are improving it by living on this planet … we are helping the nature” (C1)

“Genetics is something that will be very interesting for us as a society because we cannot influence that yet, and we want to be able to influence everything” (C6)

Moreover, some farmers using the supporting discourse had reductionist views of genetic engineering (GE). Most prominent was the description of the Bt maize as a known,

104 typical, conventional maize that additionally produces a new protein that is in turn known to be toxic only for a target pest. The newly introduced gene does not influence the rest of the plant genome so that the GM plant is equivalent to a conventional variety and thus safe for non-target fauna, the environment and human health. Another example was the comparison of the principle of GE to abiotic engineering:

“I can intentionally, when I have the knowledge, that something works somehow, like when I know how a TV or a PC works, I can invent a different function when I know that a black-and-white TV works, I am able to develop a TV that shows colours … and the same goes for the genetics.” (G2)

The supportive farmers with productivist attitudes emphasised the production as the primary function of agriculture, the economic aspect of farming and criticized the agro- environmental measures (for details see chapter 4.5.1.1). A comparison with literature shows that unlike the techno-optimistic perspectives observed in some interviews, farmers’ attitudes towards innovations are usually described as reluctant and conservative (Lokoč 2009:2.3.2). However, even the opposite attitude has been reported for educated Czech farmers in the second half of the 19th century (Bláha 1937 in Lokoč 2009). Farmers with higher (not only agricultural) education enthusiastically adopted synthetic fertilizers, modern machinery and intensive practices in farming (ibid.). More recently, the farmers described as “benefit believers” who would potentially adopt the cultivation of GM crops, also showed techno-optimistic attitudes (Hall 2008). Furthermore, anthropocentric views, the tendency to control nature and productivist orientation were also reported for Danish farmers (Lassen and Sandøe 2009). Lastly, the characteristics of farms and farmers were compared. The “supporters” group contained all ten GM farmers, six conventional ones and only one organic farmer, whereas “opposers” group was formed by one conventional and four organic farmers. The age of the farmers in both groups was comparable (median 43 versus 39 years, supporters versus opposers). However, more farmers in the supporter group had a higher education compared to the opposers (73% of supporters versus 50% of opposers had a university degree). In comparison, age and the level of education achieved was not correlated to the attitudes towards GMOs in a study of Swedish farmers (Lehrman and Johnson 2008). The farms of the supporters were much larger than the farms of opposers (median 1200 Ha versus 100 Ha of arable land). That relates to the finding of Skevas et al. (2012) who showed that farmers with a higher maize acreage were less concerned about the human and environmental risks of Bt maize cultivation. Both groups contained all forms of business (natural person, co-op, JSC and LLC.). The proportion of natural persons was higher in the opposer group compared to the

105 supporters, whereas the proportion of JSCs was higher in the supporter group compared to the opposers. A shared characteristic for supporters and opposers was that they both contained natural persons as a form of business. Typical for these farmers – farm owners and one farmer from a company who farms additionally on his land – is a time and space bond to the place in terms of own work on (their own) land, mainly continuing or reviving a family tradition. The longest one spans over four centuries, as O4 referred to the agricultural genealogy of his family, according to him, his family has been farming:

“As far as I know since 1620 except for those forty years occupied by the communists” (O4)

A close relationship to the land is usually connected to a motivation to farm sustainably (Lapka and Gottlieb 2000), something which is also supported by some interviewees’ statements. Therefore, it appears as if this characteristic either did not influence the perception of GMOs or if it did, it would follow that the opposers think of GM crops as not sustainable, while the supporters do consider them sustainable. That would be supported by one claim of a supporter who framed GMOs as a means of sustainable development. The primary source of information for farmers about the possibility to grow Bt maize and generally about GM crops were seed companies and interviewees’ own search. The farmers using the supporting discourse additionally consulted experts and agricultural press. Individually mentioned were also own experience and school. One opposing conventional farmer drew further information from the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture and popularizing magazines. Only one GM farmer attended training regarding the cultivation of GM crops. Similarly, Portuguese Bt and non-Bt maize farmers obtained information about Bt maize predominantly from seed companies and to a lesser extent from the internet, governmental institutions, TV and radio, neighbours, co-operatives, and other sources (Skevas et al. 2009). Finally, the supporters’ claims about benefits could be compared to their experience with the cultivation of Bt maize as ten out of seventeen farmers had grown it. The claim that Bt maize contains fewer mycotoxins than the conventional one and that the Bt maize cover is healthy agreed with the GM farmers’ experience. Many interviewees argued that the cultivation of GM crops is beneficial for the environment. However, this is contrasting with the experience of GM farmers. From those who used the argument about the environment, only one stated that the amount of insecticides used per hectare of maize decreased with Bt maize cultivation on his farm and four did not see any difference in the amount of used insecticides.

106

GM crops were further portrayed as time and work saving. Only one GM farmer claiming this was following his own experience, two others expressed this opinion despite their experience of higher time requirements connected with Bt maize cultivation. Moreover, the cultivation of GM crops was seen as cheaper compared to conventional farming and using chemicals. Interestingly again, only one GM farmer recorded lower unit costs of maize production after the adoption of Bt maize which supported the claim, while another one reported higher unit costs and the rest did not record any difference which was contrasting with their opinion. Additionally, farmers justified the cultivation of GM crops by the need to feed the world. Interestingly, the GM farmers who used this argument reported either same or fluctuating Bt maize yields compared to conventional maize. Concluding, the discourse which supports the cultivation of GM crops was created in the circumstances that indicate the interviewees’ favour of GM crops. Firstly, most GM farmers would like to cultivate GM crops if the conditions improved. Secondly, these farmers defined themselves as supporters either directly or by contra-definition of GM opposers. Thirdly, at least in a couple of interviews, the motivation was overt to support the cultivation of GM crops. The interest of others could be deduced from the invitation to the interviews, which implied space for the interviewees to create an image of GM crops to their satisfaction. Finally, some GM farmers praised the benefits of GM crops, which were in a direct contradiction to their experience with the cultivation of Bt maize. On the other hand, farmers who employed the discourse opposing the cultivation of GM crops could not have any personal interest in growing it as they were four out of five organic farmers and one conventional one who was ending his professional career. They opposed the cultivation openly or by referring to the lobby of GM and chemical companies. Their reported interest in the interviews was in acquiring information about GM crops or raising broader agricultural issues. The concordance of the farmers’ discourses with the circumstances under which it was elicited corroborates the move to call the two groups of farmers “GM crops supporters” and “GM crops opposers” or shortly “supporters” and “opposers”.

4.5.4. Czech discourse Let us now take a step aside from the farmers’ accounts about GM crops. We will shift the focus to how GMOs are represented in the Czech milieu in order to place the farmers’ discourses in this context. The description of the Czech discourses about GM crops builds on literature linked with an analysis that covers the time period that was not covered by the previous research (Stöckelová 2004, 2008). The public has been exposed to a specific Czech GMO discourse, although GMOs have not been a big case in the Czech Republic. There were only a few public actors at the turn of the millennium when it was a hotly debated issue in other European countries:

107

Greenpeace, Biotrin, and the Ministry of the Environment (Stöckelová 2004). The discourse has practically been formed by Biotrin, The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO) and the Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture since 2011, after Greenpeace discontinued its GMO campaign. The actors and the discourse they produce are presented in the following subchapters. The section is closed by a description of other relevant specific Czech discourses that the farmers’ dialogued with, i.e. the image of USA, progress, and Euroscepticism. 4.5.4.1. Greenpeace According to Stöckelová, the Czech branch of Greenpeace used to be the loudest critic of GMOs; there was no other civil society organisation focusing consistently on the issue in the Czech Republic (Stöckelová 2004). However, the GMO campaign initiated in 1996 was managed by only one person and was discontinued in 2010. Greenpeace was a clear opponent of GMOs, at least in agriculture (Stöckelová 2004). Its strategy was to spread “ready-made negative attitudes” instead of providing arguments for a discussion (ibid.). However, the consumer campaign had rather short-term effects, and the mobilisation of organic farmers was not successful (ibid.). The lack of interest was explained by problems perceived by the public being more urgent than that of GMOs (ibid.). The Czech branch of Greenpeace ran a webpage dedicated to GMO campaign until 2010. On that webpage, Greenpeace described that genetic engineering modifies organisms in a way that would not occur in nature (Greenpeace undated). Furthermore, it claimed that GMOs might get into consumers’ shopping baskets through animal products fed by GM crops which poses a problem because such food need not GMO labelling. That was pictured as a drawback of the EU GMO legislation (ibid.). The section “Information materials” of the GMO campaign listed Consumer’s guide, GM in the world, Unit for the detection of GM crimes, Reflection, GMO and organic agriculture, Seven sins of Monsanto, and Exposure of genetic contamination (Greenpeace undated). The article “GMO and organic agriculture” posits that some scientific studies find that the cultivation of GM crops increases the use of pesticides and decreases biodiversity as a result of the development of resistance in some weeds (Greenpeace undated). Furthermore, the employment of GM crops cultivation is said to be driven by the pursuit of profit of multinational biotechnology companies. It further informs about the development of co- existence rules and gives an example of the contamination of organic production by GMOs in Canada where it is almost impossible to grow canola organically due to the massive GM canola acreage (ibid.). The publication “Consumer’s guide – how to buy products without genetic modification” informs public about what a GMO is, what are its risks, and how to recognize GM food (Klimovičová and Kloubek 2006). It also ranks producers according to their

108 declared use of GMOs. The publication is closed by presenting organic production as the safest way to avoid GMOs. Greenpeace claims that no one can certainly prove the safety of GM food and asserts the safety assessment insufficient. The risks, according to Greenpeace, are: “penetration of genes into human cells, changes in nutrients or increased level of toxins, allergy, and antibiotic resistance.” (Klimovičová and Kloubek 2006:5–6). Furthermore, it contrasts industry and scientific claims of safety:

“Biotechnology industry claims today that GM crops are harmless, although a series of scientific studies substantiate the opposite. We used to hear how DDT was great once. And today?” (Klimovičová and Kloubek 2006:3)

Finally, GMOs are portrayed as unnatural chimaeras (GE would not occur in nature; GMOs are called “cat-dog” and “Frankenfood”) (Klimovičová and Kloubek 2006). Greenpeace also participated in the administrative procedure related to the authorisation of field experiments with MON810 Bt maize in 2002 (Stöckelová 2004). However, their comments were not dealt with appropriately, and they withdrew from their intended participation in the next procedure regarding the placing on the market of the same GM event in 2003 (ibid.). Following this, they criticised the unbalanced composition of the CC GMO and its conflicts of interests and turned to direct action when they staked out an experimental field of Bt maize with a black strip and put plastic sacks on the plants (ibid.). In the following years, Greenpeace supplemented the MoA’s duty to make public information about the places where GM crops are cultivated. They published the precise location of fields, with the acreage, for the years 2006-2010, based on information obtained through the Free Access to Information Act (Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím 1999) on their website. 4.5.4.2. Biotrin The civil association Biotrin was founded in 1997 by scientists, mainly biologists active in biotechnology research as a direct response to the activities of Greenpeace (Stöckelová 2004). The heading on their website reads:

“Biotrin is a non-profit organisation formed by the academic community for the dissemination of information on modern biotechnology. It is here for your information and as a forum for your opinions.” (Biotrin undated a)

Indeed, its work has been mainly educational, judging from the list of activities, including the organisation of lectures, seminars, and workshops and publishing of news articles, information brochures and videos. Moreover, they have been collaborating with the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture. That resulted, among other things, in the adoption of the first Czech law on GMOs before accession to the EU.

109

The website sections “Myths and facts” and “FAQs” present GMOs as safe and beneficial (Biotrin undated a). Authorised GMOs are presented as safer compared to conventionally produced products that do not undergo such a strict risk assessment. Furthermore, GMOs are said to bring benefits to farmers and consumers in the developed and developing world, to the environment, and scientists. Additionally, genetic modification is presented as natural by claiming that it arises in nature all the time. Biotrin defines itself as “an association for support and progress of biotechnologies” in the section “About Biotrin” of their website (Biotrin undated a). Stöckelová (2004) considers Biotrin the strongest supporter of biotechnologies in the Czech Republic. This position has been at least maintained since then judging from the ongoing activities and the amount of regularly published news. The main foreign partner acknowledged on the Biotrin website is EuropaBio (The European Association for Bioindustries), which lobbies for industry-friendly legislation in Europe. Biotrin is critical of the EU legislation on GMOs claiming that it is irrational and formed by political and business interests (Stöckelová 2004). This position is also reflected in their recent sharing of a petition for a change of the legislation calling it excessively strict even restrictive (Biotrin undated b). According to Stöckelová (Stöckelová 2004:58), “The association claims to represent the only rational approach to the problem. They regularly label their opponents as irrational, ignorant, pseudo-religious, fundamentalist, and manipulating the public.” Biotrin blames the EU’s lagging on the fear and prejudices to GM crops of a confused and frightened lay public (Biotrin undated c). The “About Biotrin” website section mentions as the first outcome of Biotrin activities the publication of “White book genetically modified crops” subtitled “Scientific opinion of Czech researchers working with GMO” which was co-edited by the co-founding member and chair of Biotrin Jaroslav Drobník (Sehnal and Drobník 2009). It is opened by a page reading in capital letters:

“The history of major human discoveries shows that fundamentalistic ideology, ignorance, and greed often suppress the truth, but only for a certain period of time. This book was prepared with the desire to shorten the period of false apprehension of GM crops in Europe.” (Sehnal and Drobník 2009:2)

Published during the EU Presidency of the Czech Republic, it aimed to advocate the scientific approach to GMOs and called to the policymakers to ease the EU legislation on GMOs.

“Many European scientists are disturbed by the fact that political factors and ideology prevent unbiased assessment of GM technology in some EU countries, with a negative effect

110 on the whole Community. … Czech scientists decided to formulate their position in support of a scientific approach to GM issues.” (Sehnal and Drobník 2009:10)

Biotrin further interprets the bans on Bt maize imposed by several member states as unscientific:

“The ban on Bt maize in France is a typical example of a politically motivated move.” (Sehnal and Drobník 2009:39)

Moreover, it portrays them as the reasons for reduced EU competitiveness:

“Scientifically unjustified bans on the deployment of GM crops slows down agricultural output, deprive farmers of the right to chose what they want to grow, reduce EU competitiveness in terms of global trade, and indoctrinates EU citizens with the opinion that new technologies should better be avoided.” (Sehnal and Drobník 2009:89)

Furthermore, Biotrin, together with the Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO) and the Institute of Agricultural and Food Information, co- organised, for example, a seminar on GMO research in the Czech Republic in 2002. GMOs were there “related to progress, science, change, life, a matter of course, culture; their rejection, on the other hand, with concerns … passivity, reactionism, unreason. A critical position is not normal, and any attempt to broaden the debate to other than scientific perspectives becomes an object of ridicule.” (Stöckelová 2008:100). Additionally, the participants were provided with a leaflet calling on people to “accept GM plants as a natural part of a change of life enabled by scientific progress” (Stöckelová 2008:99). To summarise, the building blocks of the pro-GMO discourse produced by Biotrin include emphasising the scientific approach which deems GMOs safe, beneficial and natural. Furthermore, GMOs are related to progress and science, their rejection on the contrary, with reactionism and unreason, and economic risk. The GMO opponents are labelled as irrational, ignorant, pseudo-religious, fundamentalist, and manipulating the public. The EU legislation on GMOs is portrayed as irrational, too restrictive and formed by political and business interests. Similarly, the member states’ bans of Bt maize cultivation are perceived as not being scientifically justified and driven by political interest. As a result, allegedly, the EU lags behind the world in the employment of the biotechnology, which reduces the competitiveness on the world markets. 4.5.4.3. Ministry of the Environment (MoE) According to Stöckelová, the Ministry of the Environment does not care so much about citizens’ acceptance of GMOs; it rather tries to avoid public debate (Stöckelová 2004). It lists information prescribed by the law, including registers, legislation, methodical

111 instructions, short educational texts from members of the MoE and CC GMO, and information about the CC GMO on its website (Ministry of the Environment undated). There used to be links to the publications issued by the MoE on the website, “Genetic Modifications – Possibilities of their Use and Risks” (Roudná 2008) and “Genetic Modifications and Biosafety Measures – Czech Republic” (Roudná and et al 2011). The former frames commercially available GMOs as safe and beneficial and makes promises about the technology for the near future. However, the arguments presented for the safety of GMOs (no study reporting adverse effects, the safety of Bt spray, no risk of antibiotic resistance, the central dogma of molecular biology) and future benefits (drought and salinity tolerance, nutritional changes) have been challenged and contradicted in scientific literature, which is not reflected in the publication (Hilbeck et al. 2015; Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006; Latham et al. 2017; Lövei and Arpaia 2005; Traavik and Ching 2007). By choosing to present a specific set of arguments and neglecting others, the publication advocates a particular position, in this case, one supportive of GMOs which overestimates their benefits and downplays the risks. 4.5.4.4. Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) On the introductory webpage of the Ministry of Agriculture about GM crops, these are described as:

“distinguished by various specific characteristics, mainly including resistance to harmful factors – pests, diseases, cold, drought, and the like, or tolerance to non-selective herbicide spraying which destroys all other unwanted plants (weeds).” (Ministry of Agriculture undated b)

Furthermore, a list of the alleged benefits for farmers is presented, followed by a claim that next-generation GM plants have benefits for consumers and non-agricultural industry. However, this description is misleading in a way that ascribes more benefits to GM crops than they bring. First, the characteristics that are listed do not represent the worldwide acreage of commercially grown plants, which consists mainly of herbicide-tolerant and insect- resistant plants or a combination thereof (ISAAA 2017). The claimed resistance to other factors only accounts for less than 1% of the total acreage (ibid.). Second, the commercial planting of next-generation crops with a better nutritional composition is restricted to a few varieties (oilseed rape, soybeans, potatoes) grown on less than 1% of the total acreage (ISAAA, 2017, ISAAA 2019). Finally, the plants bringing benefits claimed by the MoA, such as producing anticarcinogenic substances and biodegradable plastics, acting as substitutes for fossil fuels, or cleaning pollution, are not being cultivated yet (ibid.). Again, by not correctly describing the characteristics of GM plants, the MoA bends the facts to lend support to GMOs.

112

The MoA webpage further provides an overview of the legislation, forms for notification of planting of GM crops for their growers, its publication “Organisation and inspection of the cultivation of GM crops in the Czech Republic” (Trnková et al 2017), and links to other sources. Among the links there used to be a currently discontinued website, gmo-compass.org. Although that website claimed to be neutral concerning the technology, it was classified by powerbase.info (“a free guide to networks of power, lobbying, public relations, and the communications activities of governments and other interests”) as a supporter of GMOs because of its links to Genius, a pro-GMO public relations and consultancy company, and because of the support it received from EuropaBio (Powerbase 2011). The assertion can be confirmed by a brief survey of the content of gmo-compass.org using web.archive.org. Press releases issued by the MoA also show a supportive stance on GMOs. For example, the one entitled “GMOs can save people from hunger in the future” (Ministry of Agriculture 2013) posits that the EU lags behind the world increases in acreage and claims that member states’ (MS) bans on GMOs are politically motivated and lack rational evidence of any adverse effects. In another press release, “GM crops are a promise, not a threat”, GM crops are portrayed as securing the future for farms that would otherwise be doomed, and a reference is made to an EU-wide farmers’ petition pleading with the European Commission to enable them to grow GM crops. Furthermore, the minister of agriculture shows support to GMOs and a commitment to fighting an unscientific approach to GMOs in the EU (Ministry of Agriculture 2010). The webpage archive further contains conference proceedings from conferences organised by the MoA in the years 2005-2007. As Stöckelová (2008) observed at the 2007 conference, the themes were framed in the concept of risk, and rationality was distinguished by acceptance of GMOs. The titles of presentations at other MoA conferences are self- explanatory: “GM crops as hope for organic farming”, “GM crops – Trojan horse or a chance also for Europe?”, “EU dependence on feed imports” (Klonování a geneticky modifikované organismy 2015; Pěstování geneticky modifikovaných rostlin 2015). The author’s observation at those events confirms the discourse framed by those titles. The presenters raised fears of the challenge of feeding the growing population while reducing the use of pesticides, of Czech/EU dependency on feed imports, and the end of a common EU trade in feed and livestock as a result of trade barriers following the opt-out of GMOs of some member states. On the other hand, the audience was comforted by the emphasis placed on the scientifically proven safety and ethical acceptability of GMOs. Again, by uncritically portraying GMOs as the only way to tackle the challenges mentioned above and ignoring unwelcome counter-evidence, the presenters at MoA conferences sided with the supporters of GMOs.

113

4.5.4.5. The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products The Czech Commission for the Use of GMOs and Genetic Products (CC GMO) is an expert advisory body to the MoE. Its predecessor, the Czech Committee for Plant Transgenosis, was founded in 1996 and became an official advisor in 1999 (Stöckelová 2008). The fields of expertise covered at least by one member recently shrank to botany, zoology, microbiology, the molecular genetics of microorganisms, plants and animals, biodiversity, the assessment of health risks, medication and associated legislation, laboratory detection of GMOs, and the administrative control of the use of GMOs (Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty 2018). The fields that have been left out include ecology, safety assessment of food and feed, the labelling of food and feed, consumer protection and the associated legislation, the registration of crop varieties and associated legislation, and organic agriculture (Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty 2004). More importantly, the fields of environmental risks and socio-economic aspects have never been covered, despite one of the Commission’s tasks being “issuing expert opinions on applications for the marketing of GMOs in the EU under Dir. 2001/18/EC and on environmental risk assessment and socio- economic aspects of applications submitted under Reg. 1829/2003.” (Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty 2004; 2018). The body is further tasked with informing the public about its activity and scientific knowledge in the field of biotechnologies (ibid.). The Commission does so mainly at a public meeting, organised as a yearly conference at which its members give presentations. The minutes from the internal meetings and conference presentations are available on the web pages of the MoE. The conferences are marked by the same spirit as those organised by the MoA. At a 2015 meeting, the chair introduced the activities of the Commission as being led exclusively by the expertise and being free of any worldview (Veřejná schůze CC GMO 2015). The emphasis regarding GM crops was placed on the benefits of Bt maize, the EU lagging behind the US authorisations and the dependency of the EU on feed imports. The author’s observation completes the description of the atmosphere. In response to my question whether the Czech Republic was considering opting out of the cultivation of GM crops, the presenter replied that the country was not going to ban GM crops because these are authorised based on scientific proofs of safety. An opt-out which could, according to the new Directive (EU) 2015/412, be based only on other than scientific grounds would contradict the country’s pragmatic approach. My suggestion that the opt-out could help reduce the use of herbicides in the event of HT GM crops being allowed for cultivation was met with a fierce reaction from the audience. A man in a Dekalb (Monsanto’s seed brand) T-shirt accused me

114 of ignoring the use of herbicides not related to GMOs and ignoring science, claiming that by consuming sweet potatoes I am eating “a natural GMO”42. Concluding, the CC GMO conferences serve as a floor for praising GMOs and educating the unreasonable public to understand the science behind GMOs. Subsequently, in their perspective, the public should abandon the fears that cause the rejection of GMOs. The discourse is substantially similar to that shaped by Biotrin, which is no great surprise, given that some of the members of Biotrin have, at the same time, been members of the CC GMO and its predecessor the Czech Committee for Plant Transgenosis (Stöckelová 2004). It also mirrors the narrow field of expertise of the CC GMO. 4.5.4.6. Summary of the Czech pro-GMO discourse The Czech GMO discourse is dominated by a strong advocate of this biotechnology, the civil association Biotrin. Importantly, the Czech authorities occupy a niche supportive of GMOs too. Although they distance themselves from any worldview, claiming to advocate a purely scientific approach, they tend to emphasise the benefits and downplay the risks. The discourse of the state authorities shows ideological elements in the sense that it fails to provide balanced and, at times, even correct information. Furthermore, US agriculture is often given as a symbol of progress in the development, authorisation, and use of GMOs. Allegedly, the Americans43 are ahead of the Czechs in terms of using more types of crops and traits on an incommensurably larger area. The strict regulation of GMOs in the EU, which results in the current authorisation of only one GM crop, is pictured as politically driven and unjust to European farmers, who are prevented from enjoying the benefits brought about by technological progress, unlike their US competitors. That particularly resonates within a society deprived for an extended period of the benefits available in the West. 4.5.4.7. The USA, “the country of the Future” in Czech discourse In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, the USA “is the country of the Future” (Emerson 1844). The USA is often portrayed as more modern, developed, and advanced, including advanced technology, in the Czech discourse (Švéda 2016). This discourse dominated in the era of the first Czechoslovak Republic, when the USA became increasingly popular because of, among other reasons, its modern culture and the products that were imported from it (ibid.). It was perceived as a land of progress and technological innovations (ibid.). After the Velvet Revolution, the West and “America” again became the symbols of prosperity, freedom, and democracy in the early 1990s (ibid.). Czechs perceived that ordinary Americans could afford many things that were unachievable for them and projected their ideals about a

42 The genome of non-modified cultivated sweet potatoes contains sequences of DNA from Agrobacterium, with genes actively expressed by the plants (Wikipedia contributors 2020). 43 The use of the term “Americans” for US-Americans is commonly used in the Czech discourse and by the farmers who were interviewed. 115 contented life onto the West (ibid.). They felt as if they were lagging after forty years of stagnation and wanted to catch up with the West (ibid.). That was followed at the turn of the millennium by awakening from the American dream and the realisation that catching up would not happen so soon (ibid.). Nevertheless, the Czech Republic has not abandoned its aspirations. On the contrary, according to the Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2019–2030, its ambition is “to become one of Europe’s innovation leaders and a country of the technological future” (Council for Research 2019). The Czech Republic is portrayed as a technologically oriented country with “exceptional technical potential and capable engineers and technicians” (ibid.). The new brand “The Czech Republic: The Country For The Future”, introduced as a part of the Innovation Strategy, seems to refer to Emerson’s quote and guarantee progress in the right direction (ibid.). 4.5.4.8. Eurosceptic medial discourse The Czech public has been persistently showing one of the strongest Eurosceptic attitudes (Kratochvíl and Sychra 2019; Pavec 2015). The Czech media coverage of the European Union has been described as Eurosceptic (Pavec 2015). Particularly dominant among the Czech media and public are the sovereignty and economic Eurosceptic frames (ibid.). The sovereignty-based Euroscepticism means “the perception of threats caused by the EU against continuing relevance, integrity, and identity of a national state” (Sørensen 2007:139 in Pavec 2015:45). In contrast, the economic Euroscepticism is “the perceived inability of the EU to deliver tangible results” (Sørensen 2007:137 in Pavec 2015:45).

4.5.5. The GM Seed Producer’s discourse Another meaningful discourse which farmers are exposed to is created by seed companies. The interviewed farmers also listed them as the primary source of information about the possibility to cultivate Bt maize and about GM crops in general. Therefore, the analysis focused on Monsanto, the company which produced and marketed Bt maize MON810 and Bayer, the company that has recently acquired Monsanto. 4.5.5.1. Monsanto The discourse used by the Seed Producer concerning the GM crop considered in this thesis was explored by the analysis of a Technical Guide for the cultivation of YieldGard® Corn Borer maize. That guide issued by Monsanto is packed to each farmer’s purchase of Bt maize MON810 seeds. It contains information about the plant, the pest to which it is resistant, farmers’ obligations, and a list of benefits (Monsanto n.d.).

116

The Czech version of the Technical Guide44 describes the Bt maize as follows:

“Yieldgard technology enables targeted and lasting protection against ECB … Cry1Ab protein naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Products based on this bacterium have been used in agriculture for decades. … In comparison to insecticides in use, the Yieldgard maize affects only the target pest (of the insect order Lepidoptera) and useful insects remain protected. … Apart from higher quality and higher-yielding production, Yieldgard technology contributes to the increasing profitability of agricultural production. … The safety of GM maize has also been confirmed by practical experience from countries where it has been cultivated for a long time. In the countries of South and North America, where it represents the basic ingredient for the production of food and feed, it is consumed by hundreds of millions of people daily.” (Monsanto n.d.)

Furthermore, the list of benefits introduced by the quote “What does the YieldGard® insecticide protection technology mean?” reads (Monsanto n.d.):

• “Insecticidal effect thanks to known soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis • 100% control of corn borer during the whole time of cultivation • Yield increase thanks to intact and healthy plants • Pest control independent of weather • Simple manipulation • Reduction of insecticide usage and hence a significant relief for the environment • Time-saving, no need for signalling of pest arrival • Healthy production thanks to lower infestation with fungal diseases • Lower harvest loses thanks to firm maize • Technology securing the profitability of maize cultivation by lowering the unit costs of maize production.”

4.5.5.2. Bayer The multinational pharmaceutical and life sciences company Bayer that recently acquired Monsanto markets, among other things, seeds and agri-chemicals. It presents itself as working on progress in farming to benefit people and the planet (Bayer 2019). According to its website, growing GMOs helps fight pests and disease, use natural resources more efficiently, and “meet the increasing demand to grow enough by helping [farmers] make the most of their existing arable land, thus enabling them to preserve nearby habitats” (ibid.).

44 Translated from Czech by the author of this thesis. 117

4.5.6. Comparison of farmers’, Czech and Seed Producer’s discourses The description of the discourse of seed companies in the previous section closed the excursion we have made to the Czech public discourses about GM crops and related issues. The results of that digression enable us now to compare those discourses with the farmers’ accounts. This step of the sociological discourse analysis is interested in the intertextual context of the interviewees’ discourses in order to understand the meaning that their discourse holds for them (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:36). Here I compared fragments of the farmers’ discourses to other discourses with which it engaged in dialogue and searched for similarities and differences to assess the relationship among those discourses. All fragments of farmers’ discourses dialogued with elements of discourses that circulate in the social space. On the other hand, not all the fragments of public discourses were addressed in the farmers’ accounts. The farmers’ discourse supporting GM crops was overwhelmingly associative with the public pro-GMO discourse, it showed some association with the Czech discourse about the USA and the Eurosceptical discourse and was, on the contrary, conflictive with some fragments of the public anti-GMO discourse. On the other hand, the farmer’s discourse opposing GM crops showed some similarities with the public anti-GMO discourse and was conflictive with a couple of the fragments of public pro-GMO discourse. It had no relationship with the Czech discourse about the USA and the Eurosceptical discourse. For details, see Table 6.

Table 6 Comparison of farmers’ discourses to public discourses with which it engages in dialogue.  signifies a conflictive relationship of farmers’ discourse with the public discourse,  stands for an associative relationship, and 0 means that no relationship between the discourses was identified. The farmers’ discourse elements are presented to convey the nuanced relationship in cases when it could not be straightforward classified to the mentioned conflictive or associative categories. Public discourse Relationship with farmers’ discourse Actors using Elements of public Farmers’ discourse Farmers’ discourse supporting the discourse discourse opposing GM crops GM crops Biotrin, MoE, GMOs are safe for   MoA, CC GMO, human and animal health Seed Producer Biotrin, MoE, GMOs are beneficial for   MoA, CC GMO, humans, animals, Seed Producer environment, farmers, scientists, developed and developing world Biotrin GE is natural GM crops intrusion  into nature MoA GMOs are ethically GE unethical; GE is natural; acceptable GM crops intrusion GE acceptable if gene not able into nature to spread into wild populations;

118

GE of a plant DNA legitimate; GMOs bring more benefits than risks; Experts in right to GE MoA, Seed GM crops needed to feed 0  Producer the world MoA, CC GMO Czech Republic/EU 0  dependent on feed imports Biotrin, MoA MS’s bans on GM crops 0 0 politically motivated, unscientific Biotrin, MoA EU GMO legislation is Agrees with EU EU as GMO opposer; restrictive, irrational, and GMO legislation Limited number of permitted formed by political and GM crops in the EU results from business interests a lobby Biotrin, MoA, EU lags behind the 0  CC GMO world/USA in employment of GM crops Biotrin EU’s competitiveness is 0 Non-GM production more reduced costly; Wish to be able to grow GMOs or to be protected against cheap import of GMOs Biotrin, Seed GMOs are related with 0  Producer progress and science Biotrin Rejection of GMOs 0 GM farmers called as related with reactionism “enlightened”; and unreason Fearing GMOs is irrational MoA Acceptance of GMOs 0 Fearing GMOs is irrational related with rationality Biotrin GMO opponents are 0 GMO opposers are not right, irrational, ignorant, influenced, fearing GMOs is pseudo-religious, irrational; fundamentalist, and Environmentalists argue against manipulating the public GMOs on ethical basis Biotrin, MoA, Emphasis on expertise Challenging the  CC GMO and science legitimacy of scientific evidence; Concerned by scientific uncertainties Czech USA is more modern, 0  discourse developed, and advanced, including advanced technology Czech CR is a technologically 0 0 discourse oriented country Czech CR wants to catch up 0 Farmers want to catch up with discourse with the USA, West the USA Czech CR wants to become 0 0

119

discourse innovation leader in Europe Czech Czech Euroscepticism in 0 Concerns about discourse terms of sovereignty and competitiveness and economics sovereignty Greenpeace GM crops increase the   use of pesticides Greenpeace Cultivation of GM crops  0 in the interest of multinational biotechnology companies Greenpeace Co-existence of GM and Opposing organic Supporting organic farmer organic agriculture in risk farmers unconcerned about his unconcerned about neighbour’s Bt maize cultivation their neighbour’s Bt and generally about potential maize cultivation; contamination of organic Opposing organic production by GM crops farmer potentially concerned over neighbouring with other GM crops Greenpeace GM crops are risky for   human health and biodiversity Greenpeace GM crops are unnatural GM crops intrusion 0 into nature Greenpeace EU GMO legislation is not Agrees with EU EU as GMO opposer; strict enough GMO legislation Limited number of permitted GM crops in the EU results from a lobby

4.5.6.1. Farmers’ discourse supporting GM crops mirrors the public pro- GMO discourse There was a substantial similarity between many fragments of farmers’ discourse supporting GM crops, and even farmers’ quotes and the pro-GMO discourse. The set of farmers’ claims mirrored the pro-GMO discourse: GMOs are scientifically proven safe, bring about many benefits for farmers and the environment, are the way to feed the world, and represent progress hindered by the EU GMO legislation, which is intended to protect its market, and opponents of GMOs are manipulated and irrational. Farmers’ arguments in favour of the safety of GMOs overlapped completely with those put forward by pro-GMO actors: GM crops are safer than agricultural chemicals; their safety has been confirmed by the long-term cultivation and use of GM crops worldwide and mostly in the USA; the Bt protein has been proven to be safe for non-target organisms because an insecticide based on Bacillus thuringiensis has been used in (organic) agriculture for a long time; genetic engineering is precise; no scientific research has confirmed the

120 purported adverse effects. Moreover, farmers’ reductionist description of a GM plant as a conventional one with an extra protein resembles the principle of “substantial equivalence”, introduced by the industry and accepted in the regulatory system. Furthermore, farmers’ lists of the benefits of Bt maize and other GM crops included exclusively those used by proponents of GMOs: Bt maize cover is healthy, contains fewer mycotoxins, and hence constitutes a quality feed; GM crops may be good for human health, their cultivation is beneficial for the environment, and it saves time and work and is cheaper compared to conventional farming. Moreover, according to farmers and proponents of GMOs, growing GMOs is ethically acceptable, justifiable, and indeed necessary. The adoption of GM crops is necessary to feed the growing global population, to achieve profitable cultivation, and to become independent of feed imports. Finally, in both discourses GMOs represent progress and the EU lags behind modern US agriculture, which uses advanced technology. The strict EU legislation is unscientific and results from a lobby aimed at protecting the EU market against competition from third states. Similarly, the opponents of GMOs are manipulated and irrational, and their arguments lack a scientific basis and are based on political and market interests. 4.5.6.2. Farmers’ discourse supporting GM crops contradicts the public anti-GMO discourse The farmers using the supporting discourse argued in contrast to some arguments put forward in the public anti-GMO discourse. Thus, even the herbicide-tolerant GM crops were portrayed as beneficial for the environment and the EU GMO legislation too strict. GM crops were perceived as safe for human and animal health and the environment. Moreover, one organic farmer did not perceive the neighbouring of organic and GM fields risky. 4.5.6.3. Farmers’ discourse opposing GM crops relates to public anti- GMO and pro-GMO discourse weakly The elements of farmers’ discourse opposing GM crops did not dialogue with the public discourses as often as was the case of the farmers’ supporting discourse. It overlapped in the accounts that posited that GM crops are risky, increase the use of pesticides and multinational biotechnology companies push their cultivation. On the other hand, farmers perceived GM crops as an intrusion into nature, but the genetic modification itself was not perceived unnatural in contrast to Greenpeace. Furthermore, farmers were satisfied with the EU GMO legislation, whereas Greenpeace considered it not strict enough. Moreover, organic farmers were mainly unconcerned about their fields neighbouring with Bt maize fields which could change if other GM crops were to be cultivated there. In contrast, the anti-GMO discourse portrayed the co-existence of organic and GM production risky. The farmers’ discourse contradicted the public pro-GMO discourse in that GM crops are risky, GE is ethically unacceptable, and no benefits were acknowledged. Interestingly, in

121 contrast to the emphasis of the pro-GMO discourse on scientific evidence of safety and linking the rejection of GMOs with unreason, the farmers challenged the legitimacy of scientific evidence brought by industry and emphasised the need for independent scientific studies.

4.5.7. Farmers’ discourse partly constituted by the dominant public pro- GMO discourse The farmers’ discourse supporting GM crops reproduced almost entirely the elements of the public pro-GMO discourses. Interestingly, the experience of the farmers who had cultivated Bt maize was often not in agreement with their beliefs about the benefits offered by GMOs. The only benefits experienced by all the GM farmers were reliable pest protection and lower infestation with fungal diseases. The other benefits which related to savings of time, costs and insecticides, increased yield, and simplicity of manipulation often failed to be reflected in the farmers’ reports. Some did not observe any change, and some even experienced the opposite effects.45 The farmers’ attitude, which could be paraphrased as “the old GMOs were not advantageous, but the new type certainly will be” seems to be grounded in a belief in progress. That can be found not only among those who spoke explicitly about progress but also all those with unsatisfactory experience with Bt maize who said they would grow a new GM crop if permitted. Their optimism rests on the dominant discourse, which is supportive of the GMOs to which farmers are exposed, and the pro-GMO nature of the sources from which they drew information about Bt maize and other GMOs. The discourse puts an uncritical emphasis on progress and makes promises about new GMOs that are being developed and those already in use in the USA. Additionally, the widespread adoption of many types of GM crops in US agriculture seems to work as a guarantee of their excellent performance. That resonates well with the Czech population, deprived of Western conveniences for four decades. The feeling of falling behind has been exacerbated by sobering up from the American dream and realising that catching up is not approaching as fast as desired. Farmers might, therefore, be more susceptible to accounts of bright prospects than to (scarce and weak) critical voices. Furthermore, the negative public portrayal of the EU policy on GMOs resonates well with the Czech public that has been persistently showing one of the strongest Eurosceptic attitudes (Kratochvíl and Sychra 2019; Pavec 2015). The concerns about competitiveness and sovereignty of some of the interviewed farmers seem to reflect the Czech media and public Euroscepticism, which focuses strongly on the questions of sovereignty and economy (Pavec 2015).

45 For more details on farmers’ experience with claimed benefits of Bt maize see chapter 4.1. 122

A constitutive power of discourse “makes certain activities possible, desirable or inevitable” and actors draw on it to legitimate their positions and actions (Bryman 2008:510). Furthermore, in critical discourse analysis, social discourses are considered to be “impregnated by dominant discourses projected from sources of power” (Ruiz Ruiz 2009:42). The farmers’ attitude supporting GM crops can thus be understood as partly resulting from the constitutive power of the dominant public pro-GMO discourse. Additionally, the farmers’ supportive attitude corresponds to their perspectives and characteristics of their farming. These farmers (except the one organic one) engage in intensive agriculture in large businesses and show a productivist attitude. The weaker relation of the opposing accounts with the Greenpeace discourse suggests that the opposing farmers were influenced less than were the other farmers influenced by the pro-GMO discourse. That agrees to the observation that the Greenpeace GMO campaign was reportedly unsuccessful in mobilising organic farmers (Stöckelová 2004). There is a number of tentative reasons why the pro-GMO discourse has been more powerful than the anti-GMO discourse. Firstly, the pro-GMO actors Biotrin and the Seed Producer have shaped the public discourse about GMOs over a longer period, more systematically and with incomparably more significant resources than the only anti-GMO actor Greenpeace. Moreover, the pro-GMO discourse has been legitimised by the same supporting accounts used by the state authorities masquerading as pure science. On the contrary, the anti-GMO campaign was condemned by the pro-GMO actors. Moreover, the environmental NGOs, in general, have a bad image in the Czech Republic. In particular, the Greenpeace campaign was led during the presidency of Václav Klaus (2003-2013), a prolific climate sceptic, who has been labelling environmentalists as eco-terrorists and ideologists. The consideration of the composition of the respective groups reveals that only one conventional farmer and four out of the five organic farmers employed (predominantly) the discourse opposing GM crops. However, accounting the opposing discourse purely to the fact that it was used mainly by organic farmers would be an oversimplification. The fact that GMOs are forbidden in organic agriculture did not prevent two organic farmers from contemplating the alleged benefits, safety arguments and ethical justification. On the other hand, three other organic farmers did not engage in the supporting discourse and used exclusively the opposing one. Therefore, the perspective on agriculture that specifically characterises organic farmers could form their view on GM crops to a certain degree. Although organic farming makes use of modern technologies, it does not depend on them exclusively. Rather, it tends to look at the harmony of the whole agroecosystem, aiming at sustainability, resilience, independence of external inputs, working in a closed cycle, and valuing biodiversity and non-productive functions. The pro-GMO accounts that offer a simple and, indeed, reductionistic solution do not fit in with such a worldview. Instead, the opposing discourse of the farmers concurred with some elements of the public anti-GMO discourse. The argumentation was rather critical, emphasising the risks, 123 doubts about safety, challenging the legitimacy of industrial risk assessment, and raising the ethical issues.

4.5.8. Supportive and opposing attitudes The results of the contextual analysis indicate that the discourses produced by farmers significantly agree with other believes, motivations and practices of those farmers, and thus may be interpreted as reflecting their attitudes towards GM crops. Based on the opposite discourses embedded in context, two distinct attitudes towards GM crops emerge, a supportive and an opposing attitude. It is necessary to emphasise, however, that these two opposite attitudes represent the extreme poles of a continuum along which the respective farmers align. The attitudes were expressed with various saturation in the individual interviews. There were two groups with strong views on each end consisting of approximately half of the farmers. One side was comprised of eight core supporters and seven interviewees with less pregnant supportive attitudes. Three distinct opposers formed the other side. Four interviewees would occupy the figurative middle ground. One organic farmer engaged only in the supporting discourse yet did not advocate the acceptance of GMOs in organic agriculture, nor did he plead for the increase of Bt maize acreage and permissions of new GM crops. Another organic farmer showed an ambivalent attitude as he mainly used the opposing discourse but also resorted to some aspects of the supporting discourse and would reconcile to the cultivation of GM crops in exceptional circumstances as a provisional measure to reduce chemical load46. In two other cases placed near the middle, the attitude of the farmers was not saturated enough to label them as an unequivocal supporter or opposer. Let us now turn to the comparison of the Czech farmers’ discourses and attitudes towards GM crops with the scarce literature that addresses this topic in the European space. Some of the arguments were used by Czech farmers who were interviewed about their attitudes to GMOs, among other things, in previous research (Lokoč 2009:3.4.2.3). Most conventional farmers in that research were ambiguous about GMOs and conditioned their use only for non-food production or by excluding their risk for other plants and animals. However, some conventional farmers perceived GE as a regular part of plant breeding, the debate around GMOs as exaggerated, and believed in lowering of chemical input and thus lowering their impact on farm finance and the environment. Organic farmers in the research of Lokoč (ibid.) mostly did not support the cultivation of GM crops arguing they may pose risks, are unnecessary in the time of overproduction and do not belong in nature. Only one organic farmer admitted GMOs might be a solution for famine in Africa despite the unknown risks (ibid.).

46 He was the one organic farmer who followed the rules for organic agriculture but did not apply for the organic certification. 124

Areal et al. (2011) reported that unlike other European farmers, even the Czech farmers who would reject the cultivation of a potentially allowed new GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) crop were quite optimistic about the economic, agronomic, technical, and environmental effects it might have. Compared to other European farmers, the Czechs were also “the most persuaded by the encouraging statements and the least persuaded by the rejecting issues concerning the adoption and rejection of GM HT oilseed rape” (ibid.). These findings agree to the positive attitudes of the supporters in the current sample. Interestingly, the least encouraging reason to grow the GM crop for Czech farmers who were not willing to grow it was the satisfaction gained from being part of biotechnological progress (Areal et al. 2011). On the other hand, the desire for progress represented by GM crops in the current research was found with those who supported the cultivation of GM crops. Nevertheless, it seems unique for the farmers interviewed in this research as according to Areal et al. (2011) the satisfaction from the progress was the least persuading statements for farmers regarding GM HT maize adoption. Similarly, Spanish farmers growing Bt maize did not conceive of themselves as technological innovators (Gómez-Barbero et al. 2008). The low number of Czech farmers who perceived GM crops risky contrasts with the high percentage of Polish farmers who were reluctant to accept them. In a survey of Polish citizens, the majority of farmers considered GM food unsafe for human health and the environment, and more than half of them did not perceive any benefits of GM food production (Rzymski and Królczyk 2016). However, it was not specified whether organic or conventional farmers were surveyed in that research. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute the difference between the results to the attitudes connected to the regime of cultivation. A Scottish study of farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops found that all farmers showed circumspect attitudes to the possibility of introducing GM crops but were differentiated by the degree to which they were concerned about risks and optimistic about benefits (Hall 2008). Hall (2008) described “benefit believers”, “risk perceivers”, and “fatalists” as three different discourses regarding the cultivation of GM crops in Scotland. The farmers would be open to GM crops’ cultivation if the public accepted it and consumers bought the product, if benefits outweighed risks and if it offered useful solutions to agricultural challenges (ibid.). The benefit believers in the study of Hall (2008) compared to the Czech supporters in terms of having no concern about environmental risks or the impact on wildlife or about neighbours growing GM crops in their vicinity. Both the Czech and Scottish farmers believed in the benefits the GM crops might bring in economic terms. Additionally, the Czech farmers stressed the benefits for the environment. Both groups could be described as techno-optimists. However, the feeling of being forced to grow GM crops by pressures that they cannot influence, ethical considerations, a belief in progress, and a comparison with a leading country in agri-biotechnology were found only in the Czech sample. 125

The second group of Scottish farmers, risk perceivers, were concerned about the risks and were very little convinced about the benefits. Similarly, the Czech opposers perceived GM crops risky and did not apprehend their benefits. Additionally, the Czech farmers hold GM crops ethically unacceptable and questioned the industrial risk assessment of GMOs. They were, however, not concerned about public reactions and consumers’ demand, unlike the Scottish farmers (ibid.). No Czech respondent would fit into Hall’s last group, labelled “fatalists”, i.e. farmers who were unconcerned about the risks, were not sure about the benefits, did not believe in a lasting GM-free market, and took a position that believes “what will be will be”. Only two farmers would be near to that group, with a claim that farmers’ choice of seeds eventually depends on consumers’ demand (organic farmer O2) and a GM (G6) farmer’s acknowledgement that he did not know if GM crops pose risks, but was unconcerned about the potential impacts. The second study of European farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops found that Danish farmers would not automatically accept their cultivation, and if they did, the claimed environmental benefits of HT GM crops would probably be not realized due to farmers’ management of the cultivation (Lassen and Sandøe 2009). The adoption of HT GM crops was conditioned not only by economic profit but also by their harmonious fit in with other activities on the farm (ibid.). Some of the attitudes of the Danish farmers were similar to those of the Czech supporters. The economy of the farm was the critical concern; they believed that the competition would force them to adopt GM crops, and perceived HT GM crops as beneficial for the environment. They also had an anthropocentric understanding of biodiversity and the desire to remain in control of nature. On the contrary, only the Danish farmers expressed concerns about health risks from the consumption of GM crops with an altered nutritional composition (Lassen and Sandøe 2009). Furthermore, similarly to the Scottish farmers, and unlike the Czech ones, the Danish farmers were concerned about consumers’ reaction to the implementation of GM crops and never criticised the public scepticism towards GM crops (ibid.). On the other hand, moral concerns were absent in the Danish farmers’ discourses in contrast to the Czech supporters’ and opposers’ discourses. Based on their exploration of Brazilian farmers’ perception of GMOs and literature review covering also non-European countries, Almeida and Massarani (2018) argue that portraying it as pro- or against GMOs would be too simplistic as a variety of views among farmers was identified. Three types of perceptions are proposed which are characterised by farmers’ different expectations or experiences with the benefits of GM crops, perceptions of risks associated with them, ethical questions they raise, attitudes towards science and technology and religious beliefs (ibid.). To the limited extent to which these aspects were explored in the current study, it can be compared only with some characteristics of the Czech 126 sample. There are elements that Czech supporters have in common with the “dynamic pragmatic view”: empirical knowledge base, consideration of advantages of GM crops, practical concerns associated with them, challenging the risk to health and the environment and positive attitudes towards technology. The Czech opposers identified with the “social critical view” in the perception of risks to health and the environment and no Czech farmer corresponded to the “extreme religious view” profile proposed by Almeida and Massarani (2018). Concluding, the comparison with the literature shows that the attitudes towards GM crops of the farmers interviewed in this research correspond to other European farmers’ attitudes only to a certain degree. The supporters’ apprehension of benefits the GM crops might bring for the economy of the farm and the environment agreed to the previous Czech research and the Danish and Scottish research. The attitudes of Czech supporters also concurred with those of Scottish benefit believers in having no concern about environmental risks or the impact on wildlife or about neighbours growing GM crops in their vicinity. Furthermore, the Czech supporters’ believe that the competition on the world markets would force them to adopt GM crops agreed with the Danish perception. The productivist, techno- optimistic and anthropocentric perspectives of the supporting farmers were also described in the other studies. The opposers’ attitudes concurred with those of the Czech (in the previous research) and Scottish farmers in the opinion that GM crops may pose risks and are unnecessary. On the other hand, the current sample of Czech farmers is unique in several aspects. The Czech interviewees were exceptionally positive about GM crops. Moreover, particular views distinguish Czech supporting farmers from the other European farmers. First, they considered GM crops ethically acceptable and justified their cultivation by the need to feed the world. Furthermore, the Czech farmers expressed no concern about the consumers’ acceptance of GM crops, something the other farmers had in common. On the contrary, the opposers of GMOs were contemptuously labelled as influenced, not being right, their fear irrational and their arguments unscientific, and the debate around GMOs exaggerated. That contrasts with Danish farmers who never criticised the public scepticism towards GM crops. Additionally, the desire for progress represented by GM crops and a comparison with a leading country in agri-biotechnology were found only in the Czech sample. Finally, the ethical considerations and the questions of the legitimacy of industry studies distinguished the Czech farmers who opposed GM crops from other European farmers.

4.5.9. Attitudes: Conclusions The surveyed farmers started to cultivate Bt maize to protect their crop against the European corn borer (ECB) on farms where it represented a significant pest. Furthermore, they adopted Bt maize cultivation in an expectation of insecticides saving, higher yields and better quality and because they wished to try the GM version. Farmers for whom ECB was

127 not a significant pest listed the same reasons but prioritised them in the inverse sense, the most frequently mentioned were better quality and a wish to try it, whereas the protection against ECB, yields and saving of insecticides were less important. The expectations were at least partly fulfilled as those who continued to grow Bt maize did so based on their experience of effective protection against ECB, secure yields, higher quality and insecticide saving. However, the cultivation of Bt maize has been gradually abandoned until the last farmer harvested its yield in 2016 and it has not been renewed since then. The co-existence rules and the situation on the market were the most important forces that have driven farmers to discontinue Bt maize cultivation. Only a minority of the GM farmers who were surveyed were determined to grow another GM crop if it were authorised in the expectation that it would save pesticides and benefit the environment. However, the majority of farmers conditioned the adoption of a new GM crop by the easing of the GMO legislation, the type of the trait and crop, and the possible benefits and potential risks. On the other hand, approximately a third of the farmers was decided not to grow any new GM crops mainly because they produce GM-free milk, worry about sales and complicated legislation. Half of the interviewed conventional farmers would not grow a new type of GM crop based on the same reasons mentioned in the survey. The other half of the farmers would grow a newly permitted GM crop as it was perceived as time and work saving, cheaper, beneficial for the environment, of good quality and thus guaranteeing competitiveness. Documented in the interviews with GM and conventional farmers, the willingness to cultivate GM crops results from complex deliberations that include various and often contradictory elements. Most of them maintain productivist attitudes. The decisive factor is the economic viability of a farm. While many farmers perceived agri-environmental measures necessary, they deemed those measures at the same time threatening the economic efficiency and the production which is needed to meet the growing global demands for food and feed. Although the issue of GMOs has not been so crucial among the Czech public as in other European countries, or perhaps because of that, the Czech discourse has been exceptionally positive about GM crops. It has mainly been shaped by a civil association of vocal supporters and the state authorities, who are uncritical and supportive of the use of GMOs. Although these actors distance themselves from any worldview, claiming to advocate a strictly scientific perspective, they fail to reflect the breadth of scientific evidence and provide balanced and, at times, even correct information. They tend to emphasise the benefits and downplay the risks of GM crops. Most of the Czech farmers who were interviewed are supportive of GM crops too. They are convinced of the safety and often even supremacy of GM crops over conventional agriculture for human health and the environment, and see a wide range of benefits in economic, environmental, and ethical terms. GMOs are perceived as the way to feed the world sustainably. Furthermore, in the farmers’ view, GMOs represent progress and their 128 adoption a way to catch up with the US paragon of modern agriculture. The strict EU legislation is then seen as politically driven and lacking a scientific basis. The set and structure of the statements of these farmers, including those who had an unsatisfactory experience with Bt maize cultivation, perfectly mirror the dominant Czech and the Seed Producer’s discourses. Furthermore, the farmers’ attitude seems to rest on the belief in progress, symbolised by the innovative US agriculture, and the desire to catch up with the West which are both rooted in the post-socialist Czech society. The farmers’ supportive attitude towards GM crops may be interpreted as (at least partly) constituted by the power of the dominant public pro-GMO discourse which “makes certain activities possible, desirable or inevitable” and actors draw on it to legitimate their positions and actions (Bryman 2008:510). Additionally, the farmers’ supportive attitude corresponds to their perspectives and characteristics of their farming. These farmers (except the one organic one) engage in intensive agriculture in large businesses and have a productivist attitude. Compared to other European farmers, the interviewed Czech farmers were exceptionally positive about GM crops. Only a couple of them were opposing GM crops emphasising the risks, doubts about safety, challenging the legitimacy of industrial risk assessment, and raising the ethical issues. The Czech farmers’ discourses were distinguished from other European farmers’ discourses by no concern about the consumers’ acceptance of GM crops. On the contrary, the supporting farmers condemned the opposers of GMOs as influenced, not being right, their fear irrational and their arguments unscientific, and the debate around GMOs exaggerated. Furthermore, only the Czech farmers expressed their opinion that GM crops are ethically acceptable and justified their cultivation by the need to feed the world. Moreover, only Czech farmers related GM crops with progress and looked up to the leading country in agri- biotechnology. The unique positive attitude of the Czech farmers and their discourse is not so unique when viewed in the context of the Czech public discourse. On the contrary, the accounts of the farmers’ supporting discourse reproduce the dominant discourse projected from sources of power.

129

5. Conclusions Although GM crops were commercialized almost 30 years ago, little attention has been paid to the practice of agriculture by farmers and their perspectives and experiences. The claimed benefits of a GM maize MON810 cultivated in the EU have been reviewed with inconsistent results. Moreover, only three publications have reported on European farmers’ experience with some of the mooted benefits. Furthermore, risk management of GM crops has been criticised for shortcomings and questionable assumptions. The post-market environmental monitoring and co-existence of GM and non-GM production on the farm level relies heavily on the farmers’ compliance with rules which presupposes certain attitudes and practices on their side. However, studies aimed at understanding farmers’ perception of, and attitudes to, GM crops are largely missing in the European context. Therefore, I aimed to contribute innovatively to filling this significant gap with my thesis. This final chapter synthesises the findings produced in the analyses which were guided by the research question “How do promised benefits and recommended risk management practices of Bt maize MON810 cultivation correspond to Czech agricultural practice?”. Based on the conclusions, specific recommendations for responsible authorities, agricultural practice, and further research are formulated.

5.1. Partly realised benefits of Bt maize cultivation The experience of the surveyed Czech growers of Bt maize confirms the benefits claimed by the Seed Producer (Monsanto n.d.) only partly. The mooted benefits of MON810 cultivation regarding lower levels of fungal disease infestation, yield increase, reduction of insecticide usage, lowered costs, time saving and simple manipulation were enjoyed by a varying proportion of Czech GM farmers. In contrast, some farmers experienced the opposite of the claimed benefit. Farmers also reported lower yields, increased costs, increased time requirements and more complicated manipulation of Bt maize cultivation. The exception was the 100% control of the European corn borer (ECB). Although a quarter of the farmers did not comply with the refuge requirements, all the farmers reported highly effective control of the pest. The relatively small size of the current sample allowed only a qualitative assessment. However, the varying degree to which the claimed benefits have been realized, compare to experience reported in other Czech and European studies. The current and previous studies suggest that most of the benefits manifest themselves rather on farms under high ECB pressure. If only economic perspective were taken into account, the cultivation of Bt maize could be recommended in areas with persistent high corn borer pressure. However, the environmental benefits may not be so straightforward as claimed. Firstly, the reduction in the use of insecticides is only partial. Secondly, the safety of the Bt plant-produced toxins for 130 non-target organisms has been challenged by an increasing body of evidence (Latham et al. 2017). Additionally, the pressure of another maize pest to which this Bt maize is not resistant has been increasing in the Czech Republic. Therefore, it is recommended in accordance with the Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2018) that farmers should employ a complex of control methods that rely, besides direct treatment, on cultural measures.

5.2. Post-market environmental monitoring The post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of MON810 conducted by the Seed Producer consists of case-specific monitoring and general surveillance. The former refers to the insect resistance management plan. The aims of the later are to identify the occurrence of adverse effects of the GM maize. The insect resistance management (IRM) plan requires that farmers cultivating Bt maize implement specific measures to avoid and/or delay the development of pest resistance to the Bt toxin produced by the plant. The assumption that farmers act in order to delay the onset of resistance of ECB to Bt maize is not entirely held at the surveyed Czech farms. One- quarter of the sample did not comply with the obligation to plant a refuge. Although the proportion of farmers who adhere to the rules cannot be generalized to all Czech GM farmers, the sample evidenced the partiality of the compliance. It has also been reported for Spanish farmers who increased the refuge compliance from the initial 58% in 2004 to around 90% in recent years (EFSA et al. 2018). An essential tool of risk management is thus not implemented in the practice of each farm. Although no decrease of the susceptibility of corn borers to the Bt protein has been reported in Europe yet (EFSA et al. 2018; Thieme et al. 2018), the adherence to IRM should be encouraged in order to secure the efficacy of Bt maize in the long term. Besides, the non-compliance should be taken into account if crops entailing similar obligations were foreseen to be cultivated. The research aimed at an understanding of the reasons for non-compliance and identifying ways of a remediation thereof is needed. Furthermore, EFSA describes four tools of general surveillance in its Opinion (EFSA 2009). Nevertheless, the scrutiny of Monsanto’s annual reports indicates that only two of them are used in practice, namely, Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire and literature survey of data relating to the safety of MON810 for human and animal health and the environment. Additionally, both have been criticised for considerable drawbacks. The literature search has improved over the years, in which EFSA has been providing assessments of Monsanto’s reports. However, certain shortcomings regarding methodology and reporting still pertain (EFSA et al. 2018). Moreover, the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire has been criticised for methodological shortcomings and limited farmers’

131 capability to identify potential adverse effects (EFSA 2009; EFSA et al. 2017, 2018; EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). The response rate of Czech farmers to the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire indicated by Monsanto was relatively high. However, farmers in the current survey reported a lower degree of co-operation with the Monsanto’s questionnaire. Moreover, although all farmers in the current sample could compare Bt maize production to the previous and concurrent experience with conventional maize cultivation, they often lacked information required in the questionnaire about biodiversity impacts. Furthermore, some of the interviewed farmers were not motivated to answer questions regarding potential adverse effects as they apriori refused to believe any effect might potentially occur and perceived the Monsanto’s questions as senseless. The proportions of farmers who cannot provide information supposed to be collected by the Monsanto’s questionnaire cannot be extrapolated to all the Czech and other European growers. Nevertheless, the findings illustrate and confirm doubts raised during the EU member states’ consultation and by EFSA (EFSA 2009). Besides, this research identified another drawback, namely farmers’ reluctance to observe and report potential adverse effects. The evidence suggests that the questionnaire may be more useful tool for revealing potential negative impacts on the performance of GM plants and animals fed with those plants, than identifying potential adverse effects on other non-target organisms. The Bt maize remains lawfully on the market authorised under the Directive 90/220/EEC in 1998 without the obligation to conduct general surveillance. Despite a favourable 2009 EFSA Opinion (EFSA 2009) on the application of Monsanto (Monsanto Company 2007a) for the renewal of the authorisation for MON810 cultivation (under the Directive ), the European Commission (EC) has not decided yet (as of March 2020). If it were authorised under the new Directive, the Seed Producer would become obliged to conduct general surveillance. However, DG Environment has recommended progress with the approval process only with updated and complete environmental risk assessment by EFSA (DG Environment 2016). My previous research supported that recommendation on the basis of an inadequate risk assessment of MON810 for honeybees and earthworms identified in the EFSA Opinion (Chvátalová 2019). Moreover, the European Parliament and NGOs have called on the EC to withdraw its draft (European Parliament 2016; Leroux 2017; Riss 2017). Indeed, the findings of this research suggest that the present form of general surveillance limits its aims to detect unanticipated adverse effects of Bt maize cultivation on human and animal health and the environment. The post-market environmental monitoring should be revised before the approval process of the application of Monsanto (Monsanto Company 2007a) for the renewal of the authorisation for MON810 cultivation continues.

132

5.3. Co-existence of GM and non-GM production Co-existence should ensure that farmers and consumers can choose among conventional, organic and GM crop production. European Commission and the European Coexistence Bureau provided non-binding recommendations to help the member states develop legislative approaches to co-existence (European Commission 2003, 2010; Czarnak- Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010). However, co-existence regulation has not been adopted in each member state. The cultivation of GM crops in the Czech Republic has been managed through co- existence regulation, control of its compliance and a system of sanctions since its beginning in 2005. A document analysis revealed that compared to the co-existence legislation of other member states, the Czech system is moderately restrictive. Nevertheless, the co-existence rules, along with the situation on the market and low pest pressure, have been the limiting factors of Bt maize adoption in the current sample of farmers. The same was observed in previous analyses of Czech farmers’ experiences with Bt maize cultivation (Jordán 2015; Křístková 2009). The cultivation of GM crops, and food, feed and seed production have been controlled officially on a regular basis, except for seed produced in the Czech Republic. Only negligible number of mild breaches of co-existence rules at the farm level were detected. Moreover, only isolated cases of food and feed contaminated with Bt maize MON810 have been reported in the Czech Republic. Non-GM food, feed and seed were more frequently polluted by other GM crops. Furthermore, most of the non-GM farmers in the current research obtained the obligatory information about Bt maize cultivation from their GM neighbours. The surveyed farmers were satisfied with the offer and availability of conventional maize seeds. However, the offer, availability and higher price of Bt maize seeds slightly limited the farmer’s choice of those seeds. Additionally, a few GM farmers experienced difficulties finding appropriate fields for Bt maize cultivation due to non-GM maize planred on neighbouring fields. On the other hand, the interviewed non-GM farmers were neither interested in nor influenced by the Bt maize cultivation of their neighbours. That probably reflects the attitudes of farmers who did not perceive the cultivation of GM crops risky and the fact that most of the organic farmers did not grow maize. Furthermore, the farmers neither had any experience of GM contamination nor were concerned about it. It is difficult to assess to what extent the findings of the current sample reflect the practical issues concerning co-existence in the Czech Republic. The previous research among Czech farmers did not cover those issues. Moreover, the research on European farmers’ experience is scarce and contradictory. The current findings agree with some of the studies and differ from others. Concluding, the Czech co-existence regulation together with the control of compliance and farmers’ observation of the rules, contributed to ensuring GM-free production of

133 conventional and organic farmers. On the other hand, the perception of the rules as too restrictive was one of the primary reasons for the cessation of GM maize production. Based on the current findings and the literature reviewed, I have made specific recommendations regarding the Czech co-existence regulation. Furthermore, I suggest general considerations for discussion about co-existence and a direction for further research. Firstly, the Czech co-existence regulation builds on the official recommendations (European Commission 2003, 2010; Czarnak-Klos and Rodríguez-Cerezo 2010) only to a certain degree and the farmers’ experience indicates that the recommendations which are not embedded in the legislation are not always put into practice. A more robust co-existence regulation would better reflect the official recommendations and included a deliberation of a broad range of stakeholders (European Commission 2010). Ideally, besides expert judgment, it should draw on feedback from farmers (and other involved stakeholders) who have experience with the cultivation (or further handling) of GM crops (maize and potatoes), those who strive for plant production with the lowest presence of GMOs possible (organic farmers, GM-free producers), and the authorities responsible for the monitoring of co-existence. Secondly, co-existence needs more attention. The Czech co-existence rules were one of the main driving forces out of GM production, whereas their lack in Spain has been causing the same with non-GM, especially organic, production. The experience from a country with a moderately restrictive co-existence regulation and with no regulation suggests that some actors will be affected in either case. To answer the question if different agricultural systems can survive and thrive next to each other, further research should focus on how the co- existence works in reality in jurisdictions with different approaches to its management. The final recommendation regards general considerations of co-existence. Although co-existence policy was intended to mediate policy conflicts over GM crops, it has become another arena of contending values and visions on future agriculture (Levidow and Boschert 2008; Devos et al. 2009). Based on the evidence of co-existence issues in both GM-adopting and non-GM countries, any kind of discussion about GM crop production, its management and co-existence could be more fruitful when it acknowledged that the term co-existence does not cover only economic issues of different agricultural production. Instead, the approach that focuses on societal rights and choices about the agricultural system should be embraced. Furthermore, the evidence indicating how co-existence works (or does not work) in the real world should be considered. Finally, it should be acknowledged that co-existence is a political issue, not one in the realm of science that could be managed technically. It is a question of which way of agriculture a society wants to follow. Accordingly, a broad range of citizens and stakeholders should be included in deliberative processes along with experts and decision-makers to ensure democratic and robust decisions.

134

5.4. Attitudes to GM crops The risk management of Bt maize cultivation on the farm level relies heavily on the co-operation of farmers which presupposes certain attitudes and practices on their side. However, research aimed at understanding European farmers’ attitudes towards GM crops has been scarce. The farmers surveyed in this research started to cultivate Bt maize in order to protect their crop against ECB, to save insecticides, gain higher yields and better quality, and to try the GM version of the plant. The expectations were at least partly fulfilled as those who cultivated Bt maize more than one year did so based on their experience of effective protection against the pest, secure yields, higher quality and insecticide saving. Only a minority of the GM farmers who were surveyed and a half of the interviewed conventional ones were determined to grow another GM crop if it were authorised. The majority of GM farmers conditioned the adoption of a new GM crop by the easing of the GMO legislation, the type of the trait and crop, and the possible benefits and potential risks. However, other GM farmers and half of the conventional ones were not willing to grow GM crops because of the co-existence rules and the situation on the market. The proportion of farmers willing to grow GMOs and the type of associated considerations of the surveyed Czech farmers was comparable to those found in other studies of European (including Czech) farmers. Compared to other European farmers, the interviewed Czech farmers were exceptionally positive about GM crops. Only a couple of them were opposing GM crops emphasising the risks, doubts about safety, challenging the legitimacy of industrial risk assessment, and raising the ethical issues. The Czech farmers’ discourses were distinguished from other European farmers’ discourses by no concern about the consumers’ acceptance of GM crops. By contrast, the farmers who were supportive of GM crops condemned the opposers of GMOs. They also considered the debate around GMOs to be exaggerated. Furthermore, only the Czech farmers expressed their opinion that GM crops are ethically acceptable and justified their cultivation by the need to feed the world. Finally, only Czech farmers related GM crops with progress and looked up to the USA as the leading country in agri-biotechnology. The unique positive attitude of the interviewed Czech farmers and their discourse appears not so unique from the perspective of the Czech public discourse. On the contrary, the accounts of the farmers’ supporting discourse reproduce the dominant discourse projected from sources of power. The Czech discourse has been mainly shaped by a civil association of vocal supporters and the state authorities, who are uncritical and supportive of the use of GMOs. These actors fail to reflect the breadth of scientific evidence and provide balanced and, at times, even correct information. They tend to emphasise the benefits and downplay the risks.

135

Most of the Czech farmers who were interviewed are supportive of the cultivation of GM crops. They are convinced of the safety and often even supremacy of GM crops over conventional agriculture for human health and the environment, and see a wide range of benefits in economic, environmental, and ethical terms. Moreover, GMOs are perceived as the way to feed the world sustainably. Furthermore, in the farmers’ view, GMOs represent progress and their adoption a way to catch up with the US paragon of modern agriculture. The strict EU legislation is then seen as politically driven and lacking a scientific basis. The set and structure of the statements of the farmers with supportive attitudes towards GM crops perfectly mirror the dominant Czech and Seed Producer’s discourses. The pro- GMO discourses also echoed in the argumentations of those farmers who had an unsatisfactory experience with Bt maize cultivation. Furthermore, the farmers’ attitude seems to rest on the belief in progress, symbolised by the innovative US agriculture, and the desire to catch up with the West which are both rooted in the post-socialist Czech society. In the perspective of critical discourse analysts, discourse is understood as “a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices” (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002:61). Thus, in this view, a particular discourse about GM crops makes up our concept of what GM crops are, about their nature, significance, safety, relevance for our society, and the way how are those who accept them and those who oppose them perceived. It becomes a framework for the justification for the way of how GM crops are treated and how the legislation regulating GM crops’ cultivation is accomplished. The farmers’ supportive attitude towards GM crops may be, therefore, interpreted as co-constituted by the power of the dominant public pro-GMO discourse. Additionally, the farmers’ supportive attitude corresponds to their perspectives and characteristics of their farming. These farmers (except one organic interviewee) engage in intensive agriculture in large businesses and maintain a productivist attitude. Furthermore, GM farmers’ positive attitudes towards GM crops and the conviction of their safety conceivably limit their motivation to adhere to some risk management practices and cooperate on the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire aimed at monitoring of unforeseen adverse effects. The design of this study does not permit to make conclusions regarding the correlation of these two observations. Further research could test this hypothesis. It must be acknowledged that the attitudes of the interviewed non-GM farmers could differ from other Czech non-GM farmers. The conventional and organic farmers interviewed in this research neighboured with GM farmers. It is conceivable that only the farmers who did not suppose an opposition against GMOs from their farming neighbours adopted the Bt maize cultivation. Surveying non-GM farmers who have not neighboured with GM farmers would reveal if they differ in their attitudes towards GM crops. However, finding such non-GM farmers would probably prove difficult as GM maize and potatoes were cultivated at many farms spread across the whole agricultural land of the Czech Republic.

136

Furthermore, given the embeddedness of the attitudes in the context, the findings cannot be simply extrapolated to other farmers living in different societies. Further research could compare the attitudes of farmers who had been exposed to a pro-GMO discourse and those who had been exposed to a critical GMO discourse, conceivably in countries with different GM policies. If identified, different attitudes towards GM crops could also be compared with the compliance of farmers with risk management practices.

5.5. From theory to practice This study has demonstrated that most of the promised benefits and some of the recommended risk management practices of Bt maize cultivation are not substantiated having regard to the agricultural practice as reported by the surveyed Czech farmers and described in the published literature. The assumptions embedded in the assessment of benefits and proposed methods to manage risks are met with the complex reality of the cultivation of GM crops and the human factor. Although the findings cannot be easily generalized to the Czech and other farmers, they provide evidence that the assumptions concerning benefits and risk management of Bt maize are reflected only to a certain degree in the agricultural practice. Moreover, this research offers a novel insight into the farmers’ experience and attitudes concerning GM crops which have been largely underrepresented in the European literature. Nevertheless, these topics deserve further attention as the sociological understanding lags behind the progress in the agricultural biotechnology. In line with the characterisation of this issue as one from the realm of post-normal science, “where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”, the assessment of risks and designing of risk management practices would benefit from an inclusion of an extended peer community (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993). The involvement of a broad range of stakeholders with various forms of knowledge into the process would contribute to assuring sound and democratic decisions regarding the management of GM crops.

137

List of tables Table 1 Size of the MON810 cultivated area and the number of its growers in the Czech Republic (CR)...... 9 Table 2 The average size of arable land...... 35 Table 3 Comparison of the Seed Producer’s benefit claims with Czech GM farmers’ experience and results reported in European literature...... 58 Table 4 The number of controls and breaches of co-existence rules in the Czech Republic. .. 72 Table 5 Farmers' discourses...... 102 Table 6 Comparison of farmers’ discourses to public discourses with which it engages in dialogue...... 118 Table 7 Characteristics of the farms of interviewed GM farmers...... 156 Table 8 Characteristics of interviewed GM farmers...... 159 Table 9 Quantitative characteristics of the farms of surveyed GM farmers...... 159 Table 10 Characteristics of the interviewed conventional farmers and their farms...... 160 Table 11 Characteristics of the interviewed organic farmers and their farms...... 162 Table 12 The relationship of the elements of farmers’ discourses (categories) to the lower units of the grounded theory analysis (initial and focused codes)...... 163

List of figures Figure 1 Bt maize MON810 area in the EU in the years 2006-2017...... 8 Figure 2 Bt maize MON810 area in the Czech Republic in the years 2005-2019...... 9 Figure 3 Percentage of farm arable land by the form of business...... 34 Figure 4 Age of the farmers...... 35 Figure 5 Highest education level achieved by farmers...... 36 Figure 6 Changes in the use of insecticides against the European corn borer...... 52 Figure 7 Occurrence of fauna and flora on Bt compared to conventional maize fields...... 63 Figure 8 Reasons to abandon Bt maize cultivation...... 81 Figure 9 Scheme for planting refuge...... 181 Figure 10 Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) ...... 182 Figure 11 Map of the districts where Bt maize was cultivated in 2015 and of the occurrence of European corn borer (ECB)...... 183

138

Index of names Almeida ...... 23, 24, 126 Lapka ...... 19, 106 Areal ...... 24, 93, 125 Lassen ...... 24, 105, 126 Bayer ...... 37, 117 Latham ...... 53, 59, 112, 131 Binimelis ...... 17, 18, 85 Levidow ...... 2, 16, 17, 134 Biotrin ...... 37, 108, 109, 115, 118, 123 Lokoč ...... 19, 20, 83, 89, 94, 105, 124 Bryman ...... 27, 29, 33, 43, 44, 67, 123, 129 Maxwell ...... 4, 28, 29, 44 CAFIA ...... 5, 37, 72 Meissle ...... 21, 51, 53 CC GMO ...... 5, 37, 108, 114, 118 Millstone ...... 2 CISTA ...... 5, 17, 37, 59, 71, 72 Ministry of Agriculture . 5, 36, 37, 112, 118 Cotter ...... 2, 3, 10, 45, 85 Ministry of the Environment.. 37, 108, 111, Czarnak-Klos 4, 16, 36, 68, 69, 73, 74, 133, 118 134 Monsanto ..... 11, 14, 16, 30, 36, 37, 62, 67, Dolezel ...... 3, 10, 45 116, 131, 136 EFSA ... 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 30, 36, 60, 62, 131 Palaudelmàs ...... 68, 74 European Commission ... 10, 11, 14, 16, 68, Roudná ...... 6, 17, 37, 72, 85, 112 70, 73, 75, 76, 86, 132, 133, 134 Ruiz Ruiz ...... 24, 38, 39, 40, 102, 118, 123 European Parliament ...... 17, 68, 132 Seed Producer 5, 12, 22, 25, 36, 37, 41, 47, Fairclough ...... 24, 38, 40 58, 116, 118, 123, 130, 131, 136 Ferment ...... 3 Schiefer ...... 2, 22, 23, 43, 51, 55, 57 Gómez-Barbero .... 2, 21, 22, 23, 43, 51, 53, Skevas .... 21, 24, 53, 70, 79, 82, 84, 85, 92, 54, 55, 84, 85, 92, 93, 125 93, 105, 106 Greenpeace ...... 108, 120, 123 Spencer...... 43 Hall ...... 24, 105, 125, 126 Stöckelová .. 25, 37, 40, 107, 108, 109, 110, Harrison ...... 4, 27, 28 111, 113, 114, 115, 123 Herrero ...... 45, 85 Švéda ...... 115 Hilbeck ...... 2, 53, 77, 112 Thieme ...... 22, 48, 60, 131 Charmaz ...... 29, 38, 44 Tillie ...... 47, 57, 79, 82, 93 Chvátalová ...... 2, 10, 21, 22, 45, 47, 132 Trnková .... 5, 16, 36, 56, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, ISAAA ...... 6, 7, 8, 112 113 James ...... 2, 6, 7 Verriere ...... 8, 16, 17, 69, 75, 76 Jørgensen ...... 4, 24, 29, 136 Wickson ...... 2, 45, 85 Kocourek ...... 21, 22, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55 Wolf ...... 2, 22, 47, 51, 55 Křístková 2, 3, 7, 21, 22, 23, 43, 47, 48, 49, Zagata...... 83, 91 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 65, 82, 103, 133

139

References Alcalde, Esteban. 2006. ‘Post-Market Monitoring Plans of Bt-176 in Spain: 1998-2005’. Journal Fur Verbraucherschutz Und Lebensmittelsicherheit 1(SUPPL. 1):102–5. Almeida, Carla and Luisa Massarani. 2018. ‘Farmers Prevailing Perception Profiles Regarding GM Crops: A Classification Proposal’. Public Understanding of Science 27(8):952–66. Almsted, Asa, Patrick Brouder, Svante Karlsson, and Linda Lundmark. 2014. ‘Beyond Post- Productivism: From Rural Policy Discourse to Rural Diversity’. European Countryside 6(4):297–306. Andersen, Mathias Neumann, Christophe Sausse, Bernard Lacroix, Sandra Caul, and Antoine Messéan. 2007. ‘Agricultural Studies of GM Maize and the Field Experimental Infrastructure of ECOGEN’. Pedobiologia 51(3):175–84. Angermuller, Johannes. 2015. ‘Discourse Studies’. Pp. 510–15 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by J. D. Wright. Elsevier. Apiolaza, Luis Alejandro. 2014. ‘Comment on Sustainability and Innovation in Staple Crop Production in the US Midwest’. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12(4):383–86. Areal, Francisco J., Laura Riesgo, and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2011. ‘Attitudes of European Farmers towards GM Crop Adoption’. Plant Biotechnology Journal 9(9):945– 57. BASF. 2014. Post-Market Monitoring Report for the Monitoring of Amylopectin Potato EH92-527-1 Variety Amflora in 2013. Bauer-Panskus, Andreas, Thomas Bohn, Janet Cotter, Angelika Hilbeck, Erik Millstone, Christoph Then, Helen Wallace, and Brian Wynne. 2020. Summary Report of the Results from the RAGES Project. Bayer. 2019. “Shaping Agriculture for Farmers, Consumers & the Planet.” Bayer. Retrieved November 18, 2019 (https://www.bayer.com/en/crop-science-division.aspx). Benbrook, Charles M. 2012. ‘Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S. - the First Sixteen Years’. Environmental Sciences Europe 24:1–13. Bereś, Paweł K. 2010. ‘Harmfulness of Ostrinia Nublialis Hbn. on Some Non-Bt Versus Genetically Modified Bt Maize (Zea Mays L.) Cultivars in Poland in 2006-2007’. Journal of Plant Protection Research 50(1):110–16. Binimelis, Rosa. 2008. ‘Coexistence of Plants and Coexistence of Farmers: Is an Individual Choice Possible?’ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21(5):437–57. Binimelis, Rosa and Roger Strand. 2009. ‘Spain and the European Debate on GM Moratoria vs Coexistence’. Pp. 120–34 in Science for Policy, edited by Â. G. Pereira and S. O. Funtowicz. Oxford University Press. Biotrin. Undated.a “Biotrin”. Biotrin, z. s. Retrieved November 27, 2019 (https://www.biotrin.cz/). Biotrin. Undated.b. “Petice za změnu legislativy GMO v EU.” Biotrin, z. s. Retrieved June 29, 2020 (https://www.biotrin.cz/petice-za-zmenu-legislativy-gmo-v-eu/). Biotrin. Undated.c. “Dvacet let pěstovaný strach z GMO udělal své.” Biotrin, z. s. Retrieved June 29, 2020 (https://www.biotrin.cz/dvacet-let-pestovany-strach-z-gmo-udelal-sve/).

140

Bláha, I. Arnošt. 1937. Sociologie sedláka a dělníka. Praha: Masarykova sociologická společnost. Bøhn, Thomas. 2018. ‘Criticism of EFSA’s Scientific Opinion on Combinatorial Effects of “Stacked” GM Plants’. Food and Chemical Toxicology 111:268–74. Bohnenblust, Eric W., James A. Breining, John A. Shaffer, Shelby J. Fleischer, Gregory W. Roth, and John F. Tooker. 2014. ‘Current European Corn Borer, Ostrinia Nubilalis, Injury Levels in the Northeastern United States and the Value of Bt Field Corn’. Pest Management Science 70:1711–19. Borlaug, Norman E. 2000. ‘Ending World Hunger. The Promise of Biotechnology and the Threat of Antiscience Zealotry’. Plant Physiology 124(2):487–90. Breustedt, Gunnar, Jörg Müller-Scheeßel, and Uwe Latacz-Lohmann. 2008. ‘Forecasting the Adoption of GM Oilseed Rape: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany’. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(2):237–56. Brookes, Graham. 2007. The Benefits of Adopting Genetically Modified, Insect Resistant (Bt) Maize in the European Union (EU): First Results from 1998-2006 Plantings. Bryman, Alan. 2008. Social Research Methods. Third. New York: Oxford University Press. Canadian Corn Pest Coalition. Undated. “Refuge Configurations for CRW Bt Only.” From Cornpest. Retrieved March 16, 2020 (https://www.cornpest.ca/resistance- management/refuge-requirements/planting-configurations/crw-bt-corn-only-refuge/). Carrasco, Juan-Felipe. 2009. Testimonies of Contamination. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Catarino, Rui, Graziano Ceddia, Francisco J. Areal, Nicolas Parisey, and Julian Park. 2016. ‘Managing Maize under Pest Species Competition: Is Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis) Maize the Solution?’ Ecosphere 7(6):1–19. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2012. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2011. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2013. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2012. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2014. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2013. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2015. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2014. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2016. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2015. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2017. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2016. Brno. Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture. 2018. Annual Report of the Marketing Year 2017. Brno. Cerier, Steven E. 2018. ‘Genetic Engineering, CRISPR and Food: What the “Revolution” Will Bring in the near Future’. Genetic Literacy Project 1–5. Retrieved 10 January 2019 (https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/01/24/genetic-engineering-crispr-food- revolution-will-bring-near-future/). Čermáková, Klára and Marcela Mácová. 2016. ‘Strukturální Šetření v Zemědělství - 2016’. Strukturální Šetření v Zemědělství - 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2020 (https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/strukturalni-setreni-v-zemedelstvi-2016). 141

Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty. 2004. ‘Statut České Komise pro Nakládání s Geneticky Modifikovanými Organismy a Genetickými Produkty’. 1–4. Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty. 2013. ‘Zápis Ze 68. Schůze České Komise pro Nakládání s Geneticky Modifikovanými Organismy a Produkty Konané Dne 26. Února 2013 v Praze’. 1–8. Česká komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty. 2018. ‘Statut České Komise pro Nakládání s Geneticky Modifikovanými Organismy a Genetickými Produkty’. 1–4. Český statistický úřad and Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací. 2016a. ‘Průměrný Zemědělský Subjekt’. Strukturální Šetření v Zemědělství - Analytické Vyhodnocení - 2016 37–38. Retrieved 5 May 2020 (https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/79535242/27016818k07cz.pdf/2652c203-550b- 459c-8dbd-cea88cbc7934?version=1.1). Český statistický úřad and Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací. 2016b. ‘Struktura Zemědělských Podniků Vyjádřená ve Třídách Ekonomické Velikosti’. Strukturální Šetření v Zemědělství - Analytické Vyhodnocení - 2016 14–15. Retrieved 5 May 2020 (https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/79535242/27016818k02cz.pdf/eaf95599-31e7- 4865-9dff-2f59fcd59f02?version=1.1). Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE. Chvátalová, Veronika. 2019. ‘A Critical Evaluation of EFSA’s Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Maize MON810 for Honeybees and Earthworms’. Environmental Sciences Europe 31(52):1–17. Chvátalová, Veronika. 2020. ‘Czech Farmers’ Experience with Bt Maize: Fulfilment, and the Opposite, of Monsanto’s Promises’. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 68(1):25–38. Cotter, Janet and Werner Mueller. 2009. A Critique of the European Food Safety Authority’s Opinion on Genetically Modified Maize MON810. Brussels, Belgium. Council for Research, Development and Innovation. 2019. ‘Innovation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2019–2030’. 1–28. Cressey, Daniel. 2013. ‘A New Breed. The next Wave of Genetically Modified Crops Is Making Its Way to Market — and Might Just Ease Concerns over “Frankenfoods”.’ Nature 497:27–29. Czarnak-Klos, Marta and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2010. Best Practice Documents for Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming: 1. Maize Crop Production. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2009. Annual Report 2008. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2012. Annual Report 2011. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2013. Annual Report 2012. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2014. Annual Report 2013. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2015. Annual Report 2014. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2016. Annual Report 2015. Brno. Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2017. Annual Report 2016. Brno. 142

Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority. 2018. Annual Report 2017. Brno. Darvas, Béla, Hajnalka Bánáti, Eszter Takács, Éva Lauber, Árpád Szécsi, and András Székács. 2011. ‘Relationships of Helicoverpa Armigera, Ostrinia Nubilalis and Fusarium Verticillioides on MON 810 Maize’. Insects 2:1–11. Devos, Yann, Jaime Aguilera, Zoltán Diveki, Ana Gomes, Yi Liu, Claudia Paoletti, Patrick du Jardin, Lieve Herman, Joe N. Perry, and Elisabeth Waigmann. 2014. ‘EFSA’s Scientific Activities and Achievements on the Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) during Its First Decade of Existence: Looking Back and Ahead’. Transgenic Research 23(1):1–25. DG Environment. 2016. ‘Reply from DG ENV.B.1 to 3 Interservice Consultations Launched by DG SANTE’. 1–3. Retrieved 22 March 2019 (https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/3251/response/12410/attach/6/16.Note DG ENV 1 June 2016 Redacted.pdf). Directive (EU) 2015/412. 2015. Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2001/18/EC as Regards the Possibility for the Member States to Restrict or Prohibit the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Their Territory. Directive 2001/18/EC. 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Vol. L 106. Directive 2009/41/EC. 2009. Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the Contained Use of Genetically Modified Micro-Organisms. Dolezel, Marion, Marianne Miklau, Michael Eckerstorfer, Angelika Hilbeck, Andreas Heissenberger, and Helmut Gaugitsch. 2009. Standardising the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants in the EU. Bonn, Germany. Dolezel, Marion, Marianne Miklau, Angelika Hilbeck, Mathias Otto, Michael Eckerstorfer, Andreas Heissenberger, Beatrix Tappeser, and Helmut Gaugitsch. 2011. ‘Scrutinizing the Current Practice of the Environmental Risk Assessment of GM Maize Applications for Cultivation in the EU’. Environmental Sciences Europe 23:1–15. Duspiva, Michal. 2012. ‘Společná Zemědělská Politika Očima Českých Zemědělců’. Masaryk University. EFSA. Undated. “GMO.” EFSA. Retrieved January 13, 2020 (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/gmo). EFSA. 2009. ‘Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on Applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810) for Renewal of Authorisation for the Continued Marketing of (1) Existing Food and Food Ingredients Produced from Genetically Modified Insect Resistant M’. EFSA Journal (1149):1–85. EFSA, Fernando Alvarez, Yann Devos, Marios Georgiadis, Antoine Messéan, and Elisabeth Waigmann. 2018. ‘Statement on Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON 810 in 2016’. EFSA Journal 16(5):1–34. EFSA, Hanspeter Naegeli, Andrew Nicholas Birch, Josep Casacuberta, Adinda De Schrijver, Mikołaj Antoni Gralak, Philippe Guerche, Huw Jones, Barbara Manachini, Antoine Messéan, Elsa Ebbesen Nielsen, Fabien Nogué, Christophe Robaglia, Nils Rostoks, 143

Jeremy Sweet, Christoph Tebbe, Francesco Visioli, Jean‐Michel Wal, Fernando Álvarez, Michele Ardizzone, Yann Devos, and Antonio Fernández‐Dumont. 2017. ‘Annual Post‐market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON 810 in 2015 from Monsanto Europe S.A.’ EFSA Journal 15(5):1–27. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2010. ‘Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants’. EFSA Journal 8(11):1–111. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2011. ‘Scientific Opinion on the Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report from Monsanto Europe S.A. on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON810 in 2009’. EFSA Journal 9(10):1–66. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2012. ‘Scientific Opinion on the Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report from Monsanto Europe S.A. on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON810 in 2010’. EFSA Journal 10(4):1–35. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2013. ‘Scientific Opinion on the Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report from Monsanto Europe S.A. on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON810 in 2011’. EFSA Journal 11(12):1–38. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2014. ‘Scientific Opinion on the Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report from Monsanto Europe S.A. on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON810 in 2012’. EFSA Journal 12(6):1–29. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2015. ‘Revised Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON 810 in 2013 from Monsanto Europe S.A.’ EFSA Journal 13(11):1–37. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). 2016. ‘Annual Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) Report on the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON 810 in 2014 from Monsanto Europe S.A.’ EFSA Journal 14(4):1–26. EFSA Panel on GMO. 2011. ‘Scientific Opinion on Guidance on the Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) of Genetically Modified Plants’. EFSA Journal 9(8):1–40. Emerson, R.W. (1844, February 7). Essays and Addresses. The Young American. Lecture read before the Mercantile Library Association in Boston, USA. European Commission. Undated.b “GMO legislation.” European Commission. Retrieved January 13, 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/legislation_en). European Commission. Undated.a “Field trials.” European Commission. Retrieved January 13, 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/field_trials_en). European Commission. 2003. ‘Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on Guidelines for the Development of National Strategies and Best Practices to Ensure the Co- Existence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming’. Official Journal of the European Communities L 189(July):1–17. European Commission. 2010. ‘Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on Guidelines 144

for the Development of National Co-Existence Measures to Avoid the Unintended Presence of GMOs in Conventional and Organic Crops (2010/C 200/01)’. Official Journal of the European Union 200/1:1–5. European Commission. 2015. ‘Reviewing the Decision-Making Process on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)’. 1–8. Retrieved 22 March 2019 (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/COM-2015-176-F1-EN-MAIN- PART-1.PDF). European Parliament. 2003. ‘Report on Coexistence between Genetically Modified Crops and Conventional and Organic Crops’. Europe 2098(INI). European Parliament. 2016. ‘European Parliament Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the Draft Commission Implementing Decision Renewing the Authorisation for the Placing on the Market for Cultivation of Genetically Modified Maize MON 810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6) Seeds (D046170/00 — 2016/2921(RSP))’. Official Journal of the European Union 215:76–79. Eurostat. 2018. “Archive:Small and large farms in the EU - statistics from the farm structure survey.” European Commission. Retrieved February 8, 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php?title=Archive:Small_and_large_farms_in_the_EU_- _statistics_from_the_farm_structure_survey). Eurostat. 2019. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics. Luxembourg. Fairclough, Norman. 2005. ‘Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Realism’. Organization Studies 26(6):915–39. Ferment, Gilles, Leonardo Melgarejo, Gabriel Bianconi Fernandes, and José Maria Ferraz. 2017. Transgenic Crops – Hazards and Uncertainties: More than 750 Studies Disregarded by the GMOs Regulatory Bodies. Brasília: Ministry of Agrarian Development. Fiala, Jiří. 2012. Podklady pro Výroční Zprávu Sekce Úřední Kontroly Za Rok 2011. Fiala, Jiří. 2016. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmiv v Roce 2015. Brno. Fiala, Jiří. 2017. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmiv v Roce 2016. Brno. Fiala, Jiří. 2018. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmiv v Roce 2017. Brno. Fiala, Jiří. 2019. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmiv v Roce 2018. Brno. Fiala, Jiří and Vendula Šubrtová. 2015. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmivářských Podniků, Provedených Pracovníky ÚKZÚZ v Roce 2014. Brno. Fleming, Aysha, Emma Jakku, Lilly Lim-Camacho, Bruce Taylor, and Peter Thorburn. 2018. ‘Is Big Data for Big Farming or for Everyone? Perceptions in the Australian Grains Industry’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38(24):1–10. Fleming, Aysha, Anthony P. O’Grady, Daniel Mendham, Jacqueline England, Patrick Mitchell, Martin Moroni, and Arthur Lyons. 2019. ‘Understanding the Values behind Farmer Perceptions of Trees on Farms to Increase Adoption of Agroforestry in Australia’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39(9):1–11. Folcher, L., M. Delos, E. Marengue, M. Jarry, A. Weissenberger, N. Eychenne, and C. Regnault-Roger. 2010. ‘Lower Mycotoxin Levels in Bt Maize Grain’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30:711–19. Funtowicz, Silvio O. and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’. 145

Futures (September):739–55. Genome News Network. Undated. “Genetics and Genomics Timeline.” Genome News Network. Retrieved February 12, 2020 (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1973_Boyer.php). Gilbert, Natasha. 2013. ‘A Hard Look on GM Crops’. Nature 497:24–26. Gómez-Barbero, Manuel, Julio Berbel, and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2008. Adoption and Performance of the First GM Crop Introduced in EU Agriculture: Bt Maize in Spain. Luxembourg. Greenpeace. Undated. “Genetické modifikace.” Greenpeace. Retrieved July 1, 2020 (https://web.archive.org/web/20071202121230/http://www.greenpeace.org/czech/kampan e2/geneticke-modifikace). Gurian-Sherman, Doug. 2009. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Cambridge, UK. Hall, Clare. 2008. ‘Identifying Farmer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Scotland: Are They pro- or Anti-GM?’ Geoforum 39(1):204–12. Harrison, Helena, Melanie Birks, Richard Franklin, and Jane Mills. 2017. ‘Case Study Research: Foundations and Methodological Orientations’. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 18(1):1–17. Heinemann, Jack A., Melanie Massaro, Dorien S. Coray, Sarah Zanon Agapito-Tenfen, and Jiajun Dale Wen. 2014. ‘Sustainability and Innovation in Staple Crop Production in the US Midwest’. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12(1):71–88. Herrero, Amaranta, Rosa Binimelis, and Fern Wickson. 2017. ‘Just Existing Is Resisting: The Everyday Struggle against the Expansion of GM Crops in Spain’. Sociologia Ruralis 57(S1):859–80. Herrero, Amaranta, Fern Wickson, and Rosa Binimelis. 2015. ‘Seeing GMOs from a Systems Perspective: The Need for Comparative Cartographies of Agri/Cultures for Sustainability Assessment’. Sustainability 7(8):11321–44. Hilbeck, Angelika, Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, Ricarda Steinbrecher, András Székács, Fern Wickson, Michael Antoniou, Philip L. Bereano, Ethel Ann Clark, Michael Hansen, Eva Novotny, Jack Heinemann, Hartmut Meyer, Vandana Shiva, and Brian Wynne. 2015. ‘No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety’. Environmental Sciences Europe 27(1):1–6. Hilbeck, Angelika, Tamara Lebrecht, Raphaela Vogel, Jack A. Heinemann, and Rosa Binimelis. 2013. ‘Farmer’s Choice of Seeds in Four EU Countries under Different Levels of GM Crop Adoption’. Environmental Sciences Europe 25(12):1–13. Hilbeck, Angelika, Matthias Meier, and Miluse Trtikova. 2012. ‘Underlying Reasons of the Controversy over Adverse Effects of Bt Toxins on Lady Beetle and Lacewing Larvae’. Environmental Sciences Europe 24(9):1–5. Hilbeck, Angelika and Mathias Otto. 2015. ‘Specificity and Combinatorial Effects of Bacillus Thuringiensis Cry Toxins in the Context of GMO Environmental Risk Assessment’. Frontiers in Environmental Science 3(71):1–18. Hilbeck, Angelika and Jörg E. U. Schmidt. 2006. ‘Another View on Bt Proteins – How Specific Are They and What Else Might They Do?’ Biopesticides International 2(1):1– 50. 146

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. July 10, 2020. “Attitudes.” Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved July 11, 2020 (https://www.encyclopedia.com/social- sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/attitudes). ISAAA. 2017. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years. Ithaca, NY. ISAAA. 2019. “GM Approval Database”. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri- biotech Applications. Retrieved December 4, 2019 (http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/). Jaenisch, R. and B. Mintz. 1974. ‘Simian Virus 40 DNA Sequences in DNA of Healthy Adult Mice Derived from Preimplantation Blastocysts Injected with Viral DNA’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 71(4):1250–54. James, Clive. 2016. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016. Ithaca, NY. James, Clive and Anatole F. Krattiger. 1996. ‘Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, 1986 to 1995: The First Decade of Crop Biotechnology’. ISAAA Briefs 1(1):1–31. Jones, Philip J. and Richard B. Tranter. 2014. ‘Farmers’ Interest in Growing GM Crops in the UK, in the Context of a Range of on-Farm Coexistence Issues’. AgBioForum 17(1):13– 21. Jordán, Hynek. 2015. ‘Geneticky Modifikované Kukuřice Se v České Republice Vypěstovalo Téměř o Polovinu Méně Než v Předchozím Roce’. EAGRI 1–2. Retrieved 10 January 2019 (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/tiskovy-servis/tiskove-zpravy/x2015_geneticky- modifikovane-kukurice-se-v.html). Jørgensen, Marianne and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE. Keelan, Conor, Fiona S. Thorne, Paul Flanagan, Carol Newman, and Ewen Mullins. 2009. ‘Predicted Willingness of Irish Farmers to Adopt GM Technology’. AgBioForum 12(3– 4):394–403. Kerssen, Tanya. 2010. “The science of wishful thinking.” GMWatch. Retrieved February 19, 2020 (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/archive/2010/12139-the-science-of-wishful-thinking) Klimovičová, Magdalena and Martin Kloubek. 2006. ‘Průvodce Spotřebitele - Jak Nakupovat Produkty Bez Genetické Modifikace’. 1–23. Klonování a geneticky modifikované organismy [Cloning and genetically modified organisms]. (2015, May 7). Conference organized by Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural committee of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in Prague, Czech Republic. Kmoch, Martin, I. Šafránková, I. Polišenská, and R. Pokorný. 2011. ‘Vliv Hybridu Na Infekci Obilek Kukuřice (Zea Mays L.) Houbami Rodu Fusarium’. Úroda 12:217–20. Kocourek, František and Jitka Stará. 2012. ‘Efficacy of Bt Maize against European Corn Borer in Central Europe’. Plant Protection Science 48:25–35. Kratochvíl, Petr and Zdeněk Sychra. 2019. ‘Czech Republic: A Paradise for Eurosceptics?’ Pp. 21–24 in The Future of Europe, edited by M. Kaeding, J. Pollak, and P. Schmidt. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Křístková, Marie. 2009. Dosavadní Zkušenosti s Pěstováním Geneticky Modifikované Bt Kukuřice v ČR 2005-2009. Praha: Ministerstvo zemědělství. 147

Kruse-Plass, Maren, Frieder Hofmann, Ulrike Kuhn, Mathias Otto, Ulrich Schlechtriemen, Boris Schröder, Rudolf Vögel, and Werner Wosniok. 2017. ‘Reply to the EFSA (2016) on the Relevance of Recent Publications (Hofmann et Al. 2014, 2016) on Environmental Risk Assessment and Management of Bt-Maize Events (MON810, Bt11 and 1507)’. Environmental Sciences Europe 29:1–12. Lapka, Miloslav and Miroslav Gottlieb. 2000. Rolník a Krajina. Prague, Czech Republic: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON). Lassen, Jesper and Peter Sandøe. 2009. ‘GM Plants, Farmers and the Public - A Harmonious Relation?’ Sociologia Ruralis 49(3):258–72. Latham, Jonathan R., Madeleine Love, and Angelika Hilbeck. 2017. ‘The Distinct Properties of Natural and GM Cry Insecticidal Proteins’. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 33(1):62–96. Lawson, Lartey G., Anders S. Larsen, Søren Marcus Pedersen, and Morten Gylling. 2009. ‘Perceptions of Genetically Modified Crops among Danish Farmers’. Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C 6(2):99–118. Ledford, Heidi. 2015. ‘Salmon Is First Transgenic Animal to Win US Approval for Food’. Nature. Lehrman, Anna and Katy Johnson. 2008. ‘Swedish Farmers Attitudes, Expectations and Fears in Relation to Growing Genetically Modified Crops’. Environmental Biosafety Research 7(3):153–62. Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. ‘Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist’s Analysis of the Issues (Part I)’. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59(1):771–812. Leroux, Juliette. 2017. ‘GM Maize for Cultivation. The Commission Must Accept the Appeal Committee’s Vote and Refuse New Authorizations’. 1. Retrieved 22 March 2019 (https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/news/gm-maize-for-cultivation/). Levidow, Les and Karin Boschert. 2008. ‘Coexistence or Contradiction? GM Crops versus Alternative Agricultures in Europe’. Geoforum 39(1):174–90. Levidow, Les and Susan Carr. 2007. ‘Europeanising Advisory Expertise: The Role of “Independent, Objective, and Transparent” Scientific Advice in Agri-Biotech Regulation’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25:880–95. Lokoč, Radim. 2009. ‘Čeští Zemědělci Jako Správci Krajiny?’ Masarykova Univerzita. Lövei, G. L. and S. Arpaia. 2005. ‘The Impact of Transgenic Plants on Natural Enemies: A Critical Review of Laboratory Studies’. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114:1– 14. Lvončík, Samuel. 2010. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt - Kukuřice v Roce 2009 Prováděného Státní Rostlinolékařskou Správou. Brno. Magg, T., A. E. Melchinger, D. Klein, and M. Bohn. 2001. ‘Comparison of Bt Maize Hybrids with Their Non-Transgenic Counterparts and Commercial Varieties for Resistance to European Corn Borer and for Agronomic Traits’. Plant Breeding 120:397–403. Maxwell, Joseph A. and Kavita Mittapalli. 2010. ‘Realism as a Stance for Mixed Methods Research’. Pp. 145–67 in SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkor and C. Teddlie. SAGE. Meissle, M., P. Mouron, T. Musa, F. Bigler, X. Pons, V. P. Vasileiadis, S. Otto, D. Antichi, J. Kiss, Z. Pálinkás, Z. Dorner, R. van der Weide, J. Groten, E. Czembor, J. Adamczyk, J. 148

B. Thibord, B. Melander, G. Cordsen Nielsen, R. T. Poulsen, O. Zimmermann, A. Verschwele, and E. Oldenburg. 2010. ‘Pests, Pesticide Use and Alternative Options in European Maize Production: Current Status and Future Prospects’. Journal of Applied Entomology 134:357–75. Meissle, Michael, Jörg Romeis, and Franz Bigler. 2011. ‘Bt Maize and Integrated Pest Management - a European Perspective’. Pest Management Science 67(9):1049–58. Mihalčík, Peter, Katarína Hrčková, Martin Singer, Anna Plačková, and Ján Kraic. 2012. ‘Effect of MON 810 Cultivation and Prevention to Adventitious Presence in Non-GM Fields: A Case Study in Slovakia’. Plant Protection Science 48:11–17. Millstone, Erik, Andy Stirling, and Dominic Glover. 2015. ‘Regulating Genetic Engineering: The Limits and Politics of Knowledge’. Issues in Science and Technology Summer:23– 26. Ministerio de Agricultura Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. 2012. El Cultivo de Maíz Modificado Genéticamente En España. Ministerstvo zemědělství. 2018. Právní Předpisy pro Ekologickou Produkci. Prague, Czech Republic. Ministry of Agriculture. Undated.a. “Kontrolní system EZ.” eAGRI. Retrieved February 7, 2020 (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/ekologicke-zemedelstvi/ekologicke- zemedelstvi/kontrolni-system/). Ministry of Agriculture. Undated.b “GM plodiny - Pěstování geneticky modifikovaných plodin”. eAGRI. Retrieved November 27, 2019 (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/rostlinna-vyroba/gmo-geneticky- modifikovane-organismy/). Ministry of Agriculture. 2010. “Geneticky modifikované plodiny jsou příslibem, ne hrozbou” [Press release]. Retrieved November 28, 2019 (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/rostlinna-vyroba/gmo-geneticky- modifikovane-organismy/archiv/geneticky-modifikovane-plodiny-jsou.html). Ministry of Agriculture. 2013. “Geneticky modifikované organizmy mohou v budoucnu zachránit lidstvo před hladem” [Press release]. Retrieved November 28, 2019 (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/zemedelstvi/rostlinna-vyroba/gmo-geneticky- modifikovane-organismy/archiv/geneticky-modifikovane-organizmy-mohou-v.html). Ministry of the Environment. Undated. “Geneticky modifikované organismy (GMO).” Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved November 27, 2019 (https://www.mzp.cz/cz/geneticky_modifikovane_organismy). Monsanto. n.d. ‘Technický Průvodce pro Pěstování YieldGard® Corn Borer Kukuřice’. 1–10. Monsanto Company. 2007a. Application for Renewal of the Authorisation for Continued Marketing of Existing MON 810 Maize Products That Were Authorized under Directive 90/220/EEC (Decision 98/294/EC) and Subsequently Notified in Accordance to Article 20 (1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Monsanto Company. 2007b. Monitoring Report: MON 810 Cultivation Czech Republic, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain 2006. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2006. Monitoring Report: MON 810 Cultivation. Czech Republic, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain 2005. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2008. Monitoring Report: MON 810 Cultivation Czech Republic, 149

France, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain 2007. Brussels. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2009. Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008. Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain. Brussels. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2010. Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2009. Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain. Brussels. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2011. Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2010. Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain. Brussels. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2012a. Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2011. Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain. Brussels. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2012b. Post Market Monitoring of Insect Protected Bt Maize MON 810 in Europe – Conclusions of a Survey with Farmer Questionnaires in 2011. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2013. Post Market Monitoring of Insect Protected Bt Maize MON 810 in Europe – Conclusions of a Survey with Farmer Questionnaires in 2012. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2014. Post Market Monitoring of Insect Protected Bt Maize MON 810 in Europe – Conclusions of a Survey with Farmer Questionnaires in 2013. Monsanto Europe S.A. 2017. Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2016. Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain. Moses, Vivian and Graham Brookes. 2013. ‘The World of “GM-Free”’. GM Crops & Food 4(3):135–42. Nařízení vlády č. 145/2005 Sb. 2005. Nařízení Vlády č. 145/2005 Sb. Nedělník, Jan, Hana Lindušková, and Martin Kmoch. 2012. ‘Influence of Growing Bt Maize on Fusarium Infection and Mycotoxins Content - a Review’. Plant Protection Science 48:18–24. Oehen, Bernadette, Sylvain Quiédeville, Matthias Stolze, Pauline Verriere, and Rosa Binimelis. 2018. Socio-Economic Impacts of GMOs on European Agriculture. Brussels, Belgium. Palaudelmàs, Montserrat, Gisela Peñas, Enric Melé, Joan Serra, Jordi Salvia, Maria Pla, Anna Nadal, and Joaquima Messeguer. 2009. ‘Effect of Volunteers on Maize Gene Flow’. Transgenic Research 18(4):583–94. Parrett, Tom. 2015. ‘GMO Scientists Could Save the World From Hunger, If We Let Them’. Newsweek, May 21, 1–6. Pascher, Kathrin. 2016. ‘Spread of Volunteer and Feral Maize Plants in Central Europe: Recent Data from Austria’. Environmental Sciences Europe 28(30):1–8. Pavec, Jan. 2015. ‘Česká Média a Veřejný Euroskepticismus’. Univerzita Karlova v Praze. Pěstování geneticky modifikovaných rostlin [Cultivation of genetically modified plants]. (2015, May 28). Conference organized by Ministry of Agriculture in Prague, Czech Republic. Powerbase. 2011. “Genius”. Powerbase. Retrieved November 20, 2019 (http://powerbase.info/index.php/Genius). Předpis č. 252/1997 Sb. Zákon o zemědělství. 1997. Předpis č. 252/1997 Sb. Zákon o 150

Zemědělství. Price, Becky and Janet Cotter. 2014. ‘The GM Contamination Register: A Review of Recorded Contamination Incidents Associated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), 1997–2013’. International Journal of Food Contamination 1(5):1–13. Radová, Štěpánka. 2011. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt. Kukuřice v Roce 2010 Prováděného Státní Rostlinolékařskou Správou. Brno. Radová, Štěpánka. 2012. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt. Kukuřice v Roce 2011 Prováděného Státní Rostlinolékařskou Správou. Brno. Radová, Štěpánka. 2013. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt-Kukuřice v Roce 2012 Prováděného Státní Rostlinolékařskou Správou. Brno. Radová, Štěpánka. 2014. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt-Kukuřice v Roce 2013 Prováděného Ústředním Kontrolním a Zkušebním Ústavem Zemědělským. Brno. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. 2003. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. Riss, Jorgo. 2017. ‘Open Letter to Commission President Juncker’. 1–5. Retrieved 22 March 2019 (https://storage.googleapis.com/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2018/08/a5bcf656- a5bcf656-20170410_president_juncker_gmo_authorisations.pdf). Rosenberg, John P. and Patsy M. Yates. 2007. ‘Schematic representation of case study research designs’. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(4):447–452. Roudná, M. and et al, eds. 2011. Genetické Modifikace v České Republice a Opatření k Zajištění Biologické Bezpečnosti. Praha: Ministerstvo životního prostředí. Roudná, Milena, ed. 2008. Genetické Modifikace - Možnosti Jejich Využití a Rizika. Prague, Czech Republic: Ministerstvo životního prostředí. Ruiz Ruiz, Jorge. 2009. ‘Sociological Discourse Analysis: Methods and Logic’. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 10(2):1–30. Rzymski, Piotr and Aleksandra Królczyk. 2016. ‘Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Organisms in Poland: To GMO or Not to GMO?’ Food Security 8(3):689–97. Sálusová, Dana. 2018. České Zemědělství Očima Statistiky 1918-2017. Prague, Czech Republic. Schiefer, Christian, Rolf Schubert, Birgit Pölitz, Angela Kühne, Karsten Westphal, Olaf Steinhöfel, and Annette Schaerff. 2008. Untersuchungen Zum Anbau von GVO in Sachsen. Dresden, Germany: Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. Sehnal, František and Jaroslav Drobník, eds. 2009. White Book Genetically Modified Crops. České Budějovice: Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v. v. i. Šejnohová, Hana, Sabina Warthová, Jana Babáčková, and Lucie Rádlová. 2018. Statistická Šetření Ekologického Zemědělství: Základní Statistické Údaje (2017). Selwet, Marek. 2011. ‘Maize Plants Infestation by Fusarium Spp. and Deoxynivalenol in Genetically Modified Corn Hybrid and Traditional Maize Cultivars’. Polish Journal of Microbiology 60(4):317–321. Skevas, Theodoros, Enoch M. Kikulwe, Helen Papadopoulou, Ioannis Skevas, and Justus Wesseler. 2012. ‘Do European Union Farmers Reject Genetically Modified Maize? 151

Farmer Preferences for Genetically Modified Maize in Greece’. AgBioForum 15(3):242– 56. Skevas, Theodoros, Justus Wesseler, and Pedro Fevereiro. 2009. ‘Coping with Ex-Ante Regulations for Planting Bt Maize: The Portuguese Experience’. AgBioForum 12(1):60– 69. Slezáková, L. et al. 2005. ‘Toxigenic Micromycetes and Their Mycotoxins in Grains of Transgenic Bt-Maize Hybrid and Non-Transgenic Hybrids’. P. 112 in MendelNet ´05 Agro – sborník abstraktů z konference posluchačů postgraduálního doktorského studia, edited by P. Ryant, R. Cerkal, T. Středa, and K. Vejražka. Brno: Mendelova zemědělská a lesnická univerzita v Brně. Slezáková, L., J. Remešová, František Kocourek, and K. Říha. 2006. ‘Toxigenic Micromycetes and Their Mycotoxins in Grains of Transgenic Bt-Maize Hybrid and Non- Transgenic Hybrids’. Pp. 159–164 in Proceedings of the meeting Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms, edited by J. Romeis and M. Meissle. Lleida, Spain. Sørensen, Catharine. 2007. ‘Euroscepticism: A Conceptual Analysis and a Longitudinal Cross-Country Examination of Public Scepticism towards the European Union’ University of Copenhagen. Spencer, Liz, Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis, and Lucy Dillon. 2003. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence. London. De Steur, Hans, Ellen J. Van Loo, Jasmien Maes, Godelieve Gheysen, and Wim Verbeke. 2019. ‘Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Late Blight-Resistant Genetically Modified Potatoes’. Agronomy 9(6):1–17. Stöckelová, Tereza. 2004. ‘Politics of GMO in the Czech Republic: A Case Study in Public Accountability’. Pp. 56–75 in Environmental controversies in technical democracy: Three case studies, edited by Z. Konopásek, T. Stöckelová, T. Vajdová, and L. Zamykalová. Prague, Czech Republic. Stöckelová, Tereza. 2008. Biotechnologizace: Legitimita, Materialita a Možnosti Odporu. Sociologic. Prague, Czech Republic: Sociologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i. Stratilová, Zuzana. 2015. ‘Přínosy a Úskalí Pěstování GM Rostlin v ČR’. Pp. 10–14 in Osivo a sadba. Praha: Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze. Švéda, Josef. 2016. Země zaslíbená, země zlořečená: obrazy Ameriky v české literatuře a kultuře. Příbram: Pistorius & Olšanská. Then, Christoph. 2015. ‘Comments to the “Scientific Advice to the European Commission on the Internal Review Submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the Application of the Provisions of the Aarhus Convention against the Commission Implementing Decision 2015/687 to Author’. 1–12. Retrieved 11 November 2017 (https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Analysis_EFSA_MON88032 _September_2015_0.pdf). Then, Christoph and Christof Pothof. 2009. Risk Reloaded: Risk Analysis of Genetically Engineered Plants within the European Union. München, Germany. Thieme, T. G. M., C. Buuk, K. Gloyna, F. Ortego, and G. P. Farinós. 2018. ‘Ten Years of MON 810 Resistance Monitoring of Field Populations of Ostrinia Nubilalis in Europe’. Journal of Applied Entomology (142):192–200. Tillie, Pascal, Koen Dillen, and Emilio Rodríguez-Cerezo. 2016. ‘Perception of Coexistence 152

Measures by Farmers in Five European Union Member States’. EuroChoices 15(1):17– 23. Toman, Miroslav, Stanislav Codl, and Petr Tuček. 2012. České Zemědělství Očima Těch, Kteří u Toho Byli. Praha: Národní zemědělské muzeum Praha. Tovey, Hilary. 1997. ‘“We Can All Use Calculators Now”: Productionism, Sustainability, and the Profesional Formation of Farming in Co. Meath, Ireland’. Pp. 129–58 in Sustainable Rural Development, edited by H. de Haan, B. Kasimis, and M. Redclift. Aldershot: Ashgate. Traavik, Terje and li lim Ching, eds. 2007. Biosafety First. Trondheim, Norway: Norsk institutt for genøkologi (GenØk), Tromsø & Tapir Academic Press. Trnková, Jana and et al. 2017. Organisation and Inspection of GM Crops Cultivation in the Czech Republic. Prague, Czech Republic: The Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací. 2018. Zpráva o Stavu Zemědělství ČR Za Rok 2017. Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. 2015. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt Kukuřice v Roce 2014 Prováděného Ústředním Kontrolním a Zkušebním Ústavem Zemědělským. Brno. Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. 2016. Závěrečná Zpráva: Výsledky Monitoringu Účinnosti Bt Kukuřice v Roce 2015 Prováděného ÚKZÚZ. Brno. Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. 2017. Monitoring Výskytu Zavíječe Kukuřičného a Původce Bělorůžové Hniloby Obilek Kukuřice v Roce 2016. Brno. Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. 2018. Monitoring Výskytu Zavíječe Kukuřičného a Původce Bělorůžové Hniloby Obilek Kukuřice v Roce 2017. Brno. Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský. 2020. “Škodlivé organismy.” eAGRI. Retrieved July, 10, 2020 (http://eagri.cz/public/app/srs_pub/fytoportal/public/#rlp|so|skudci|detail:c18ccd9cbe2ba 381e37b810d0c44bd5f|vyskyt) Veřejná schůze České komise pro nakládání s geneticky modifikovanými organismy a genetickými produkty. (2015, May 2019). Public meeting of the CC GMO in Brno, Czech Republic Verriere, Pauline. 2014. Preventing GMO Contamination: An Overview of National ‘Coexistence’ Measures in the EU. Brussels, Belgium. Vyskočil, Miroslav and Jiří Fiala. 2014. Zpráva z Úředních Kontrol Krmivářských Podniků, Provedených Pracovníky ÚKZÚZ v Roce 2013. Praha. Waltz, Emily. 2017. ‘First Transgenic Salmon Sold’. Nature. Wickson, Fern and Brian Wynne. 2012. ‘Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe’. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15(3):321–40. Wikipedia contributors. 2020. “Sweet potato”. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved June 20, 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_potato#Transgenicity). Williams, Malcolm. 2000. ‘Interpretivism and Generalisation’. Sociology, 34:209–24. Wilson, Geoff A. 2001. ‘From Productivism to Post-Productivism ... and Back Again? Exploring the (Un)Changed Natural and Mental Landscapes of European Agriculture’. 153

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26(1):77–102. Wolf, Daniel and Gregor Albisser Vögeli. 2009. ‘Ökonomischer Nutzen von Bt-Mais Ist Relativ’. Agrarforschung 16(1):4–9. Yin, K. Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Third. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Zagata, Lukas. 2010. ‘How Organic Farmers View Their Own Practice: Results from the Czech Republic’. Agriculture and Human Values 27(3):277–90. Zákon č. 242/2000 Sb. 2000. Zákon č. 242/2000 Sb., o Ekologickém Zemědělství a o Změně Zákona č. 368/1992 Sb., o Správních Poplatcích, ve Znění Pozdějších Předpisů. Zákon o svobodném přístupu k informacím. 1999. Zákon o Svobodném Přístupu k Informacím č. 106/1999 Sb.

154

Appendices

155

Appendix 1 Table 7 Characteristics of the farms of interviewed GM farmers. Farm Form of Type of Farm Year Number of Production Length of Acreage Bt maize fields Interviews Surrounding business farmed land area of turnover employees details Bt maize of Bt neighboured with landscape around arable (millions cultivation maize in with fields of neighbours Bt maize fields land of CZK) 2015 (Ha)

G1 LLC arable soil 3075 200 and 100 and wheat, barley, 7 years 101 Ha the same owner 2 contacted, field, permanent and more more spring cereals, (14% of and 5 other no interview grassland, forest permanent rapeseed, maize farm owners conducted and water grassland silage, fodder; maize reservoir dairy and beef acreage) cattle, pigs

G2 Natural arable soil 60 up to 4 up to 4 cereals, clover, 9 years 7 Ha (78% the same owner 1 contacted, field, permanent person and maize silage; of farm and 2 other no interview grassland and permanent dairy cattle maize owners conducted water reservoir grassland acreage)

G3 Co-op arable soil 1200 10-49 25-49 wheat, barley, 8 years 39 Ha (8% the same owner 2 contacted, field, permanent and rye, rapeseed, of farm and 5 other no interview grassland, forest permanent maize silage, maize owners conducted and water grassland forage legumes; acreage) reservoir dairy cattle

G4 LLC arable soil 2500 100-199 50-99 wheat, soy, 10 years 123 Ha the same owner 1 contacted, field, forest, water and maize grain and (17% of and 1 different no interview reservoir and permanent silage, rapeseed, farm owner conducted settlement grassland fodder; dairy maize cattle, pigs acreage)

156

G5 LLC arable soil 950 100-199 50-99 rapeseed, maize 10 years 63 Ha the same owner 1 contacted, field, permanent and silage, alfalfa; (19% of and 1 different no interview grassland and permanent dairy cattle, pigs farm owner conducted settlement grassland maize acreage)

G6 LLC arable soil 1600 50-99 50-99 wheat, barley, 5 years 39 Ha the same owner 1 contacted, field rapeseed, sugar and 4 other no interview beet, maize grain owners conducted and silage, alfalfa, forage legumes; pigs, dairy cattle, heifers, calves

G7 LLC arable soil 1700 100-199 50-99 wheat, barley, 6 years 52 Ha the same owner 2 contacted, field, permanent and rapeseed, maize (12% of and 2 other no interview grassland, forest, permanent silage, poppy, farm owners conducted water reservoir grassland potatoes; dairy maize and settlement and beef cattle, acreage) breeding sows

G8 Co-op arable soil 6500 200 and 100 and cereals, 10 years 337 Ha the same owner 12 contacted, field, permanent and more more rapeseed, poppy, (40% of and 27 other 5 interviews grassland, forest, permanent maize silage, farm owners (6 of conducted water reservoir grassland fodder; dairy maize them with with farmers and settlement. cattle, heifers, acreage) organic C1, O1, O2, O3 Some Bt maize bulls production) and O4 fields bordered with a nature reserve

157

G9 LLC arable soil 1941 50-99 10-24 wheat, rapeseed, 6 years 105 Ha the same owner - field, forest and and maize grain and (24% of settlement permanent silage, barley, farm grassland forage crops; maize cattle, pigs, acreage) poultry

G10 Natural arable soil 425 N/A 5-9 wheat, barley, 9 years 82 Ha the same owner 6 contacted, 1 field, permanent person and maize silage, (80% of and 8 other interview grassland, water permanent forage legumes; farm owners (1 of conducted reservoir and grassland dairy and beef maize them with with farmer C1 settlement cattle acreage) organic production)

Most of the data were obtained from the interviewees. Bt maize acreage is indicated according to the Ministry of Agriculture. Data on the neighbouring owners and landscape is drawn from LPIS. Data on the number of employees and year turnover that were not indicated by some farmers are drawn from publicly accessible registers on the webpages of www.hbi.cz, www.edb.cz, rejstrik-firem.kurzy.cz. The data were valid for March 2016.

158

Table 8 Characteristics of interviewed GM farmers. All owners were farm managers at the same time. Farmer Position at the Length of the employment at this Age in 2019 Highest education level farm position (years) (years) achieved

G1 agronomist N/A 51 university degree

G2 owner 26 64 university degree

G3 agronomist N/A 62 matura exam

G4 agronomist 14 43 matura exam

G5 agronomist 15 43 university degree

G6 agronomist 12 52 university degree

G7 agronomist 7 38 university degree

G8 agronomist 12 40 university degree

G9 agronomist 20 61 university degree

G10 owner 4 38 N/A

Quantitative characteristics of the surveyed GM farmers and their farms These figures are based on the quantitative survey data. The farmers were between 31 and 65 years old (n=33, median 49). Eighty-eight percent (29 out of 33) of them were in the function of an agronomist on the farm when Bt maize was first cultivated there. The highest level of education achieved by 67% (23 out of 34) of the farmers was a university degree, 9% (three out of 34) of them had attended a higher professional school, and 24% (eight out of 34) of them had passed the ‘matura’ (school-leaving) exam. Ninety-two percent (33 out of 36) of the farms operated both plant and animal production, while 8% (three out of 36) focused only on plant production. Other characteristics are presented in the following table.

Table 9 Quantitative characteristics of the farms of surveyed GM farmers. Farm area of arable Year turnover Number of employees land (Ha) (millions of CZK) Minimum 60 4 3 Maximum 6500 286 150 Median 1629 120 58 Valid answers 36 21 33

159

Appendix 2 Table 10 Characteristics of the interviewed conventional farmers and their farms. Farm/ Form of Type of Farm Year Number of Production details Neighbour of Position at Length of the Age in Highest business farmed land area of turnover employees GM farmer the farm employment at 2019 education farmer arable (millions this position (years) level land of CZK) (years) achieved (Ha)

C1 JSC arable soil 680 10-49 5-9 rape seed, wheat, G8 and G10 in farm 1 55 university and barley, oats, poppy, 2015 manager degree permanent soya, peas, maize grassland silage, alfalfa; beef cattle, pigs

C2 Co-op arable soil 405 10-49 50-99 N/A G4 in 2014 owner N/A N/A N/A and permanent grassland

C3 LLC arable soil 1500 N/A 10-24 cereals, rape seed, non- agronomist 4 40 university sugar beet, soya, interviewed degree maize silage GM farmer in 2014

C4 Co-op arable soil 1579 50-99 25-49 cereals, grain and non- agronomist 36 63 university and silage maize, rape interviewed degree permanent seed, sugar beet; GM farmer in grassland dairy and beef 2014 cattle, heifers, pigs

160

C5 JSC arable soil 1000 50-99 25-49 rape seed, wheat, G4 in 2014 agronomist 30 56 university and barley, grain and degree permanent silage maize, soya, grassland forage legumes; dairy and beef cattle

C6 LLC arable soil 1200 N/A 25-49 wheat, barley, rape G2 in 2014 agronomist 2 31 matura and seed, silage maize, exam permanent fodder; dairy cattle grassland

C7 Co-op arable soil 3200 200 and 50-99 cereals, maize, non- agronomist 9 35 university and more oleaginous crops, interviewed degree permanent potatoes, fodder; GM farmer in grassland dairy cattle, 2014 breeding sows, pigs

Most of the data were obtained from the interviewees. Data on the number of employees and year turnover that were not indicated by some farmers is drawn from publicly accessible registers on the webpages of www.hbi.cz, www.edb.cz, rejstrik-firem.kurzy.cz. The data were valid for March 2019.

161

Appendix 3 Table 11 Characteristics of the interviewed organic farmers and their farms. Source of data as in Table 10. Farm/ Form of Type of Farm Year Number of Production details Neighbour Position Length of the Age in Highest business farmed land area of turnover employees of GM at the employment 2019 education farmer arable (millions of farmer farm at this (years) level land CZK) position achieved (Ha) (years)

O1 LLC arable soil 100 N/A 10-24 cereals, maize, fodder; G8 in 2015 farm 3 25 university and beef cattle, sheep manager degree permanent grassland

O2 Natural arable soil 100 up to 4 up to 4 wheat, barley, oats, G8 in 2015 owner N/A 37 matura person and forage legumes; beef exam permanent cattle, pigs, sheep, horses grassland

O3 Natural arable soil 28 N/A up to 4 N/A G8 in 2015 owner N/A N/A N/A person

O4 Natural arable soil 110 10-49 5-9 cereals, maize, soya, G8 in 2015 owner 12 38 matura person and sorghum, forage legumes; exam permanent beef cattle, pigs, sheep, grassland poultry, horses

O5 JSC arable soil 233 5-9 up to 4 root vegetable, poppy, non- owner 9 41 matura seed production of interviewed exam cereals, legumes and GM farmer oleaginous crops in 2014

162

Appendix 4 Table 12 The relationship of the elements of farmers’ discourses (categories) to the lower units of the grounded theory analysis (initial and focused codes). Interviews in Initial codes Focused codes Categories which the initial code was used G2, G3, G4, G5, GMOs perceived safer than GMOs perceived safer Constructing G6, G7, G8, 10, C1, chemicals than chemicals safety C3, C5, C7, O4 G4, G9 No big effects observed Arguing for safety by own experience G4, G9, G10 Long-term safe cultivation experienced

G4, G10, C1, O4 Long-term safe cultivation Arguing for safety with reported external information

G2 Bt used in organic agriculture

C1 Scientific evidence says GMOs are safe G2 GE is precise G2, G6, O1 GE is natural C2 GE is as safe as mutagenesis

C4, O1, O3 Distrusting industry studies Challenging the legitimacy Perceiving risks of scientific evidence

O1 Concerned by scientific uncertainties

O5 Perceiving GMOs as toxic Perceiving GMOs as harmful O1 Perceiving HT GM crops as harmful for nature

G6, G9, C5 Doubting what is safer: GMOs Doubting safety or chemicals

G1, G2, G3, G4, Bt maize contains fewer Bt maize is a quality Praising benefits G5, G7, G8, G10, mycotoxins product C1, C3, C4

G4, G5, G6, G7, Bt maize is quality food and G10, C3 feed G1, G2, G3, G4, Bt maize cover is healthy (not G5, G6, G7, G8, damaged by pest) G9, G10

163

C3, O1 Some GM crops designed to GM crops are beneficial improve the nutritious quality for human health

G4 GM crops safer for farmers than pesticide applications

G4, G5, G7, G8, O4 Bt maize is beneficial for the Cultivation of GM crops is environment beneficial for the environment G2, G5, C1 GM crops are beneficial for the environment

G4, C1, C3, O4 HT GM crops are beneficial for the environment

G4, G5, G7, G8, GM crops better for the C1, C5, C6, C7, O4 environment than chemicals

O1 GM crops as a provisional measure to reduce the chemical load

G4, G5, G9, C3 Bt maize saves time and work Cultivation of GM crops saves time and work

G8, C1, C3 GM crops save time and work

G7, G8, C1 GM crops cheaper than Cultivation of GM crops conventional farming saves money

G4, G6, C1, C5 GM crops cheaper than using chemicals G7 Growing HT GM crops leads to Questioning benefits Questioning herbicide resistance in weeds benefits

O5 GM crops are useless G2, G6, O1 GE is natural GM crops and plant GE GM crops ethically acceptable ethically justified

O4 GE acceptable if gene not able to spread into wild populations C6 GMOs bring more benefits than risks G2, C6 GE of a plant DNA legitimate

G2 Experts in the right to GE

164

O1 GE ethically right for fighting GM crops justified by malnutrition feeding the world

G4, G6, G7, C1, C6 GM crops needed to feed the growing population

O2 GE unethical GM crops and plant GE GM crops ethically unacceptable ethically unacceptable O1 GM crops are an intrusion into nature G4, G8, C1 GE and GMOs called a GM crops equated with GM crops progress progress equated with progress O1 GM crops called an innovation

C1 GM farmers called as “enlightened” G4, G7, C5, C6 Admiring long-term broad- Looking up to the USA Looking up to the scale GMOs cultivation in the USA USA

G4, G7, C1, C5, C6 Perceiving the progressivity of USA farming

G4, G7, C1, C6 Perceiving the openness of the USA towards GMOs

C1 EU precautionary principle hinders progress

G7, C5, C7 Non-GM production more Not growing GM crops GM crops costly perceived as an economic inevitable hazard G7, C1 EU depends on (GM) feed import G3, G7, C7 Wish to be able to grow GMOs

C5, C7 Wish to be protected against the cheap import of GMOs

G8 GM crops ensure the GM crops perceived as maximization of yields and the only solution minimalization of costs

G6, C6 GM crops feed the world despite agri-chemicals being forbidden

165

G5 GM crops necessary for sustainable development

G4, G5, G8, C1 Supports GM crops Supporting GM crops Open attitudes G4, G5, G8, C1 to GM crops

G8 Advocates GM crops C4, O2, O5 Opposing GM crops Opposing GM crops C4, O2, O5 G2, G7, C1 GMO opposers are influenced Portraying GMO opposers Portraying the others G2, G3, C1 GMO opposers are not right

G4, G6, G7, C1, C3, EU as GMO opposer C4, C7

C1 Fearing GMOs is irrational

G1, G7, C7 Arguing against GMOs is Portraying arguments political against GMOs

G7, C1 Arguing against GMOs is unscientific G7, C1, C6, C7 Arguing against GMOs follows market interests

O4 Environmentalists argue against GMOs on an ethical basis G1, G4, G7, C1, A limited number of permitted Lobbying for or against GM crops in the EU results GMOs from a lobby

O1, O5 Lobbying for GMOs without a risk assessment

G7 Lobbying NGOs G7 Lobbying ecoterrorists

G7 Lobbying chemical and seed companies G1, C1 Lobbying European companies

O1, O5 Lobbying GM crops and/or chemicals companies

C1 Believing in technology fixes Techno-optimism Farmers’ perspectives G2, G4, G5, C1 Supporting the use of technology in agriculture

166

G8 Biodiversity competes Anthropocentrism production G4 Humanity depends on pollinators C1 Humans improve nature

C6 Humans want to possess control of genetics

G3, G5, G6, G8, Bt maize=conventional Reductionism G10 maize+1 gene

G2 GE likened to abiotic engineering G6, C1, C2 It must pay off Productivism G7, C6 Farming is a business G4, G6, G7, C1, C6 GM crops needed to feed the growing population

G8 Biodiversity competes production

167

Appendix 5 Interview guide for Czech Bt maize growers

Translated from the original Czech version by the author.

General questions about Bt and conventional maize growing 1. When did you grow Bt maize for the first time? 2. What made you to start Bt maize cultivation?

3. How many years have you been growing Bt maize?

4. What made you to continue Bt maize cultivation?

5. Did you grow conventional maize before you started to grow Bt maize cultivation?

5.1. If yes: Was European corn borer a significant pest at your farm?

5.2. Did you use insecticides against European corn borer or biological protection, e.g. Trichogramma?

Questions related to the last season – year 2015 1. How large was the area and how many fields did you grow Bt maize on in 2015? 1.1. Please specify the names of the Bt maize hybrids that you grew in 2015. 2. How large was the area that you grew conventional maize on in 2015? 2.1. Please specify the names of the conventional maize hybrids that you grew in 2015. Characteristics of the land and soil (2015) 1. What is the slant of fields where maize is grown (a range suffices, e.g. 2–5°):

1.1. Bt maize:

1.2. Conventional maize:

2. Please specify the proportion of organic matter in the soil where maize is grown:

2.1. Bt maize:

2.2. Conventional maize:

Agricultural techniques (2015) 1. Please specify when did the sowing take place (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different):

1.1. Grain maize:

1.2. Silage maize:

2. Please specify when did the harvest take place (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different):

2.1. Grain maize:

2.2. Silage maize:

168

3. How many times did you enter maize cover between sowing and harvest? (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different)

4. What pesticides did you use on the Bt and conventional field(s)? Please specify their names (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different).

4.1. Did the amount of pesticides used on hectare differ between Bt and conventional maize?

4.2. Did you use biological protection (e.g. Trichogramma) in maize fields?

5. What fertilizers did you use on Bt and conventional maize fields? (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different)

6. Do you think it is possible for maize to form volunteers on fields where it was previously grown?

6.1. How do you manage such plants?

6.2. What cover were they formed in?

6.3. Have you observed any difference in the rate of volunteers formed from Bt and conventional maize?

7. What crops were and will be grown on the fields where Bt maize was grown in 2015? 2014:...... , 2015:...... , 2016:......

7.1. If Bt maize was cultivated on fields where conventional maize was grown subsequently, do you control the occurrence of Bt maize plant volunteers in the conventional maize cover?

8. Do you use classical management of soil or any kind of minimization? (specify separately for Bt and conventional maize, if different)

9. What was the hectare yield in 2015? (comparable fields: FAO, hybrid, hectarage, soil...)

9.1. Bt maize

9.1.1. Grain:

9.1.2. Silage:

9.2. Conventional maize

9.2.1. Grain:

9.2.2. Silage:

10. How did you use harvested Bt maize?

10.1. If used as feed, have you observed any difference in the animals fed Bt and conventional maize?

11. How did you use harvested conventional maize?

12. If you sowed a refuge:

12.1. How large was the area and what was its form? 169

12.2. Please specify the names of the hybrids.

12.3. What was the distance of the refuge from the Bt maize field?

12.4. Did the management of the refuge differ from Bt maize fields?

Pests (2015) 1. What was the maize disease pressure (fungal, viral) compared to previous seasons? (higher, same, lower)

1.1. Did you observe any difference in the rate of disease infestation between Bt and conventional maize?

2. What was the maize pest pressure (insects, mites, nematodes) compared to previous seasons? (higher, same, lower)

2.1. Did you observe any difference in the rate of pest infestation between Bt and conventional maize?

3. What was the pressure of European corn borer compared to previous seasons? (higher, same, lower)

3.1. Was it a significant pest?

3.2. Did you observe any Bt maize plants infested by European corn borer?

3.3. Did you observe any conventional maize plants infested by European corn borer?

3.4. Did you observe any difference in the rate of European corn borer infestation between Bt and conventional maize?

4. What was the weed occurrence in maize cover compared to previous seasons? (higher, same, lower)

4.1. Specify the most frequent weeds:

4.1.1. On Bt maize field(s):

4.1.2. On conventional maize field(s):

Biodiversity (2015) 1. Did you obtain the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire (arranged by the Czech University of Life Sciences) regarding Bt maize cultivation during the time you grew it? 1.1. If yes: what do you think about the observation of potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields? 2. What was the occurrence of various species on Bt maize field(s), its margins and the adjacent area compared to conventional maize field(s)? 2.1. Insects in general: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 2.2. Beneficial insect predators (e.g. lacewing, ladybird, mantis): higher/same/lower/cannot assess 2.3. Butterflies: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 2.4. Pollinators: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 170

2.5. Birds: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 2.6. Mammals: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 3. Was there any difference in the weed species and/or amount in the cover and its margins of Bt and conventional maize? 4. Has it ever occurred to you to observe potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields from your own initiative? 5. Did you grow insect-pollinated plants (e.g. orchards, berry plants, cucurbitaceous) in the vicinity of Bt maize field(s)? 5.1. If yes: Did you observe any difference in the yield of the insect-pollinated plants in comparison to years in which you did not grow Bt maize? Co-existence 1. Have you controlled the admixture of Bt maize in the conventional maize or other crop harvest? 1.1. If yes: Have your farm born the cost? 2. When growing Bt maize, you (choose one): 2.1. Used only your own mechanization. 2.2. Also used services. 2.2.1. If yes: How did you prevent the contamination with Bt maize of other crops? 2.3. Also offered services. 2.3.1. If yes: How did you prevent the contamination with Bt maize of other crops? Comparison of the experience before and after Bt maize adoption 1. Did you observe any difference in the resilience against extreme climate conditions (e.g. drought, freeze) between Bt and conventional maize? 2. Did the amount of insecticides used on hectare of maize change compared to the time when you did not grow Bt maize? 3. Some agronomists state that they experienced time saving, some others experienced higher time demands, and others still did not experience any change after Bt maize adoption. How is it on your farm?

4. Did the unit costs of maize production change after Bt maize adoption? If yes, how?

Other questions 1. Has your farm been offered a training regarding genetically modified (GM) crops? If yes, who did attend it?

2. To what extent do you feel informed about the benefits and potential risks related to the production of Bt maize? Choose on the scale 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 from 1 (excellent) to 5 (insufficient).

3. Are you satisfied with the offer and availability of the seeds of Bt and conventional maize? 4. Do you buy Bt and conventional maize seeds from the same supplier?

5. Do you plan to continue Bt maize cultivation in the year 2016? Why?

6. Imagine that there was another GM maize or other crop permitted for cultivation, would you grow it? Why?

7. Do you have any idea if the occurrence of allergies of plant production workers changed compared to the time when Bt maize was not cultivated?

8. Are plant production workers instructed to observe and report potential differences on and around Bt maize fields compared to conventional maize fields?

171

9. Have you made any unusual observation related to Bt maize cultivation or differences between Bt and conventional maize fields which you have not mentioned yet?

10. Does any of your farming neighbours grow maize? What is their attitude to the fact that you have cultivated Bt maize?

11. Is there anything that we did not cover and you would like to mention it?

12. Would you like to ask anything?

Farm 1. How many hectares of agricultural and/or arable soil does your farm manage? 2. What is the proportion of own and hired agricultural and/or arable soil? 3. What is the year turnover of the farm? 4. What is the number of the employees? 5. Your farm is specialised in: animal/plant/combined production Agronomist 1. Year of birth: 2. Highest level of education achieved: 3. You have been and agronomist at this farm since the year:

172

Appendix 6 Questionnaire sent to Czech Bt maize growers

Modified from the online version and translated from the original Czech version by the author.

Bt maize cultivation 1. When did you grow Bt maize for the first time? 2. What made you to start Bt maize cultivation? 3. How many years did you grow Bt maize? 3.1. If more than one year: What made you to continue Bt maize cultivation? Conventional maize cultivation 1. Did you grow conventional maize before you started to grow Bt maize cultivation? Yes/no

1.1. If yes:

1.1.1. Was European corn borer a significant pest at your farm? Yes/no

1.1.2. Did you use insecticides against European corn borer? Yes/no

1.1.3. Did you use biological protection against European corn borer, e.g. Trichogramma? Yes/no

Bt maize cultivation 1. What made you to discontinue Bt maize cultivation? 2. Do you use insecticides against European corn borer after returning to conventional maize cultivation? Yes/no Agricultural techniques and agronomic characteristics of Bt maize 1. Was there any difference in the number of entries into maize cover between Bt and conventional maize? No/yes, the number of entries into Bt maize cover was lower/yes, the number of entries into Bt maize cover was higher/don’t know 2. Was there any difference in the kind and/or amount of pesticides used on the Bt and conventional maize? If yes, please specify. No/yes/don’t know/else 3. Did you use biological protection (e.g. Trichogramma) in maize fields? No/yes/don’t know 4. Was there any difference in the kind and/or amount of fertilizers used on Bt and conventional maize fields? If yes, please specify. No/yes/don’t know/else 5. Did you observe any difference in the rate of volunteers formed from Bt and conventional maize? If yes, please specify. No/yes/don’t know/else 6. Did you control potential occurrence of Bt maize plant volunteers in the subsequent cover? No/yes/don’t know 7. Did you observe any difference in the resilience against extreme climate conditions (e.g. drought, freeze) between Bt and conventional maize? If yes, please specify. No/yes/don’t know/else 8. Did you observe any difference in the yield between Bt and conventional maize (with regard to the cultivation conditions: same season, comparable fields: FAO, hybrid, hectarage, soil...)? No/yes, the yield of Bt maize was higher compared to conventional maize – specify the difference in percent/yes, the yield of Bt maize was lower compared to conventional maize – specify the difference in percent/don’t know/else 9. How did you use harvested Bt maize? Feed/food/biogas facility/sale/don’t know/else

9.1. If used as feed, have you observed any difference in the animals fed Bt and conventional maize? Please specify.

10. How did you use harvested conventional maize? Feed/food/biogas facility/sale/don’t know/else

173

11. Did you grow conventional maize each season that you grew Bt maize? Yes/no/don’t know 12. Did you grow the so-called refuge? Yes/no 12.1. If yes: 12.1.1. What was its form? Buffer strip/part of Bt maize field/conventional maize field in the vicinity of Bt maize field/don’t know/else 12.1.2. What percentage of hectarage did it take? 12.1.3. Did the management of the refuge differ from Bt maize fields? Please specify. No/yes/don’t know/else

12.2. If not: The reason was: conventional maize field in the vicinity of Bt maize field was considered a refuge/you cultivated less than 5 Ha of Bt maize/else

Pests and weeds Did you observe, with regard to the cultivation conditions (comparable fields: FAO, hybrid, hectarage, soil...) any difference between Bt and conventional maize in the respective seasons? Please specify. 1. In the rate of disease infestation (fungal, viral)? No/yes/don’t know/else 2. In the rate of European corn borer infestation? No/yes/don’t know/else 3. In the rate of the infestation with other pest (insects, mites, nematodes)? No/yes/don’t know/else 4. In the rate of the occurrence of weeds in the Bt and conventional maize cover? No/yes/don’t know/else 5. Did you observe the occurrence of teosinte, the wild ancestor of maize, that has been spreading in Spain since 2009? Yes/no/don’t know Biodiversity 1. What was the occurrence of various species on Bt maize field(s), its margins and the adjacent area compared to conventional maize field(s)? 1.1. Insects in general: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 1.2. Beneficial insect predators (e.g. lacewing, ladybird, mantis): higher/same/lower/cannot assess 1.3. Butterflies: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 1.4. Pollinators: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 1.5. Birds: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 1.6. Mammals: higher/same/lower/cannot assess 2. Was there any difference in the weed species and/or amount in the cover and its margins of Bt and conventional maize? Please specify. Yes/no/cannot assess/else 3. Did you obtain the Monsanto’s farmers’ questionnaire (arranged by the Czech University of Life Sciences) regarding Bt maize cultivation during the time you grew it? Yes/no/don’t know 3.1. If yes: Did you fill that questionnaire that asked, among other things, about the differences in the occurrence of various species? 3.1.1. If yes: How difficult was it for you to answer the questions in Monsanto’s questionnaire about the occurrence of various species that were similar to the questions posed above? Choose on the scale 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy) 4. Did it occur to you to observe potential differences between Bt and conventional maize fields from your own initiative? Yes/no 5. Did you grow insect-pollinated plants (e.g. orchards, berry plants, cucurbitaceous) in the vicinity of Bt maize field(s)? Yes/no/don’t know 5.1. If yes: Did you observe any difference in the yield of the insect-pollinated plants in comparison to the years in which you did not grow Bt maize? Please specify. Yes/no/don’t know/else

174

6. Would you say that with the work load that you have, an agronomist is able to observe potential differences on Bt maize compared to conventional maize fields? Yes/no/don’t know

Co-existence 1. Did you control the admixture of Bt maize in the conventional maize or other crop harvest? Yes/no/don’t know 1.1. If yes: Did your farm bear the cost? Yes/no/don’t know 2. When growing Bt maize, you (choose one): 2.1. Used only your own mechanization. 2.2. Also used services. 2.2.1. If yes: How did you prevent the contamination with Bt maize of other crops? 2.3. Also offered services. 2.3.1. If yes: How did you prevent the contamination with Bt maize of other crops? Comparison of the experience before and after Bt maize adoption 1. The amount of insecticides used on hectare of maize compared to the time when you did not grow Bt maize: decreased/increased/remained same/don’t know 2. After Bt maize adoption you experienced: time saving/higher time demands/time requirements did not change/don’t know 3. After Bt maize adoption the unit costs of maize production: decreased/increased/did not change/don’t know Satisfaction with maize seeds offer in the time of Bt maize cultivation 1. Were you satisfied with the offer of the seeds of Bt maize? Yes/no/don’t know 2. Were you satisfied with the availability of the seeds of Bt maize? Yes/no/don’t know 3. Were you satisfied with the offer of the seeds of conventional maize? Yes/no/don’t know 4. Were you satisfied with the availability of the seeds of conventional maize? Yes/no/don’t know Awareness 1. Was your farm offered a training regarding genetically modified (GM) crops? Yes/no/don’t know 1.1. If yes, who did attend it? 2. To what extent do you feel informed about the benefits and potential risks related to the production of Bt maize? Choose on the scale 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 from 1 (excellent) to 5 (insufficient).

3. What sources did you draw information about Bt maize and GM crops in general from? Advisor/seed supplier/agronomist/expert articles/web pages of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of the Environment/else Outlook 1. Do you plan to return to Bt maize cultivation? Yes/no/don’t know 1.1. Can you specify the reasons? 2. Imagine that there was another GM maize or other crop permitted for cultivation, would you grow it? Yes/no/don’t know

2.1. Can you specify the reasons? Differences between Bt and conventional maize 1. Did you notice any difference in the occurrence of allergies of plant production workers compared to the time when Bt maize was not cultivated? Please specify. Yes/no/don’t know/else 2. Were plant production workers instructed to observe and report potential differences on and around Bt maize fields compared to conventional maize fields? Yes/no/don’t know

3. Did you make any unusual observation related to Bt maize cultivation or differences between Bt and conventional maize fields which you have not mentioned yet? Please specify. Yes/no/don’t know/else 175

Farming neighbours 1. What was the attitude of your farming neighbours to the fact that you cultivated Bt maize? 2. Did you have any organically farming neighbours in the time that you cultivated Bt maize? Yes/no/don’t know 2.1. If yes: Can you please indicate the name of that farm? Biogas facility 13. Is there a biogas facility at your farm? Yes/no

4. If yes, did the composition and/or hectarage of cultivated crops change as a consequence of putting it into operation? Please specify. Yes/no/don’t know/else Additional information 1. If you wish to add any information, feel free to do it here: Farm 6. How many hectares of arable soil does your farm manage? 7. What is the proportion of own and hired arable soil? 8. What is the year turnover of the farm? 9. What is the number of the employees? 10. Your farm is specialised in: animal/plant/combined production Agronomist 4. Year of birth: 5. Highest level of education achieved: elementary school/high school without matura exam/high school with matura exam/higher professional school/bachelor/master/doctoral 6. You have been and agronomist at this farm since the year:

176

Appendix 7 Interview guide for Czech conventional farmers

Translated from the original Czech version by the author.

By conventional maize classic unmodified hybrids are meant. On the contrary, Bt maize is genetically modified (GM) maize sold under the registered trademark Yieldgard®.

Neighbouring with GM maize fields 1. Did you grow maize in conventional regime at the time when there was Bt maize being grown on the neighbouring fields? 1.1. Was it grain or silage maize? 1.2. What purposes do you use maize for? 1.2.1. Have you ever used Bt maize (e.g. as feed, as input in biogas facility)? If yes, what source was it from (from Czech farmers, your neighbour)? 2. Had your neighbour been interested, before s/he decided to grow Bt maize, in your opinion about his aim? 3. Have you ever been in touch with this neighbour? 4. Did you know that there was Bt maize being grown on the neighbouring fields? 5. Did your neighbour notify to you that s/he aimed to sow Bt maize and that it was consequently sown? (duty if distance up to 140 m) 5.1. If yes, how were you informed? 6. What did you think about your neighbour’s decision to grow Bt maize? 7. Was your farming influenced in any way by the fact that your neighbour grew Bt maize? E.g. your choice of fields for maize sowing, the composition of cultivated crops? (GM farmer must keep a minimum distance of 70 m between GM and conventional maize, or minimally 24.5 m if buffer strips are used) Attitude towards Bt maize and GM crops 1. Have you ever considered to grow Bt maize? 1.1. How did you deliberate? 1.2. What information did you have? 1.3. Has anyone offered you Bt maize seeds? 1.4. Why did you decide not to grow Bt maize in the end? 2. Imagine that there was another GM maize or other crop permitted for cultivation, would you grow it? Why? 3. What do you think about GM crops? Pest 11. Has the European corn borer been a significant pest for you? 12. Have you been using pesticides against or biological control (e.g. Trichogramma) of the European corn borer? 13. Did you observe any difference in the pressure of the following pest in a season when Bt maize was grown on the neighbouring fields in comparison to a season when it was not cultivated there? 13.1. European corn borer 13.2. Other maize pest (insects, mites, nematodes) 13.3. Maize disease (fungal, viral) Other questions 1. Is there anything that we did not cover and you would like to mention it?

177

2. Would you like to ask anything?

Farm 1. How many hectares of agricultural and/or arable soil does your farm manage? 2. What is the proportion of own and hired agricultural and/or arable soil? 3. What is the year turnover of the farm? 4. What is the number of the employees? 5. Your farm is specialised in: animal/plant/combined production Agronomist 7. Year of birth: 8. Highest level of education achieved: 9. What is your position at this farm? How long have you been working on this position at this farm?

178

Appendix 8 Interview guide for Czech organic farmers

Translated from the original Czech version by the author.

Bt maize means genetically modified (GM) maize sold under the registered trademark Yieldgard®.

Neighbouring with GM maize fields 8. Did you grow maize in organic regime at the time when there was Bt maize being grown on the neighbouring fields? 8.1. Was it grain or silage maize? 8.2. What purposes do you use maize for? 9. Had your neighbour been interested, before s/he decided to grow Bt maize, in your opinion about his aim? 10. Have you ever been in touch with this neighbour? 11. Did you know that there was Bt maize being grown on the neighbouring fields? 12. Did your neighbour notify to you that s/he aimed to sow Bt maize and that it was consequently sown? (duty if distance up to 400 m) 12.1. If yes, how were you informed? 13. What did you think about your neighbour’s decision to grow Bt maize? 14. Was your farming influenced in any way by the fact that your neighbour grew Bt maize? E.g. your choice of fields for maize sowing, the composition of cultivated crops? (GM farmer must keep a minimum distance of 200 m between GM and organic maize) Attitude towards Bt maize and GM crops 4. What do you think about GM crops? Pest (if maize grown) 14. Has the European corn borer been a significant pest for you?

15. Have you been using pesticides against or biological control (e.g. Trichogramma) of the European corn borer?

16. Did you observe any difference in the pressure of the following pest in a season when Bt maize was grown on the neighbouring fields in comparison to a season when it was not cultivated there?

16.1. European corn borer

16.2. Other maize pest (insects, mites, nematodes)

16.3. Maize disease (fungal, viral)

Other questions 3. Is there anything that we did not cover and you would like to mention it?

4. Would you like to ask anything?

Farm 6. How many hectares of agricultural and/or arable soil does your farm manage? 7. What is the proportion of own and hired agricultural and/or arable soil? 8. What is the year turnover of the farm? 9. What is the number of the employees? 179

10. Your farm is specialised in: animal/plant/combined production Agronomist 10. Year of birth: 11. Highest level of education achieved: 12. What is your position at this farm? How long have you been working on this position at this farm?

180

Appendix 9 Figure 9 Scheme for planting refuge. Source: Canadian Corn Pest Coalition undated.

181

Figure 10 Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) An example of a search in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS). The system was used to identify fields where Bt maize had been grown. Consequently, I used the location of Bt maize fields to find adjacent conventional and organic fields.

Organic maize

field

Bt maize field

Conventional

maize field

182

Figure 11 Map of the districts where Bt maize was cultivated in 2015 and of the occurrence of European corn borer (ECB). The districts where Bt maize was cultivated in 2015 are highlighted. Blue highlight represents districts in which farmers who cultivated Bt maize in that year were interviewed. Highlighted in green is the district where a farmer was not interviewed. Colours of the dots represent different rates of the occurrence of ECB: grey: without occurrence, brown: occurrence, orange: mild occurrence, red: harmful occurrence. Source of the map of the ECB occurrence: Ústřední kontrolní a zkušební ústav zemědělský 2020.

183