Brussels, Belgium
June 14, 2007
Biotechnology and the EU - Speech
of Peter Mandelson, EU Trade Comissioner at the EuropaBio Open
Day
|
Source:
EuropaBio
In this speech to the
European Biotechnology Open day in Brussels EU Trade
Commissioner Peter Mandelson strongly defends an
open European approach to biotechnology and GM food;
one that prioritises strict science-based health and
safety testing but which recognises that safe
biotechnology has a crucial role to play in
agriculture and agricultural trade both in Europe
and the developing world. Calling biotechnology "The
coal face of applied science in the twenty first
century" he concludes: "we must be under no illusion
that Europe's interests are served by being outside
a global market that is steadily working its way
through the issues raised by GM food. They are not".
Mandelson argues that Europe has the appropriate
risk-management systems for ensuring that
biotechnology is rigorously tested, but that these
systems can be badly undermined if politicians and
risk-managers do not defend the science that
underpins them. He says: "A rigorous system means
approving GM imports when the science is on their
side just as we take a firm line when precaution is
justified… if politicians and risk managers
undermine their own system… we devalue objective
science as our most important benchmark – and that
is a dangerous step to take." Mandelson warns that
as a global market for GM products grows, EU
application of its rules will come under greater
international scrutiny. He warns: "If we fail to
implement our own rules, or implement them
inconsistently, we can - and probably will - be
challenged.
Mandelson argues that any blanket rejection of GMOs
ignores the fact that genetically modified foods
have played a key part in past revolutions in
agricultural productivity and will be central to
providing sufficient food and feed stocks for a
growing population in the developing world. They are
also likely to have a central role in shaping
agricultures response to climate change through
adapted bio-fuel crops.
Mandelson argues that there is an economic risk in
Europe if we fall behind the global economy in
approving safe biotechnology. He cites recent
European Commission research that suggests that
Europe may find it increasingly hard to source
animal feed that is approved under EU rules –
putting a heavy strain on the EU livestock sector.
He says: "Isolation from international trade in
agricultural biotech products that have passed
credible safety standards simply may not be a viable
option for the EU".
Mandelson argues that the EU should take the lead in
shaping "a global system of clear rules that allow
exporters and importers to trade GM crops and feed
in confidence". He identifies negotiations on the
Codex Alimentarius, bringing the Biosafety Clearing
House of the Cartagena Protocol to full operational
status and the reinforcement of the WTO SPS
Agreement as key priorities.
Mandelson concludes: "One extreme of the biotech
debate in agriculture often wrongly portrays it as a
conflict between consumer sovereignty and corporate
power - between caution and recklessness. The other
extreme of the debate – especially in the United
States - thinks it is a tussle between free trade
and protectionism. It is none of these. Strong
safety standards are legitimate principles of
international law. The best defence of consumer and
corporate interests is a regime that is open to new
technologies but ensures they are tested in a way
that keeps public safety and health paramount. And
so long as we apply the same rules and standards
across the board the protectionist label doesn't
stick. From its side, the biotech industry needs to
keep in mind that while technology determines what
is possible, consumer demand determines what is
economically viable. Public fears may be misplaced,
but they cannot and should not be dismissed. We –
and by that I mean you the industry and we, public
authorities and governments – need to do a better
job of setting out the issues." |
Many thanks for the invitation to
join you today.
The title of this conference calls biotech ‘the invisible
revolution’. Which is true. Yet this all but invisible
technology is reshaping agriculture and industry;
revolutionising medicine. Biotechnology is arguably the coal
face of applied science in the twenty first century.
But biotech can arouse strong emotions. There is something in
human nature that can make us afraid of science, nervous of new
technologies. When those technologies affect the basic materials
of life, the concerns are magnified.
But technological change has transformed the way we live
immeasurably for the better. The scientific revolution taught us
how to understand the natural world. Technological change has
given us the capacity to shape and develop it for the public
good.
My essential message today is that biotechnology is a critical
part of the world's economic and environmental future. But it
touches on some deeply sensitive issues – it goes right to the
heart of how we feel about nature, risk and technology.
There are still those who are unnerved at the speed with which
science, and the application of science through technology,
changes our lives.
Biotech is at the sharpest end of that technological revolution
– and evokes some of the strongest responses. Its advocates –
like the advocates of many new technologies – sometimes make
expansive claims. Its opponents say untested technology is being
pushed on unwilling people. The atmosphere can end up so
impossibly polarised that a rational public debate becomes
impossible.
However, we must not allow the positive argument for biotech to
be lost because public authorities and governments are sometimes
afraid or unable to make the case to their citizens. That is not
the leadership the public has the right to expect. As others
around the world move ahead - in the United States and Japan,
but also the emerging economies - we in Europe must also play a
leading role in a sector that will play such an important role
in tomorrow's economy.
So we need an open and rational debate about the risks and
benefits of biotechnology more than ever. That debate – and the
implications for trade and development - is what I would like to
talk about today.
The Biotech Economy
We are already living in a biotech era – from the medicine you
take to the laundry detergent you use. In the health sector,
biotechnology is now an essential part of the development of new
drugs and therapies. Industrial biotechnology that can replace
chemical processes and the consumption of fossil fuels will be
important in reducing Europe's carbon footprint. The European
Union's bio-fuel strategy would not be possible without
industrial biotechnology.
Most Europeans are not overly troubled by this. In fact, the
most recent Eurobarometer on this subject from 2005 actually
showed that most Europeans are enthusiastic about potential new
applications of biotechnology.
But there is one glaring exception. Something like six in ten
Europeans say they oppose Genetically Modified food. When
applied to agriculture and the food we eat, biotech appears more
threatening and our reaction is more ambivalent. Nevertheless,
half of Europeans still say that they would be ready to buy GM
food if it were healthier or more environmentally friendly.
Which suggests that the advocates of biotechnology need to do a
lot more to explain what biotech is, and what its real risks and
benefits are.
The role of science and risk
Like any new science, biotechnology carries risks and those
risks must be probably assessed and managed. EU legislation on
the approval of biotech products requires all new products to be
thoroughly tested to the most rigorous scientific standards.
But no technology can ever be totally risk free. So we have
developed the precautionary principle which is now incorporated
in most EU policy on environmental and health protection. The
precautionary principle is not about purely hypothetical
hazards. It carries its own strict preconditions. First, a
potentially dangerous effect must be identified and second, it
must be possible to show clearly that we do not have the
scientific means to judge properly the level of risk.
This process takes time, and those whose job it is to manage
risk are right to be thorough. But it is also reasonable to
insist that when the process has run its course, and the
scientific issues have been thrashed out, we stand by the
science. And that applies to both the technical experts and to
the politicians they report to. A rigorous system means
approving GM imports when the science is on their side just as
we take a firm line when precaution is justified.
It is hard enough to communicate the outcome of complex
scientific assessments to people in a simple but clear manner.
If politicians and risk managers undermine their own system it
becomes almost impossible. We devalue objective science as our
most important benchmark – and that is a dangerous step to take.
Biotechnology and the (next) green revolution
The reason for a consistent, science-based approach to GMOs is
not only a matter of good government and public trust. A
rational debate on GMOs is a matter of the economic future and
well-being of people around the world.
Take agriculture. The world's population is projected to reach 9
billion people by 2050. The Food and Agriculture Organisation
anticipates that world food demand will double by that date,
while agriculture will have to produce more energy crops and
more raw materials for industry if we want to tackle climate
change.
To meet this demand in a sustainable way, we will have to
increase productivity in agriculture. Water resources will be
put under increasing strain. Inputs like nitrogen fertilisers
will become more expensive and subject to stricter rules. Forty
years ago, the green revolution was about producing more with
more: more fertilisers, more energy, more water. The challenge
of the 21st century is to produce more with less.
We face a huge rise in demand for food and animal feed in the
developing world. GM can help developing countries produce crops
designed to address their specific needs – like genetically
modified wheat did in India and Pakistan. It is simply not
responsible or defensible calmly to refuse to assess the role of
GM food in meeting those demands.
Could Europe get left behind?
Turning our own backs on safe GMOs here in Europe may carry the
same risks. Europe is a major agricultural exporter and one of
the largest importers of farm goods – including biotech
products.
This is particularly important for the European livestock
industry. Europe is heavily dependant on the import of feed
products for the simple reason that we do not have the available
land both to farm animals and to grow the feed they need.
Reliable imports of feed are the basis of EU livestock
production and its thousands of jobs.
My colleague Mariann Fischer Boel, the Agriculture Commissioner,
has just conducted a study on the impact on the EU farm sector
when GM crops that have been widely approved outside of Europe
are then not approved in Europe. The results suggest that as the
EU's major suppliers of animal foods, such as soybeans, approve
new GM varieties, Europe may find it increasingly difficult to
source GM-free soybeans. China's massive appetite for soybeans
will also increasingly shape what is grown and sold.
Today, agricultural biotech has largely remained a US-based
industry. But very soon it is likely to become a global
technology. Unless we can close the gap between GMO approvals in
the EU and in feed-exporting countries such as US, Argentina and
Brazil we may have hungry cows and struggling farmers. Isolation
from international trade in agricultural biotech products that
have passed credible safety standards simply may not be a viable
option for the EU, and we have to understand this reality.
The implications for trade policy
How do these questions impact on trade policy? Europe's policies
on biotechnology are above all a domestic issue. We set and
implement our own rules, a right respected alongside our
obligations under agreements like the Cartagena protocol and the
WTO SPS Agreement.
But in an increasingly open global economy, where trading
partners are moving ahead with their own GM and biotech
policies, Europe's policies will of course affect those who want
to trade with us. We will inevitably be scrutinised closely. If
we fail to implement our own rules, or implement them
inconsistently, we can - and probably will - be challenged.
I believe Europe should have a positive agenda too - an interest
in shaping a global system of clear rules that allow exporters
and importers to trade GM crops and feed in confidence. Europe
can and should play a leading role here. International
negotiations on the Codex Alimentarius as an important standard
setting body are one place to start. The Biosafety Clearing
House of the Cartagena Protocol needs to be made fully
operational to allow developing countries to make informed
choices about the food products they import. Within the WTO, the
SPS Agreement could become a stronger focal point for
international rules on GM policy and practice.
We also need to recognise that our rules raise the bar for
exporters into the European Union from developing countries, who
sometimes see our safety standards as an impediment to trade or
even as hidden protectionism. If we want developing countries to
participate in the trade in biotechnology and to benefit from it
we have to provide support to enable them to meet the
requirements. By helping them fulfil our requirements, we can
help them meet global standards.
Most importantly, we must be under no illusion that Europe's
interests are served by being outside a global market that is
steadily working its way through the issues raised by GM food.
They are not.
Conclusion: the way ahead
One extreme of the biotech debate in agriculture often wrongly
portrays it as a conflict between consumer sovereignty and
corporate power - between caution and recklessness. The other
extreme of the debate – especially in the United States - thinks
it is a tussle between free trade and protectionism.
It is none of these. Strong safety standards are legitimate
principles of international law. The best defence of consumer –
and corporate - interests is a regime that is open to new
technologies but ensures they are tested in a way that keeps
public safety and health paramount. And so long as we apply the
same rules and standards across the board the protectionist
label doesn't stick.
From its side, the biotech industry needs to keep in mind that
while technology determines what is possible, consumer demand
determines what is economically viable. Public fears may be
misplaced, but they cannot and should not be dismissed. We – and
by that I mean you the industry and we, public authorities and
governments – need to do a better job of setting out the issues.
So that people are aware of the potential benefits of GM food;
and – crucially – so they have confidence in our testing and
approval regime and are given appropriate information. Otherwise
too many Europeans will continue to see GMOs in black and white
terms, wholly good or wholly bad.
The way that human technologies affect us and the natural world
has always been a flashpoint for debate. Biotechnology is no
different. The only rational response is a patient assessment of
the evidence and a careful explanation of the facts.
Biotechnology has already improved millions of lives around the
world. That alone is reason enough to ensure that we do not deny
those benefits to millions more. |
|
