GMO REGULATION IN EUROPE : A POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT ISSUE
Alan MatthewsProfessor Emeritus of European Agricultural Policy
Presentation to the Agricultural Economics Society of Ireland Annual Conference
Dublin, 7 November 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
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
Top Related