Organic farming and gene transfer from genetically modified crops

This is the final report of MAFF/Defra project OF0157. Genetically modified (GM) crops cannot be released into the environment and used as food, feed, medicines or industrial processing before they have passed through a rigorous and internationally recognised regulatory process designed to protect human and animal health, and the environment. The UK body that oversees standards in organic farming, the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS), has ruled that genetically modified (GM) crops have no role to play in organic farming systems. They, therefore, have concerns about the possibility and consequences of the mixing of GM crops with organic crops. The two main sources of mixing are through pollen and seed. Pollen from GM crops may pollinate an organic crop. Seed from a GM crop, or plants established from them, may become mixed with organic crops or their products. Minimising genetic mixing is an important feature of the production of all high quality seed samples of plant varieties supplied to farmers. Extensive experience has been obtained over many decades in the production of high purity seed samples. Crop isolation distances, and crop rotational and management practices are laid down to achieve this. These procedures for the production of seed of high genetic purity could be used for the production of organic crops. No system for the field production of seed can guarantee absolute genetic purity of seed samples. Very rarely long distance pollination or seed transfer is possible, so any criteria for organic crop production will need to recognise this. There has always been the possibility of hybridisation and seed mixing between organic crops and non-organic crops. Organic farming systems acknowledge the possibility of spray or fertiliser drift from non-organic farming systems, and procedures are established to minimise this. In practice, detecting the presence of certain types of GM material in organic crops, especially quantification, is likely to be difficult. Some seed used by organic farmers are currently obtained from abroad. After January 2001, or a modified deadline thereafter, UK organic farmers will be required to sow seed produced organically. There is little or no organic seed produced in the UK at present, so it has to be obtained from abroad. Seed obtained from outside the UK or the European Union, may have different seed production criteria. This may make it difficult to guarantee that it is absolutely free from any GM material. Organic farmers and/or GM crop producers will need to ensure that their crops are isolated from one another by an appropriate distance or barrier to reduce pollen transfer if the crop flowers. To reduce seed mixing, shared equipment will need to be cleaned and an appropriate period of time allowed before organic crops are grown on land previously used for GM crops. Responsibility for isolation will need to be decided before appropriate measures can be implemented. The report highlights the need for acceptable levels of the presence of GM material in organic crops and measures identified to achieve this

Spectrum Policy Reform and the Next Frontier of Property Rights

The scarcity of wireless spectrum reflects a costly failure of regulation. In practice, large swaths of spectrum are vastly underused or used for low value activities, but the regulatory system prevents innovative users from gaining access to such spectrum through marketplace transactions. In calling for the propertyzing of swaths of spectrum as a replacement for the current command-and-control system, many scholars have wrongfully assumed the simplicity of how such a regime would work in practice. In short, many scholars suggest that spectrum property rights can easily borrow key principles from trespass law, reasoning that since property rights work well for land, they can work well for spectrum rights as well. But as we explain, spectrum is not the same as land, and a poorly designed property rights regime for spectrum might even be worse than the legacy model of spectrum regulation. This Article addresses three central questions that confront the design and implementation of property rights in spectrum. First, it suggests how policymakers must develop a set of rights and remedies around spectrum property rights that reflect the fact that radio signals defy boundaries and can propagate in unpredictable ways. In particular, if policymakers simply created rights in spectrum and enforced them like rights in land (i.e., with injunctions for trespass), they would invite strategic behavior: spectrum speculators would buy licenses for the sole purpose of suing other licensees when their transmission systems created interference outside the permissible boundary (i.e., act as spectrum trolls). Second, it rejects the suggestion that policymakers establish a unitary property right for spectrum, arguing that policymakers should zone the spectrum by establishing different levels of protection against interference (i.e., an ability to transmit signals with more latitude) in different frequency bands. Finally, this Article discusses what institutional strategy will best facilitate the development of the property right and its enforcement, concluding that an administrative agency - be it a new one or a reformed FCC - is better positioned than a court to develop and enforce the rules governing the use of spectrum so as to facilitate technological progress and prevent parties with antiquated equipment from objecting to more efficient uses of spectrum

In Pursuit of a Next Generation Network for Public Safety Communications

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a unitary reliance on Land Mobile Radio systems (LMRs) failed public safety agencies, leaving them without any source of communications once they lost transmission capability. Unfortunately, in the wake of this tragedy, many have dusted off traditional prescriptions for improving public safety communications, such as more dedicated spectrum and more money for single-purpose LMRs (or LMRs based on technology that fails to facilitate broader functionalities). As we explain, however, both the needs underscored by Katrina and the capabilities made possible by emerging technologies call for a different strategy. In this paper, we argue that sound policy favors adoption of a next generation flexible architecture strategy for public safety communications. Such a flexible architecture embraces technological convergence and, accordingly, strives to coordinate existing LMRs, commercial terrestrial services, satellite technology, and wireless broadband systems to provide a robust, reliable, secure, and interoperable broadband communications system. Additionally, this approach would take advantage of multi-mode radios which are already a reality in most segments of the marketplace (except for public safety). Such multi-mode radios are expected to be even more robust once the recently authorized ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) of mobile satellite services becomes an option for public safety agencies. Notably, the flexible architecture that we advocate does not necessarily require additional spectrum dedicated for public safety agencies nor prohibitive financial investment in the equipment needed to use spectrum effectively. Rather, public safety agencies can leverage networks provided by commercial providers - particularly hybrid satellite and terrestrial systems - to satisfy many public safety needs in a cost-effective fashion. To advance this vision, policymakers should ensure that (1) satellite and terrestrial providers are afforded the opportunity - through pro-market and innovative spectrum policies - to develop effective offerings for public safety agencies; and (2) public safety agencies receive sufficient financial support to promote this type of a hybrid, next generation architecture

Spectrum Policy Reform and the Next Frontier of Property Rights

The scarcity of wireless spectrum reflects a costly failure of regulation. In practice, large swaths of spectrum are vastly underused or used for low value activities, but the regulatory system prevents innovative users from gaining access to such spectrum through marketplace transactions. In calling for the propertyzing of swaths of spectrum as a replacement for the current command-and-control system, many scholars have wrongfully assumed the simplicity of how such a regime would work in practice. In short, many scholars suggest that spectrum property rights can easily borrow key principles from trespass law, reasoning that since property rights work well for land, they can work well for spectrum rights as well. But as we explain, spectrum is not the same as land, and a poorly designed property rights regime for spectrum might even be worse than the legacy model of spectrum regulation. This Article addresses three central questions that confront the design and implementation of property rights in spectrum. First, it suggests how policymakers must develop a set of rights and remedies around spectrum property rights that reflect the fact that radio signals defy boundaries and can propagate in unpredictable ways. In particular, if policymakers simply created rights in spectrum and enforced them like rights in land (i.e., with injunctions for trespass), they would invite strategic behavior: spectrum speculators would buy licenses for the sole purpose of suing other licensees when their transmission systems created interference outside the permissible boundary (i.e., act as spectrum trolls). Second, it rejects the suggestion that policymakers establish a unitary property right for spectrum, arguing that policymakers should zone the spectrum by establishing different levels of protection against interference (i.e., an ability to transmit signals with more latitude) in different frequency bands. Finally, this Article discusses what institutional strategy will best facilitate the development of the property right and its enforcement, concluding that an administrative agency - be it a new one or a reformed FCC - is better positioned than a court to develop and enforce the rules governing the use of spectrum so as to facilitate technological progress and prevent parties with antiquated equipment from objecting to more efficient uses of spectrum

Policing the Spectrum Commons

One of the most contested questions in spectrum policy is whether bands of spectrum left as unlicensed will fall victim to the tragedy of the commons. Advocates of increased unlicensed spectrum often downplay what enforcement measures are necessary to minimize interference and to prevent the tragedy of the commons problem. Even imposing spectrum etiquette requirements in addition to the FCC\u27s equipment certification program will fail to address this concern effectively, as the development of such measures - e.g., the requirement that devices listen before they talk - does not ensure that they will be followed. Indeed, if there are incentives for parties to cheat on the rules that prevent tragedy of the commons-type results, some cheaters are likely to emerge and thereby undermine the promise of new and innovative technologies that use unlicensed spectrum. Although the threat posed by cheaters does not undermine completely the commons model of spectrum management, it does underscore that the proponents of that model have focused almost entirely on one half of the issue. To date, these proponents have argued that unlicensed bands can facilitate technological innovation and more efficient uses of spectrum than would a purely private property-like approach. But they have not explained what the FCC should do to prevent deviation from the protocols (or certified equipment) that maximize the effectiveness of shared uses of spectrum. Moreover, tragedy of the commons-type concerns are not merely theoretical ones, as the experience with the citizen\u27s band (CB) radio demonstrated how interference caused by unauthorized uses (such as amplifiers) can undermine a previously popular use of spectrum. In the current environment, technologies like a Wi-Fi Hog, which can take control of and fully exploit a public wi-fi network - or malicious jamming by hackers - pose the same danger. This paper both underscores the need for and develops the analytical framework to guide a new model of spectrum policy for unlicensed bands. In particular, it argues that the FCC should develop a regulatory program that integrates the efforts of end user groups, interested companies, private standard setting bodies, and its own enforcement tools. In one incarnation of this approach, the FCC can ask a private body (such as the IEEE) to report back on its progress in addressing a particular issue - understanding that it may have to pick up where the body left off (either in setting or enforcing the interference mitigation measure). To be sure, we recognize that this spectrum management strategy will require considerable effort to implement, but we believe that a failure to address these issues would be the Achilles\u27 heel of the commons model of spectrum management

Interstellar Scattering Towards the Galactic Center as Probed by OH/IR Stars

Angular broadening measurements are reported of 20 OH/IR stars near the galactic center. This class of sources is known to have bright, intrinsically compact (less than or equal to 20 mas) maser components within their circumstellar shells. VLBA antennas and the VLA were used to perform a MKII spectral line VLBI experiment. The rapid drop in correlated flux with increasing baseline, especially for sources closest to the galactic center, is attributed to interstellar scattering. Angular diameters were measured for 13 of our sources. Lower limits were obtained for the remaining seven. With the data, together with additional data taken from the literature, the distribution was determined of interstellar scattering toward the galactic center. A region was found of pronounced scattering nearly centered on SgrA*. Two interpretations are considered for the enhanced scattering. One hypothesis is that the scattering is due to a clump of enhanced turbulence, such as those that lie along lines of sight to other known objects, that has no physical relationship to the galactic center. The other model considers the location of the enhanced scattering to arise in the galactic center itself. The physical implications of the models yield information on the nature of interstellar scattering

The Future of 9-1-1: New Technologies and the Need for Reform

Our nation\u27s 9-1-1 system\u27s success to date belies the fact that its core premises will not continue to serve it effectively and it has come to a critical juncture. In particular, the balkanized nature of 9-1-1 operations that differ across jurisdictions and are supported by Byzantine funding mechanisms obscure a simple but profound development: our nation\u27s emergency system is not keeping up with or taking advantage of technological change. Because the system continues to work and policymakers largely do not appreciate the system\u27s technological limitations, decision makers not only fail to focus on this challenge but instead are all too willing to raid 9-1-1 funds to put them to other uses. Accordingly, our emergency communications networks are unable to accommodate what is increasingly viewed as basic functionality inherent in many of today\u27s advanced technologies. This Article sets forth a coherent vision concerning the opportunity to transition to a next generation 9-1-1 network. To be sure, the United States\u27 9-1-1 system is hardly a monolith and prescriptions for its evolution cannot be reduced to simple one size fits all solutions. In practice, the system is comprised of numerous jurisdictions (including over 6000 Public Safety Answering Points); myriad governance structures and controls which vary across jurisdictions; a ballooning number of service providers; and a diversity of funding amounts and models that differ across jurisdictional boundaries. The result, not surprisingly, is a fractured and complicated system where policy is highly contingent on parochial and often political perspectives. To reform today\u27s balkanized 9-1-1 landscape, we recommend that: (1) clear leadership and vision embrace the need to transition the 9-1-1 system to a next generation architecture; (2) more effective state oversight provide both the funding and logistical support necessary to make this happen; and (3) localities should remain responsible for providing access to 9-1-1, but that they must be supported from higher levels of government as well as industry to exercise that responsibility. In short, there is an important opportunity for thoughtful leadership and vigilant policy reform that will serve the goals of 9-1-1 emergency response far more effectively than the policies currently in place

The Future of 9-1-1: New Technologies and the Need for Reform

Our nation\u27s 9-1-1 system\u27s success to date belies the fact that its core premises will not continue to serve it effectively and it has come to a critical juncture. In particular, the balkanized nature of 9-1-1 operations that differ across jurisdictions and are supported by Byzantine funding mechanisms obscure a simple but profound development: our nation\u27s emergency system is not keeping up with or taking advantage of technological change. Because the system continues to work and policymakers largely do not appreciate the system\u27s technological limitations, decision makers not only fail to focus on this challenge but instead are all too willing to raid 9-1-1 funds to put them to other uses. Accordingly, our emergency communications networks are unable to accommodate what is increasingly viewed as basic functionality inherent in many of today\u27s advanced technologies. This Article sets forth a coherent vision concerning the opportunity to transition to a next generation 9-1-1 network. To be sure, the United States\u27 9-1-1 system is hardly a monolith and prescriptions for its evolution cannot be reduced to simple one size fits all solutions. In practice, the system is comprised of numerous jurisdictions (including over 6000 Public Safety Answering Points); myriad governance structures and controls which vary across jurisdictions; a ballooning number of service providers; and a diversity of funding amounts and models that differ across jurisdictional boundaries. The result, not surprisingly, is a fractured and complicated system where policy is highly contingent on parochial and often political perspectives. To reform today\u27s balkanized 9-1-1 landscape, we recommend that: (1) clear leadership and vision embrace the need to transition the 9-1-1 system to a next generation architecture; (2) more effective state oversight provide both the funding and logistical support necessary to make this happen; and (3) localities should remain responsible for providing access to 9-1-1, but that they must be supported from higher levels of government as well as industry to exercise that responsibility. In short, there is an important opportunity for thoughtful leadership and vigilant policy reform that will serve the goals of 9-1-1 emergency response far more effectively than the policies currently in place