Planting the Future: Key points from the EASAC project

Ralph Bock (Max Planck Institute, Germany)

with input from

Ian Crute (Agricult. & Horticul. Dev. Board, UK)Robin Fears (EASAC, Biosciences Program Secretary)Joachim Schiemann (Julius Kühn Institute, Germany)

[on behalf of the EASAC working group]

EASAC project 2012-2013 “Planting the Future”• Commenced work as:

EASAC Working Group on GM crops

• Decision taken to broaden the scope: “Planting the Future”

• Embraced debate on New Plant Breeding Techniques (NBT) and their possible regulation (ZFN, TALEN, RdDM)

• “Conventional” breeding; NBTs; and GM all defined as: Crop genetic improvement technologies

• Report published and available through the EASAC website

• Need to deliver increased food security, but rising pressures from population growth, changing consumption patterns, climate change, social and economic instability

• Need for sustainably balancing supply and demand and avoiding further loss in biodiversity

• One-quarter of all agricultural land is highly degraded, yet production must increase by 60% over next 40 years to provide global food security

• Additional demands for bioeconomy – for livestock feed, energy, green chemical feedstocks …….

Global agricultural and societal challenges

Yield increase is driven by innovation

Technological innovations are needed to fill the gap between demand and supply.

World population (in billion people) Technologies

Mechanisation

Land & Irrigation

Fertilizers

Crop Protection

Plant Biotechnology

1850 20501890 201019701930

2013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Breeding

0

5

10

15

20

25

30%

Wheat Rice Maize Potato All crops

Diseases

Weeds

Insect pests

Global harvest losses

(Oerke et al., 1994, 2006)

Global harvest losses: biotech solutions

• Lack of plant-derived resistance genes to cotton ballworm infestation• Bacteria-derived Bt genes provide protection

Unprotected Protected

Current status of GM crops in the world

(Nature, May 2013)

Current status of GM crops in the world

(Nature, May 2013)

Current status of GM crops in the world

(Nature, May 2013)

Unprotected from weeds Protected (herbicide-resistant)

Soybean

The EU is a major importer of transgenic soybean!

Current global status of GM crops

Primarily: Four crops - Two Traits - Five Countries

Source: Nature, May 2013

Current status of GM crops in the EU

• EU has fallen behind: 129,000 hectares in 2012 by comparison with global GM crop cultivation of 170 million hectares

• EU imports >70% animal protein feed requirements, derived from GM crops

• Number of GM field trials now conducted within EU is lowest since records began

• Large backlog of pending GM applications for approval

• Consequences for lost income, GDP and employment

• The EU is not immune from the global challenges

• Additional pressure arises from need to reduce reliance on crop protection chemicals (EU directives)

• Previously, CAP focused on constraining EU production – with consequences for exploitation of land mass outside EU borders

• Now increasing strategic interest in closing gap between EU supply and demand – making better use of limited resources of land, water, fertilisers, etc.

There is a need for the EU’s agricultural strategy to change

Promoting agricultural innovation: what are the issues?

• No new technology should be excluded a priori on ideological grounds

• EU has lost its earlier leadership in plant biotechnology, but there are still considerable strengths that could be built on

• Previous EASAC work emphasised importance of better characterisation, conservation and use of plant genetic resources

• Many academies of science are making a case for acceptance of crop genetic modification and other biotechnologies in programmes of crop improvement

Objectives of the EASAC project (2012-2013) “Planting the Future”• Explore implications for EU policy-making of alternative strategic choices in utilising crop

genetic improvement technologies for sustainable intensification of agriculture• Comparing what is happening in other economies who have adopted GM crops more

actively: (i) socio-economic and environmental impact, and (ii) implications for science and innovation

• Collaborating with NASAC to evaluate how previous EU policy debates affected African countries

• Examining multiple EU issues: (i) regulatory reform, (iv) intellectual property,(ii) science base, (v) new environmental challenges, (iii) public engagement, (vi) non-food applications in the bioeconomy

EASAC international case studies

• Argentina: impact of GM herbicide-tolerant soybean

• India: socio-economic impact of Bt cotton

• Australia: history of development of Bt cotton

• Brazil: trends in GM research

• Canada: regulatory system for plants with novel traits

EASAC case studies from comparator countries: emerging cross-cutting issues• Export of agricultural commodities is increasingly part of economy of

comparator countries. One consequence is stimulus to basic science.• Vital to distinguish between any specific effect of a technology and

consequences of other changes in agronomic practice and social developments.

• Increasing volume of evidence to document benefits of GM crops. GM technology itself has no greater adverse impact than any other technology used in plant breeding.

• Streamlined, transparent, effective regulatory frameworks can be devised that encourage investment and innovation – must focus on product/trait rather than on technology.

• Role for academies of science to help inform decision-making.

NASAC-EASAC analysis of connectionsbetween agriculture in Africa and EU• Involved academies from 13 African countries; case-studies from Ghana,

Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya• Evidence shows that EU actions constrained the use of crop genetic

improvement technologies in African countries, creating difficulties for farmers, scientists and policy-makers (import restrictions, labeling requirements, …)

• Recently, rapidly increasing activity in Africa to characterise and cultivate GM crops to address local needs

• Significant opportunities for information sharing and R&D partnership between EU and Africa to strengthen local systems

• Continuing role for academies to work together to identify science and technology priorities, contribute advice to support policy-making and public debate

Bringing together lessons from international experience and EU developments• The time-consuming and expensive EU regulatory framework, together

with Member State politicisation of the process, has acted as obstacle to agricultural innovation.

• EASAC Report provides detail on implications for:– Ensuring informed public engagement to support choice and priority-

setting– Vigour of public science base and future skills supply– Viability and diversity of private sector innovation– Potential to capitalise on research on new crop traits coming within

range– Developing and using New Breeding Techniques– Developing new applications for the bioeconomy– Dealing with changing climate, pests and pathogens– Achieving strategic coherence across policy areas

“Speak up, stand up, gang up!”

“ ... now in 2013 with more research into GM technology than almost any other area of food research, there is no evidence to suggest that the GM technology per se poses any unique risk compared to any other plant breeding technology.”

“To be provocative - can we meet the demand for food to feed 9 billion citizens by 2050 without using every tool in the tool box? Is it ethical to reject technology without evidence but on the grounds of preference when 1 billion global citizens every single day are starving?”

“Our obligations as citizens is to look at the evidence presented and have the courage to reposition our views as that evidence accumulates.”

Editorial, EPSO NL 29 (2013)

Anne Glover,Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission

Summary of EASAC recommendations - 1

• Public engagement– Scientific community must articulate consequences of research findings and

opportunities for innovation

• Achieving coherence in policy for agricultural innovation– For example - integration of GM crop objectives with Integrated Pest

Management strategies– Reformulating regulatory framework to focus on product/trait:

(i) science-based, transparent, proportionate and predictable, (ii) taking account of international experience and evidence,(iii) clarify status and regulation of NBT

“speak up, stand up, gang up”

Summary of EASAC recommendations - 2

• Research & Development– Capitalising on Horizon 2020 – Attend to infrastructure and training– Support for public-private sector collaboration

• International partnerships– EU can learn from rest of world about “what works“ in regulatory

practice and innovation– EU must also take into account impact of decisions on others– New opportunities for collaboration in research and innovation

Our five primary conclusions• There is very significant potential for all crop genetic improvement technologies

to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits

• There is an urgent requirement for EU to adopt policies that will capture these benefits

• More coherent policies are required to exploit the research that the EU continues to fund and the technologies that the EU has been instrumental in developing

• There is a collective responsibility to provide and utilise scientific solutions to improve global agricultural productivity and reduce the adverse impact of agriculture on the environment

• In the practical application of knowledge to the improvement of agricultural productivity and sustainability, no approaches should be ruled in or out a priori

New threats to food production

Dramatically increasing use of food crops for non-food/non-feed purposes

Mill

ion t

ons

(U

S c

orn

harv

est

)

Feed

Food

Industry (ethanol)

Working Group conclusions: what are the strategic priorities for the EU?• Land use, innovation and productivity

– The EU is falling behind competitors– Biotechnology for crop improvement must be part of response to societal

challenges

• Regulation– Requires evidence-based framework with firm foundation in sound science

• Promoting competition– Stimulating open innovation

• Global context– Understanding the wider consequences of EU decisions– Tackling policy disconnects between EU domestic objectives and the

development agenda