EuropaBio’s manifesto, setting out five main policies to support agricultural biotech, was launched as the industry gathered at the BioVision conference in Lyon. Apart from EuropaBio, and the national bodies that sit under its umbrella, the report has the support also of AfricaBio, an independent body representing farmers on the continent.
Launching the manifesto, EuropaBio Chairman, Hans Kast said, “We have the products in place, we have the solutions to offer, but we need political action from European leaders to open the European market and offer real choice, otherwise Europe will not benefit from this technology and will be left behind.”
EuropaBio has been working hard to get some momentum going among supporters of genetically modified crops, in the face of an increasingly tight squeeze on the technology, as evidenced by stricter anti-GM policies in countries including Austria and Hungary.
But a day earlier, an opportunity to stage a full debate of the issue at the European Parliament’s monthly plenary meeting in Strasbourg was denied, when MEPs sent a report on the subject back to the Agriculture Committee for further work on the grounds it was pro industry.
The report, “Biotechnology: prospects and challenges”, is the handiwork of the Finnish MEP Kyosti Virrankoski, who previously accused the European Parliament of “burying its head in the sand” over the issue.
Adding insult to injury, this was the second discussion of interest to the biotech industry to be postponed. MEPs were due to talk about proposals for a single regulatory framework for advanced therapies such as replacement tissues and stem cell therapies, but this debate was pulled to allow further backroom negotiations in an attempt to reach agreement before the MEPs have their say.
Matching report for report, EuropaBio, France Biotech, the UK BioIndustry Association and other industry groups also published a new version of the BioImpact report, detailing the ways in which biopharmaceuticals are improving treatments in diseases including breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and rheumatoid arthritis.
In the meantime, a new front was opened in Europe’s biotechnology wars when the European Union initiated an investigation into the use of cloning in agriculture. This follows the recent ruling by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the meat of the offspring of cloned animals is fit for human consumption. The EU has asked the European Food Safety Agency and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to assess the impact of using cloning in agriculture on food safety, animal health and welfare and the environment.
Whatever the conclusions, the issue of cloning livestock seems certain to provide more freight for campaigners against agricultural biotech.
Manifesto supports Millennium Development Goals
Everywhere but in Europe, agricultural or green biotechnology, is being adopted at record speed around the world, according to EuropaBio’s manifesto. In 2006, 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries cultivated genetically modified crops on 102 million hectares. Of the 10.3 million, 90 per cent or 9.3 million were small farmers in developing countries, where increased income from biotech crops is contributing to alleviate poverty.
The Green Biotechnology Manifesto advocates five main policies to support agricultural biotech in Europe. The industry calls on decision makers to
- Fully implement the biotech crop authorisation process
- Enable a European single market in seeds
- Respect other countries’ freedom to trade in gm commodities
- Promote coherence of policies and public information on green biotech
- Promote policies that respect developing countries.
Launching the biotech manifesto, Bernward Garthoff, Chairman of the Agrifood Council of EuropaBio, said, “The application of biotechnology to plant breeding has yielded benefits to farmers, the economy and the environment, which are simply not possible with the more traditional approaches.”
“These are making an essential contribution not only to the food and animal feed security of a growing and increasingly prosperous global population, but also to the sustainable supply of renewable raw materials for industry and energy such as transport fuels.”
Diran Makinde, from the School of Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry of the University of Venda in South Africa, told the BioVision delegates that GM crops have directly contributed to the alleviation of poverty for some 7.7 million farmers.
He highlighted a study carried out in South Africa in 2002 in which GM maize and GM cotton were compared to conventional crop varieties. In both cases the GM crops produced a higher yield and generated more profits.
Another important development for Africa will be the commercialisation of drought-tolerant crops. Makinde noted that drought-tolerant maize has just been approved to undergo field trials in South Africa and in the next two to three years drought-resistant wheat could be ready for commercialisation in Egypt
Makinde questioned the EU’s stance saying, “Present EU policies and perceptions make R&D, product development and commercialisation in agricultural biotechnology difficult, especially in developing countries that engage in agricultural trade with the EU.”
“European consumers generally perceive GM foods to be ‘contaminated’ and therefore developing countries that are dependent on the markets in Europe do not wish to grow them and are losing out on vast socio-economic benefits,” he told delegates.
“There are also issues regarding the strict traceability requirements specified in the EU regulations, which most developing countries will find difficult and costly to implement, and are unlikely to measure up to.
Makinde noted that after a decade of use, there have been no cases of GM crops being harmful to human health or the environment. Therefore, there is a considerable imbalance between the hypothetical benefits of non-adoption afforded by the EU policy for its own citizens, and the real and substantial benefits that could be afforded to developing countries.
“The EU has not taken into account the negative effect that its policies and attitudes are likely to have on those working in the agricultural sector in developing countries,” he concluded.
BioImpact study damns Europe’s innovation skills
The European public is far more supportive of the healthcare products coming out of biotechnology than it is of agricultural manifestations. Despite this the BioImpact study finds healthcare biotech is also at a disadvantage.
The study demonstrates that biotechnology provides major added-value in healthcare, in terms of better diagnoses and treatments, improved efficiency and safety and reduced inefficiencies in the healthcare systems, and significant contribution to progress in science, medicine and societal and economic growth.
But according to BioImpact only a minority of biotech medicines are being developed in Europe, indicating a weakness in Europe’s ability to promote a pro-innovation policy framework.
The patient testimonials and science-based information are proof of the great contribution biotech is making in addressing unmet medical needs, according to Andrea Rappagliosi, Chairman of EuropaBio’s Healthcare Council.
“In order to guarantee continued access to the most innovative care, it is vital to create an optimal environment for the discovery and development of, as well as for patient access to biotech therapies in Europe,” he said.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
