“agricultural biotechnology: genetically modified food and feed in … · 2011-10-21 · 15...

11

“Agricultural Biotechnology:Genetically modified food and feed in the EU”

Hearing European Economic and Social Committee

Brussels, 20 October 2011

Beat Späth, Public Affairs Manager,

Green Biotechnology, EuropaBio.

22

� 66 corporate members (Healthcare + Industrial + Agbiotech)� +7 associate members and 4 Bioregions� +22 national biotech associations = +1800 biotech SMEs

8 Green biotech member companies

EuropaBio: European Association of Biotechnology Industries

Industrial biotechnology / White – industrial proces sesHealthcare biotechnology / Red - pharmaceutical pro ductsPlant biotechnology / Green - agriculture/seeds

Contents

1. GMO Cultivation and trade2. Safety and Impacts3. Regulation & Politics4. Conclusions

44

1. GMO cultivation and trade

55

Agricultural biotechnology is being adopted at record speed around the world.

GMOs - The Global Picture

Source : LIS Consult 2011

66

High annual growth in cultivation area since introduction 1996.

2010 reality� 15.4 million farmers (90% resource-poor farmers in developing world)� 29 countries � 148 million hectares� Soy, cotton, maize, oilseeds, sugar beet

2015 predictions� 20 million GM crop farmers � 40 biotech countries� 200 million hectares of biotech crops� New product quality and stress resistance traits� New developers: China, India, Brazil� New crops: potato, rice, sugar beet, brinjal,…

GMOs – The Global Picture

Source : James, C. (2010) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops

77

GMOs - The Global Picture

Source : ISAAA, 2011 Rapid adoption of GM varieties.

8

Comparison 2010 GM cultivation worldwide vs. Europe

Global area of biotech crops: 148 million ha

Equivalent to more than 6 times land area of UK

EU area of biotech crops:

91,438 ha

Equivalent to less than the area

of Greater London

99

Cultivation of biotech crops in the EU

Cultivation

No cultivation yet

EU farmers are allowed to plant only 2 GM events

In the Americas farmers are allowed 25+

1010

EU heavily dependent on imported protein

Produced from EU soybeans: 0.8 mln t (2%)

Imported

soybean meal

24.1 mln t (66%)

Produced from

imported

soybeans

11.5 mln t (32%)

EU27: Soy imports and domestic = 35mlnt/year

Soy is used for animal feed particularly.

90% of imported soy is from biotech crops.

Non-GM soy becoming difficult to source.

Increasingly costly (e.g. $85/t premium.)

Source : David Green, Greenhouse Communications, Virginia

1111

2. Safety and Impacts

121212

No negative effects for health & environment

"A decade of EU-funded GMO research’’ (2001-2010)• 50 EU projects • more than 400 independent research groups• European research grants of some EUR 200 million

“EC-sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms’’ (1985-2000)

“The use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably makes GMOs even safer than conventional plants and foods.”

Biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies

1313

Estimated benefits to EU of adoption of GM crops each year

Benefit to EU farmers if they were allowed to grow available GM crops is estimated at

€443 and €929 million each year.

Source: The impact of the EU regulatory constraint of transgenic crops on farm income; Julian Park, Ian McFarlane, Richard Phippsand Graziano Ceddia, New Biotechnology; March 2011

1414

Insect-resistant Bt maizeincreases competitiveness

� Improved crops

� Increased yields

� Increased income

� Cost savings

� Reduction of energy use

� Controlled targeting of pests

Europe record example: Spanish Farmers yield b y 10%

Worldwide 1996-2009: Farmer income $64.7 bill ion with significant, additional environmental benefits

Cumulative economic benefits:Developing countries (49%) > industrial 51%)

Source: PG Economics 2011 forthcoming

1515

Roundup Ready Soybean

� 1999: introduction of GM soybean (herbicide tol.)

� 2006: 137,000 out of 190,000 soybean ha

� Farmer advantages - 18% average yield gains

� Romania = soybean exporter

� 2007: EU accession. GM soybean disallowed

� 2010: Soybean area decreased to 44,000ha

� Romania = soybean importer

� 2008: Lost profit at farmer level: €19 million

� 2009: $137.3 million spent on imports to fulfill soy needs

GM soybeans in Romania provided economic success

Conventional Soybean

Additional GMO benefits

Produce more with less

Farmers• Higher yields• Higher sucess rate (lower crop failure)• Lower inputs (for example less ploughing, spraying)

Environment• More crops on less land: biodiversity • Less ploughing and spraying = less CO2, less soil degradation, • More efficient water use

Food security & develoment• 90% of GM farmers = resource poor, from developing countries

1717

Wealthier: India, Russia & China

Feeding the World

Today 2100

World population growth

Climate change

Water shortages

Biofuels

Increasing demand•9 billion•changing food habits•better diets•biofuel use

Decreasing capacity•Less land/ less good land•Climate change

Farmable land

Source : David Green, Greenhouse Communications, Virginia. And Economist magazine 2011.

1818

3. Regulation & Politics

191919

� Strict EU regulation

� Cultivation and imports only possible with approval

� Authorisation product by product

� EFSA safety assessment

� Political decision (comitology)

� approvals system not fundamentally different from systems elsewhere

� But minority of Member States prevent system from working properly

Regulation in the EU

_____________________________________________________________________________________________“Approvals of GMOs in the European Union”. Report av ailable from EuropaBio.

Regulation in the EU

• Authorisation system for GMOs not working as it should

• There is a significant backlog– Every year, twice as many GM products enter the system as exit it.– Almost twice as many product applications in the system, than have exited it

• EU process takes substantially longer than comparable systems

• Slow process cannot be explained by safety concerns alone– Commission takes much longer to put products to the vote than foreseen by law– New assessment requirements lacking scientific basis are introduced

• For cultivation, the agreed process has never been correctly implemented

• Some governments vote against EFSA scientific advice for political reasons


21

Member States voting against EFSA scientific opini on

EU authorisation voting

The chart shows that 10 countries vote against the EFSA scientific opinion more than 63% of the time.


Status end 2010• 101 products submitted to the EU authorisation system

• 36 products approved

• 65 products in the EU authorisation system (8 new submissions in 2011, actual total now 73)

Prediction for 2015• 20 individual new events • 4 renewals

• 22 stacked events

• 12 events developed for local markets, not seeking an approval in the EU

Forward projection

93 products in the system in 2015 (assuming average 6 approvals per year)68 products in the system in 2015 (assuming average 11 approvals per year)

EVEN IF THE APPROVAL RATE ALMOST DOUBLES THE BACKLOG REMAINS UNCHANGED


Conclusions on EU approvals

If the EU continues down its present path – trade problems will increase– farmers will continue to lose out and become increasingly uncompetitive– political pressure will increase– public acceptance will continue to suffer

The biotech industry and EU decision-makers alike a gree that– legislation must be properly implemented– confidence in the system must be restored

EU needs a clear, consistent and science-based poli cy approach– safeguard EFSA’s independence rather than undermine it– promote science and separate it clearly from politics– resist unscientific concessions, that undermine credibility, for short-term political

gains

Efficiency gains are possible without impacting tho roughness, completeness or independence of assessment

2424

4. Conclusions

Conclusions

GMOs in agriculture: • Fasted adopted agricultural technology in history

• Economic benefits: 15 million farmers can’t be wrong

• Unparalleled safety record• Environmental benefits

EU & GMOs: • Limited cultivation, but massive imports (60 kg pa per citizen)

• Strict regulation: fact based in theory but political in practice

Political questions: is it justifyable...• ... to import but not to grow?

• ... to ban safe products from the market? • ... for the EU not to contribute to global food security?

2626

Thank you for your attention! Questions?

Beat Späth, Public Affairs Manager,

Green Biotechnology, EuropaBio.

[email protected]

“agricultural biotechnology: genetically modified food and feed in … · 2011-10-21 · 15...

Documents