Time to break the logjam over GMOs
September 9, 2009
(7 votes, average: 3.43 out of 5)
Loading ...
On Monday I sounded the alarm over the situation on the European feed market at the monthly meeting with EU agriculture ministers in Brussels. I did so because I am truly worried that we may be heading for a dangerous situation.
On several occasions over the summer, very small traces of one genetically modified (GM) maize variety, which is authorised in the US but not in the EU, were detected in US soy meal imports for feed - I have heard of at least 6 occurrences in feed consignments bound for Germany, Spain and Denmark.
As early as mid-July, 200 000 tonnes of US soy had been denied entry to the EU. Faced with the high-cost risk of having to relocate or possibly destroy shipments, traders now speak of halting soy imports from the US.
US soybeans are imported by the EU in particular during the months November to March, when imports from South America diminish. A complete loss of soy imports from the US over the coming months could cause a serious shortage. In any case it would increase soybean prices, even if it is possible to import more from Brazil and Argentina. If the EU has to pay a higher price for its animal feed, this could be a serious blow to the EU livestock sector which is already struggling with narrow profit margins.
It is not be the first time that we are confronted with such problems in shipments from the US. We already had to deal with the Herculex maize in 2007 and last year we managed to approve the Roundup Ready 2 soybean just in time before cultivation began in the US.
We managed to dodge two bullets but back then it was already clear that we would come under much heavier fire in the future if we did not get our authorisation process up to speed with approvals of GMOs in third countries. This was the clear message from a 2007 study by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
, and it was recently confirmed by a report from the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission as well as by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) .
Yet this summer’s events still mark a new chapter in the book of unintended consequences of asynchronous approvals. Previously we have detected traces of non-approved soy in soy and non-approved maize in maize. But this summer the cargo was either non-GM soy, or approved GM soy, which at some point in the production chain had been in contact with a very small amount of a GM maize that is currently not politically approved in the European Union.
I use the phrase “politically approved” because the fact is that the GM maize has already received a positive assessment from the European Food Safety Authority.
I therefore stressed to the ministers that we have a responsibility to efficiently apply our GMO legislation and acknowledge the safety assessments made by EFSA. The Commission has already presented a committee of representatives from the Member States with a proposition to approve the GM maize variety which was detected in US soy shipments and which led to a block on imports. However, the committee did not manage to reach a decision in favour or against the proposal.
Now the case is on the ministers’ desk. I was very pleased with the reaction from most of the European farm ministers yesterday, calling for an urgent solution to the problem. I am therefore very optimistic about the outcome of the next meeting in October where the approval of the particular GM Maize will be on the agenda.
I also hope that we will be able to avoid such crises in the future by looking at the practical consequences of dragging our feet when it comes to GMO authorisation. The fundamental question here is not about liking or disliking GMOs, it’s about maintaining a competitive large-scale meat production in the EU or preferring to import our meat from third countries that do not have the same reluctance about GMOs. We simply do not have enough vegetal proteins to feed our livestock and we are dependent on imports from countries such as the US, Brazil and Argentina, who are more open than Europeans to GM technology.
To this extent, the issue of importing GM feed is very different from the issue of cultivating GMOs in the European Union. On this latter point, I can only agree with what President Barroso said very clearly last week: it should be possible to combine a Community authorisation system - based on science - with freedom for Member States to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GM crops on their territory. But this is another story.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
September 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Dear Commissioner,
You don’t give the right answer because you don’t raise the right question to this GM animal feed issue.
The main issue here is the present dependency of intensive animal production from imported feedstuffs, especially soja from Latein America, mainly GM.
a few weeks before the climate conference, you have the opportunity to move the way we produce chicken,eggs,prok,milk,beef into a sustainable one, based on European feedstuffs, especially for vegetal proteins.
That would be good for climate (less transport), for environment (to leave the present intensive maize/soja model for grass/clover , grain/EU protegainous,… models, much better for environment and biodiversity).
Then the question about imported GM feedstuffs would be solved.
That would be a very good signal for latein America, where people are suffering from GM soja monoculture which destroys the environment,public health, and indigeneous cultures.
The EU cannot remain so dependent (around 75%) for vegetal proteins : this is a very vulnerable situation on strategic level and the EU can produce them.
So please don’t use this issue to force GM in Europe, where the great majority of consumers and farmers don’t want them.
You have here the opportunity to give the right signal in favour of climate, environment, biodiversity and sustainable family farming and to stop to favour corporate farming against citizen’s interests;
i thank you for your attention
G.Choplin
European Coordination via campesina
September 15th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Dear Mariann Fischer Boel
Are Member States really free to refuse GMOs, when their owns products would be refused by the US as punishment ?
sincerely
September 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I would like to thank the Commissioner for all her support on this issue. She has taken an approach which supports consumer choice, farmer choice and EU food security.
EU consumers have an increasing food choice in corner shops, supermarkets, cafes and restaurants from all corners of the world and different productions systems. EU farmers have to compete in this market and therefore we need to be competitive and have access to globally priced inputs including animal feed. All EU consumers are looking for value and are increasingly undeterred by GM as outlined by current the market.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Guillaume said “Are Member States really free to refuse GMOs, when their owns products would be refused by the US as punishment ?”
November 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Commissioner,
Your thoughts are of great interest from both a current and future view. It seems as though many in the EU are stuglling to find the right path forward in this field while many in other countries have accepted that GM foods, alternative proteins and top-down multinational management of supply and demand is the way to go? In the week of the World Food Summitt, it will be notable how many back which option for the future of food.
One eloquent perspective I would recommend (although it might not align with all of your colleagues views) is that contributed by Jim Kirkwood, VP R&D at General Mills for the futureagenda.org programme. In his perspective of the future of food (http://www.futureagenda.org/?cat=4) he makes several points which support the accelertion of more technology in food production. Sample comments include:
“Food suppliers are looking for ways to both design foods to help some people eat less while also delivering food that is affordable, safe and nutritious for those who need more.”
“The world regulatory environment is consequently becoming ever more restrictive and the food industry has to both build trust with consumers at the same time as using new affordable technologies to ensure that their food is safe and secure.”
“By 2020.. Regulation is likely that will, for example, direct land usage for meat and dairy production vs. grain and it is a good bet that another ‘green revolution’ will increase the yield of food supply possibly involving bioengineering and genetic modification. These could deliver step‐change increases in the efficiency of food production and may involve frame-breaking science such as edible oil from algae and lab‐grown meat protein. In addition, the development of non‐meat, high protein foods as meat alternatives or acceptable protein vegetable alternatives could help us more efficiently meet the increasing world protein demand.”
“We need to significantly increase global research investment in biotechnology, genetics, food science and nutrition to reach the technical breakthroughs required for a second agricultural green revolution that will enable us to feed the world. In addition we must invest in exploration/research and development of the meat and vegetable protein alternatives that can efficiently meet the world’s increasing need.”
You and your colleagues may have some alternative views?