The GMO blockade: Goodbye to science and technology

Written by Beat Späth on 20 September 2016 in Opinion Plus
Opinion Plus

Ignoring scientific consensus and expelling an entire technology is a high price to pay for political convenience, argues Beat Späth.

Unshackling Innovation: Will Europe block or enable GM crops? | Photo credit: EuropaBio


Despite having contributed to its creation, Europe has expelled the fastest-adopted technology in the history of agriculture. Scientists such as Ghent University's Marc Van Montagu developed the first genetically modified (GM) plants three decades ago.

Over the last 20 years, millions of farmers have chosen to grow GM crops in countries where they are allowed to. Today, there are more farmers outside of Europe growing GM crops than there are actual farmers in the EU, and they do this on an area bigger than the EU’s entire agricultural land area. Most of these farmers are smallholders in emerging economies.

In 2008, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre predicted that 91 new biotech traits would come to market by 2015 - many of them developed and delivered by public research institutions, in Europe.


RELATED CONTENT


Unfortunately, this prediction was far too optimistic, and today only a small fraction of these new traits are actually available to farmers. What happened to the many products in the pipeline that could have improved nutrition and food security?

Fuelled by years of unfounded scaremongering, Europe and a few other countries have continued to deny farmers access to better crops, even when our own institutions repeatedly confirm that GMOs are at least as safe as conventionally bred crops.

Because we need soybean products to feed our farm animals, the EU has become the second largest importer of GM crops harvested in other continents. Yet the EU also delays innovation in other parts of the world by deferring authorisations for these much needed imports.

Hugely delayed or entirely blocked authorisations of safe products are the main reason why the global success of the technology is limited mainly to a few major crops provided by a relatively small number of companies.

It is virtually impossible for public researchers or smaller companies to invest the roughly 13 years and more than €100m that are required on average to put one new GM crop onto the market.

Unfortunately, this regulatory blockade hurts farmers and those in the developing world the most. They make up the majority of the population in most least-developed countries. When yields stagnate, their livelihoods stagnate.

The modernisation of agriculture has been the main contributing factor to the successful reduction in global hunger and poverty. Many humanitarian-focused biotechnology projects around the world have been set up by public research, often also in partnership with private companies. Most of these projects have been slowed, if not completely stalled, by excessive regulatory costs and uncertainty.

Too many European politicians have chosen to either side with radical activist groups that misinform the public about GMOs, or to avoid speaking up against the misinformation. I believe that ignoring the scientific consensus and farmers’ needs, and expelling an entire technology is a high price to pay for political convenience.

I sincerely hope that enlightenment will ultimately trump the anti-technology inquisition in Europe.

About the author

Beat Späth is director of agricultural biotechnology at EuropaBio

Share this page

Tags

Categories

Partner content

This content is published by the Parliament Magazine on behalf of our partners.

Related Articles

Green jobs could change the way we live, so what are we waiting for?
18 May 2017

Green jobs could change the way we live, and the world we live in - what are we waiting for, asks Jean Lambert.

Issue 455 | 15 May 2017
15 May 2017

Karmenu Vella interview, Green Week, EU Maritine Day, European Business Summit preview, Alcohol Labelling, Food Waste, Nato summit, Plant Health, european Steel Day, 5 questions with Danuta Hübner...

Issue 453/454 | 01 May 2017
2 May 2017

Eva Kaili interview, Palm Oil review, Brexit's impact on EU-UK research cooperation, Migration, EU Arctic Policy, Immunisation Week, Fisheries Policy, Obesity, 5 questions with Neena Gill and more...

Related Partner Content

EU Comitology reform threatens innovation in a post-truth world
15 March 2017

As the world looks to Europe to lead on evidence-based decision-making, we must not let politics trump science, warns Nathalie Moll.