"Having laid dormant in the public’s eye for several years, the threat of a global food crisis and recent political developments such as Germany’s move to ban GM corn have put the issue back on the table. Business leaders are particularly concerned that subordinating science to public opinion and excessive regulation will impact our ability to innovate at the cutting edge, and compete on a global stage.
FDBlueprint, the European affairs and strategic communications consultancy (www.fdblueprint.eu), has produced this special feature for “European Business Review” to shine a spotlight on the complex issue of GM in Europe. Matthew Willis, Director of FDBlueprint, introduces the issues, the players and the latest developments for green biotech in the EU. Strong pro and contra views are delivered in a debate piece, and we are also given an insight into the biotech industry from an academic perspective, including the reasons for its success in Switzerland."
Peter Kramer,
Editor-in-chief
Europe at the crossroads
By Matthew Willis, FDBlueprint
For much of the European general public, genetically modified crops are probably old news. ‘Frankenfood’ headlines and images of campaigners destroying crops have vanished from tabloid newspapers, in the most part, replaced by stories deemed more pressing. But increasing activity at a political level suggests another chapter is about to unfold. The result could prove critical to Europe’s future – not just for the agricultural sector, but for food production, and science related businesses more generally.
Current regulatory situation
The EU’s authorisation process is long and complex in comparison to many other parts of the world. It is political (often involving the EU Council, which represents member States) as well as scientific. In comparison, approval decisions for GMO cultivation in USA are purely based on a scientific safety assessment, thus removing politics, ethics and, some say, oversight from the decision.
With little fanfare, the European Commission is poised to approve two new genetically modified maize varieties (Bt11 and Bt1507) for cultivation for the first time in a decade. Although the acreage of GM crops grown in Europe remains miniscule compared to conventional crop cultivation, European consumers buy products derived from GM crops regularly. Tight EU restrictions on cultivation are loosened for import, processing and sale - over 30 genetically modified varieties of maize, soya bean, cotton, carnation, rapeseed and sugar beet are currently approved. Moreover, despite labeling laws that identify any product that contains more than 0.9% GM derived material, a 2008 survey by the European Commission suggests that few consumers have altered their buying habits.
However, this only paints one part of fragmented and complex regulatory picture. Opponents of GM have also won some notable recent victories. The European Commission’s efforts to overturn bans on GMO cultivation by Austria and Hungary have been staved off, and Luxembourg and Germany have imposed their own bans.
The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the sites of GM trials “can in no case be kept confidential”, raising the spectre of field trial destruction, and a Council of Ministers’ decision now permits the establishment of GMO-free zones. Potentially most significantly, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), has been asked to review its procedures for evaluating GMO safety, following criticism of its credibility.
The factions
Entrenched and polarized political opinion still characterises this topic at both a European and national level. Austria, Hungary, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg have imposed national bans on the cultivation of GMOs in direct contradiction to EU policy. Countries like Romania and Poland are also opposed and almost exclusively GMO free.
Supporters of the technology include Spain (in which 75% of Europe’s GM crop yield is produced), UK, Sweden and, controversially, some say the European Commission’s incumbent President Jose Manuel Barosso. The issue is similarly divisive amongst other stakeholders including farmers, retailers and consumers, and judgements are made no easier by the mass of contradictory information disseminated by each side.
Europabio, the European trade association for the biotechnology sector, is an influential institution in Brussels – while Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as well as a number of ‘single issue pressure groups’ are politically and media savvy, and active on the issue.
The global context is also influential. In 2006, the WTO ruled that the EU had violated international trade rules by abiding by a de facto ban on GMO authorisation imposed by a blocking minority of member states. Given the recent rise in national bans within the EU it is possible that producer countries may now seek retaliatory action.
The issues
Few topics are as hotly contested as biotechnology. The subject tends to drive to the core of peoples’ pre-existing world views, resulting in strongly held and often unmovable opinions. The debate is characterised by polarised, ardent campaigners, for and against. Each side has a raft of often contradictory arguments, and generates research supporting their viewpoint.
Many of those who oppose GM subscribe to what is known as the precautionary principle: until all of the potentially negative impacts of GM crops have been disproved beyond doubt, regulation should exercise caution. But biotech proponents argue this runs against the basic principles of science (testing / experimenting against a set hypothesis), which has underpinned human development. As with any choice, they argue, the final question should balance risk against potential reward.
The green biotech industry also points out that GM crops have been planted in other parts of the world for many years – proving their safety. This isn’t long enough, say opponents, and besides, the Americas aren’t Europe, and different eco systems could lead to different side effects.
Consumer focus groups tend to be dominated by ethical concerns and the fear of potential environmental and health impacts. Genetic engineering is often felt to be something freakish and hazardous, as meddling with nature.
That, say the scientific and industry community, is simplistic in the extreme. For as long as farming has existed, farmers have managed Nature. Many of today’s staple crops, such as wheat and rice, are wholly unnatural; their genetic profiles altered either by selective breeding or by mutagens such as radiation. GM allows seed companies to achieve these same results without the process of trial and error.
The environmental impacts of GM are hotly debated. The industry claims that in 2006, GM crops saved 14.8 million kg of carbon emissions through less pesticide use and fewer field passes by farm equipment - the equivalent of taking 6.6 million cars off the road. However, NGO’s argue that cross fertilization between conventional and GM crops could create unpredicted anomalies, and this, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance create concerns for biodiversity.
Concerns over food safety from GM produce seem to be limited – as Julian little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council observed “more than 2 trillion meals made from genetically modified crops have been eaten and there has not been a single documented problem.”
Food security, though, is the issue which has renewed focus on the debate. Dr Nina Fedoroff, Science and technology advisor to the US Secretary of State and the UK Government’s chief scientist Prof John Beddington both recently lent their support to GM as part of the solution to stave off an impending food crisis. The ‘perfect storm’ of a predicted 40% global population growth by 2050, scarcity of water, rising temperatures and falling energy sources is likely to create a food production crisis of unprecedented proportions. Also, to avoid cultivating wilderness carbon sinks like the Amazon rainforest, increasing the yields of existing agricultural land will need to be addressed. The issue of GM is back on the table.
What’s at stake?
On the issue of genetically modified crops, Europe stands at the crossroads, knowing it must press forward on one path or the other. Decisions made on this issue now will have very real impacts for food security, agriculture, the environment, science and business in Europe.
Just as stem cell science fled from America during the Bush administration, if European governments turn their back on agricultural technology, the industry, its talent and its economic contribution is likely to migrate elsewhere. Whether this concerns you or seems a small price to pay to banish a possible, but unproven, environmental risk will likely reveal an instinctual position rather than a considered analysis of the facts.
To some extent, which direction Europe’s policymakers take will set a precedent for whether science or consumer opinion are put at the heart of future decision making. With much at stake, one thing’s for sure: a thorough public debate and brave and unpartisan leadership will be needed if Europe is to take a fully considered step towards its future.
- Matthew Willis is Consulting Director at FDBlueprint – a Brussels based strategic communications and public affairs consultancy. [email protected] / www.fdblueprint.eu
- The whole feature of the "Green Biotech" debate is available at the printed edition of "European Business Review".
By: N. Peter Kramer
