GMO REGULATION IN EUROPE : A POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUE

Alan MatthewsProfessor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy

alan.matthews@tcd.ie

Presentation to the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland Annual Conference

Dublin, 7 November 2013

Source: Nature 2 May 2013

Source: Nature 2 May 2013

EU regulatory structure for GM traits De facto moratorium in 1998 on production and import of

GM products, replaced by new regulatory arrangements Directive 2001/18/EC on use for cultivation and Regulation 1829/2003 on GM food and feed. Application made to EFSA which assesses health and

environment risks Risk management decision taken in comitology by member

states on proposal from Commission EU approach characterised by:

Separate approval system required for all products produced by genetic engineering

Allows the use of the precautionary principle to delay authorisation

Stacked traits are assumed to be new products and are approved accordingly even if individual traits are previously authorised

Increasing backlog of products awaiting authorisation

Source: EuropaBio, 2013

Trade issues for the EU

Import of EU-authorised GM food and feed – must be labelled GM if GM share > 0.9%.

Import of EU-unauthorised GM food and feed products PROHIBITED Since 2011, Low Level Presence (LLP) defined as <0.1%

accepted for FEED (not food) PROVIDED: Trait is authorised in producing country Request for EU authorisation with EFSA for at least 3 months

Zero tolerance for unauthorised GM food and for other adventitious presence in food or feed

Increasing problem of asynchronous approvals across countries

Private supply chains may insist on non-GM because of perceived consumer reaction to GM labels

Consequences of EU regulations on trade

Direct consequences for traders Risk of shipments being refused entry, with resulting

economic loss Traders may refuse to serve EU market because of perceived

high risk of breaching regulations Potential premium market in some MS for non-GM products

Policy consequences in third countries May lead third countries to delay approval of new GM traits

until authorised in EU because of commercial risk Possible bias against GM in public sector research in

developing countries (e.g. CGIAR) due to EU funding influence (Anderson, 2010)

Many developing countries have adopted the highly restrictive EU regulatory approach which can result in loss of/delay in reaping benefits of more productive/nutritious/resilient varieties

Low Level Presence incidents : examples

1997: Canadian rapeseed/canola 1998: US corn (EU moratorium / de facto import ban) 2000: Starlink (US processed corn – food) 2005: BT10 (US corn gluten feed) 2006: LL 601 (US rice) 2006/2007: Herculex (Corn gluten feed / distillers dried

grains with solubles) 2008: Roundup Ready II and Liberty Link (soya) 2008: BT63 (China and other Asian countries rice) 2009: MON 88017, MON 89034 and MIR 604 (corn) 2009/2010: FP 967 (Canada CDC Triffid in linseed) 2012: MIR 162 (US corn gluten feed)

Note: www.gmcontaminationregister.org/ maintained by Greenpeace and Genewatch UK maintains list of LLP incidents worldwide

Responses of third countries : examples

China: despite vigorous support for GM research, delayed commercialisation of GM food crops e.g. rice due in part to fears for Chinese rice exports to EU

India: GM rice trials abandoned in 2007 due in part to exporters’ concerns re loss of EU market

Zambia: 2002 rejection of US food aid due in part to exporters’ fears of loss of EU baby corn market

Argentina: ‘Mirror’ approvals policy delayed introduction of new soybean varieties, in one case up to 12 years

US: GM wheat shelved in 2004 because US and Canadian producer associations feared loss of EU export market

Welfare effects with/without EU GM moratorium

Sim 1a. Adoption by three front-runners without EU moratorium leads to general welfare improvements in most countriesSim 1b. EU moratorium reduces benefits to front-runners, increases benefits to other non-adopters while implicit increase in EU protection causes negative welfare losses for EUSim 1c. If EU and other non-adopters all adopt, welfare gains everywhere

Source: Anderson, 2010

Potential impacts on global food security

“Vital improvement in food production that could help to feed a rapidly expanding population in Africa is being held back by anti-GM legislation designed to placate environmental activists in Europe. At the behest of Europe, many countries in Africa have laws and rules that limit the testing and cultivation of GM plants even though there is now overwhelming evidence that the technology can boost food production with comparatively little or no adverse environmental impact.” Calestous Juma, former Executive Secretary of the

Convention on Biological Diversity

Potential impacts on global food security

“Agricultural biotechnologies, and especially transgenic crops, have the potential to boost food security in developing countries by offering higher incomes for farmers and lower priced and better quality food for consumers. That potential is being heavily compromised, however, because the European Union and some other countries have implemented strict regulatory systems to govern their production and consumption of genetically modified (GM) food and feed crops, and to prevent imports of foods and feedstuffs that do not meet these strict standards.” Anderson, 2010

The global pipeline – Africa examples

Crop Pest/disease resistance

and/or herbicide tolerance

Biofortification Abiotic Stress-tolerance

Cotton ×    Cowpea ×   ×Banana/ plantain

x x  

Coconut ×    Cabbage ×    Cassava × x  Sweet potato x x  Groundnut x    Sorghum x x  Rice x x x (salt-resistant)Maize x   x (water-

efficient)Source: EASAC (2013).

Genetically modified crops that are tested or cultivated in Africa

Crop Trait CountryCotton Insect resistance Egypt, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania,

Uganda, ZimbabweMaize Drought resistance, insect

resistanceKenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe

Cassava Nutrient density, disease resistance, virus resistance

Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda

Cowpeas Insect resistance Burkina Faso, Ghana, NigeriaSorghum Nutrient density Kenya, South AfricaPotato Virus resistance, insect

resistance, fungal resistanceEgypt, South Africa

Banana Nutrient density, disease resistance, fungal resistance

Uganda

Sweet potato Virus resistance Kenya, South AfricaSugarcane Growth, sugar content, virus

resistanceEgypt, Mauritius, South Africa

Coconut Virus resistance Ivory Coast, GhanaSquash Virus resistance EgyptGrapes Fungal resistance South Africa

Source: GMO Safety, http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1242.disease-resistant-bananas-drought-tolerant-maize.html

The role of GM crops in global food security

A complement to, not a replacement for, conventional breeding

A complement to, not a replacement for, good agricultural practices on farms

A complement to, not a replacement for, public investments in infrastructure, human resources and appropriate price policies in developing countries

Not relevant to the very poorest farmers outside the market economy although they may still benefit if net consumers

But potentially helpful to smallholder farmers, beneficial to the environment and with positive nutritional outcomes

One tool in the toolbox… should not be thrown away!

Policy coherence for development (PCD)

PCD means that in implementing its non-development assistance policies the EU will seek to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on developing countries while attempting to maximise positive synergies and spillover effects.

Operation of GM regulatory framework an example of policy incoherence

Towards a more PCD-friendly GM framework

Implement existing timelines in GM product authorisation process and clear backlog

Introduce a more efficient method for approval of stacked traits

Extend ‘technical solution’ for unapproved events to food and seed

(Longer term) Move to system of approving the trait, where necessary, rather than products of GE technology per se