Biotechnology
affects the biotech industry but negatively im- pacts various actors along the food supply chain. 45 GM crops are authorised for import into the EU. This compares to about 90 approved GM crops in the US. GM approvals take an average of 45 months compared to 25 to 30 months in major commodity exporting countries. Due to the backlog of unapproved products, it is more likely that as yet unapproved GM products will be found in shipments. Without predictability in Europe, the food industry, com- modity traders, and livestock farmers will face even greater challenges in the future. For animal feed alone, if there are trade disruptions due to unapproved GM material, a 2010 European Commission report estimated that profits could decrease by € 1.2 billion for the dairy sector, by € 3 billion for the beef sector, by € 1 billion for the pork meat sector, and by € 380 million for the poultry meat sector.
A 2006 report entitled ‘GM Foods: What Euro- peans Really Think’, also showed that “phrases like ‘overwhelming opposition’ and ‘massive consumer rejection’, which have been used in the media and by some politicians in relation to public attitudes to GM foods, present a mis- leading impression of what the research is actu- ally saying”.
According to a 2010
Eurobarometer on food related risks, only 8% of Europeans spontaneously say they are wor- ried about GM in food. Although there is con- cern about GM and biotechnology, consumers report a low level of knowledge about GM food.
A set of tools to increase productivity and competitiveness of European agriculture Farmers in Europe currently have two GM prod- ucts that they are allowed to plant, while American farmers have 80 products they can use. While pro- ductivity in Europe is slowing, in America, over the last 15 years, productivity in maize and soya and cotton has jumped significantly since they im- plemented the use of GMOs. Today, more than 16 million farmers are growing GM crops around the world. If more GM crops were grown in Europe today, the in- crease in production could be equal to the output from land the size of Belgium every year. As a result, the Europe’s economy could be boosted by € 443 and € 929 million each year.
New European Economy
Human and financial capitals are leaving Europe Moreover, the cost of such a position on Euro- pean competitiveness and Europe’s position as a leader in biotech research is extremely high: brain drain to more attractive markets, signifi- cant decrease in private investment for research in new biotech products, and a yet impalpable loss of EU scientific and economic influence in the world trade. This is illustrated by the deci- sion taken in 2011 by BASF to move its Plant Science Division Headquarters from Germany to the US. Similarly, investment flows also tend to find better breeding grounds in Asia or the Americas.
So with all these benefits, why do governments prohibit farmers from taking their share of the cake?
Lack of vision causes trade disruptions in a highly food import dependent Europe The position of some European governments is even more difficult to understand, as GM crops already enter the EU through trade. On average, Europe imports 30-40 million tons of protein crops every year, such as soy to feed animals. More than 90% of this imported protein is ge- netically modified.
The current EU stance towards GM not only
Ray of hope: new biotech research may give another opportunity for Europe to catch up New products in the R&D pipeline are very promising. By developing improved and adapted agricultural crops such as drought or saline resistant plants, or crops that should de- liver consumer health benefits such as bioforti- fication with nutrients, agricultural biotech offers new solutions to farmers.
Here is the question that we should now be asking ourselves: does Europe want to take part in the exciting and full of potential biotech jour- ney or just wait and spend billions of Euros try- ing to put a plaster on massive outflows to justify its illogical and even in some cases illegal polit- ical approach? This is the time for all of us as citizens of Europe to reconsider our views and make sure our leaders think beyond borders.
43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124