Ghent, Belgium
March 8, 2007
Different prominent scientists
have expressed their concerns that Europe is damaging countries
in the developing world by imposing its standards to regulate
genetic modified (GM) crops. The current regulatory policy is
damaging the prospects of public sector biotech to the point
where most of its contributions are stalled. If this is the
situation in South Africa and China, where experience in the
development of GM crops and biosafety regulations are in place,
what then is the hope for other developing nations that
desperately need transformation towards a knowledge-based
bio-economy.
An international discussion
On 20th February, at a public discussion organised by Friends of
Europe, Connie Hedegaard, Danish Minister for the Environment,
has expressed concern that Europe is damaging countries in the
developing world by imposing its standards to regulate GM crops.
Also Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Professor of Food, Nutrition and
Public Policy at Cornell University, and a World Food Prize
laureate commented: “This Debate is important because what we
think and do in Europe affects poor people in developing
countries.”
As a follow up to this event, the European Action on Global Life
Sciences (EAGLES) invited plant researchers from South Africa,
China and Brazil to hear their views on how European regulations
on GM crops influence legislators in the developing world.
Former head of unit at the European Commission, DG Research and
head of unit of biotechnology at the OECD Mark F. Cantley
said:”The economic and political disincentives Europe imposes on
the use of new technologies for environmentally friendly
agriculture makes it impossible for the developing world to
develop new improved crops”.
In her presentation, Professor Jennifer Thompson of University
of Cape Town underlined the reality of this fact: “We are
concerned about what we consider the European over-regulation
and question whether this may prevent, or severely delay, the
approval of plants that are desperately needed by poor
Africans”.
Even China, according to Professor Chen Zhangliang, President of
Beijing Agricultural University, has failed to approve the
commercial release of GM rice due to concerns over future
exports “even though China only exports 1% of its total rice
production”.
Looking forward to other attitudes
Critics of GM crops can no longer base their campaigns of
disinformation on arguments that biotechnology is simply a tool
with which multinational corporations will subjugate unwitting
farmers. Rather they should acknowledge that most, if not all
innovative research in agricultural biotechnology in the
developing countries is done in public research institutions
working towards public goods outputs.
The EU’s Environmental Council has repeatedly ignored the advice
of the EU’s expert advisory bodies, such as the European Food
Safety Agency (EFSA), on the proven safety of GM crops. The
Council repeatedly fails to implement its own laws, favouring
instead state censorship rather than offering choice. This
departure from rational decision-making is damaging the
credibility of the regulatory system on which much of Europe’s
innovative and industrial capacity relies. Europe’s
inconsistencies on the regulation of GM crops threaten the
efforts of public research to create food security in the
developing world.
The Institute of Plant
Biotechnology for Developing Countries (IPBO) is an
initiative of Gent University, Belgium, that is committed to
building capacity in developing country agricultural programs
through training, consultancy, collaborative and technology
transfer services.
RELATED RELEASE:
European GM
regulations impede the improvement of crops in the developing
world |
|
