Brussels, 09/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament will examine, on Thursday in Strasbourg, the report by the British Conservative John Purvis on the future of the biotechnology sector.
This theme, dear to the Swedish Presidency, is also a highly controversial subject. This sector significantly supported in the United States and Japan, is lagging behind in the European Union while it is, without a doubt, one of the areas of major innovation and one of the key sectors in industrial competitiveness. The growth of the European sector is nevertheless rapid: its has risen from 584 companies in 1995 to 1,351 in 1999. But the gap between the EU and the United States remains considerable. Testifying to this are the figures for 1998 according to which: - the receipts in millions of Euro are at 3,709 for the EU against 15,777 in the United States; - the spending on research is set at 2,334 for the EU against 8,398 in the United States; - the sector employs 45,823 people in the Union and 153,000 in the United States (source: Ernst & Young Bio Business). Beyond its economic importance, this sector is among those which are the best suited to answer the expectations of citizens in terms of new therapies, to name but one. Due to the genetic modifications for which it is the vector, it is also that which raises the greatest concerns both for the protection of the environment and biodiversity as from the point of view of food safety.
In his report, Mr Purvis proposes for the European Parliament to bring its support to the development of biotechnology in the EU and calls for this theme to be among the priorities of the Stockholm Summit. It calls on the European Commission to draft a Community action programme and on the Member States to entrust a Minister, in cooperation with the companies, to promote and coordinate the policies lead at the national level in the field of biotechnology. The Parliament should invite the eleven Member States, which have still not done so, to transpose without additional delay the 1998 Directive relating to the protection of biotechnological inventions and to support the establishment of the Community patent.
The Purvis report also proposes to attract foreign high-level researchers, managers and businessmen by foreseeing significant contingents for immigration and work permits. The rapporteur supports the development of genetic engineering and biotechnology as offering the possibility to improve the economic profitability of the food processing industry by sustainable preserving the environment. He feels that the use of these techniques must be developed in view of the consumer and the environment, to produce more varied and better quality foods, from which the farmers, who presently face problems of profitability, will also draw a greater profits. He calls to make obligatory, before their introduction onto the market, mutagenesis, ontogenesis and toxicity for genetically modified foods. Mr Purvis also reaffirms the EU citizens right to information concerning food products and invites the Commission to complete the provisions relating to the labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and to only authorise derogations when they are technically unavoidable. The report underlines the need to set up a centralised procedure for the assessment of genetically modified products, procedure which should enable to find a wider scientific consensus over the assessment of the dangers presented by new products. He invites the Commission and the Member States to support research into biotechnology applications bringing certain benefits on the social and environmental level, notably the development of micro-GMO aimed at the purification of water, the restoration of soils, the replacement of dangerous chemical substances and the development of sustainable energy sources and favourable to the environment (notably methane, hydrogen and ethanol). Mr Purvis feels that, to avoid the trench which is being dug between the rich and poor countries with regards to the use of the benefits of biotechnology, it is necessary to provide the poor countries with technical assistance to enable them to develop their qualifications, their companies and their markets.
Mr Purvis underlines that the limits, on a ethical level, which public opinion wants to see imposed in biotechnology are well founded, and that the EU has already set certain defences, for example in the framework of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Directive relating to chemical tests as well as the fifth framework research programme. He invites the Parliament to begin to examine, notably when the work of the temporary committee on human genetics has finished, whether other restrictions are necessary. Finally the report invites the Member States to protect the right of people to genetic confidentiality and to ensure that the establishment of genetic profiles is used for the well being of patients and society as a whole.