Alden Biesen, 18/09/2001 (Agence Europe) - The debate on the integration of new technologies in agriculture, held during the informal Agriculture Council on Tuesday (during the absence of French Minister Jean Glavany) showed that the EU could no longer afford to ignore the commercial possibilities opened up by genetically modified plants and the need to develop the production of biofood. This at least is what resulted from the presentation of international experts (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.11) and the declarations of the European Commission. On the other hand, as Commissioner David Bryne and Council President Annemie Neyts recalled, the Member States are divided over the question of lifting the moratorium, even if, generally speaking, they did welcome the new Commission stance on the labelling and traceability of GMO (which will be subject to scrutiny at the Internal Market and Environment Councils). We recall that the countries that are most hostile to lifting the moratorium are France, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg (followed by Italy, Greece and Denmark).
Italian Agriculture Minister Giovanni Alemanno declared on the sidelines of the meeting: "I confirm my country's traditional tendency to caution without, however, wishing to maintain an ideological blockage and without closing the door on research". On the subject of the moratorium, he recalled that it was a question of "emergency measures with a view to overall clarification which is not yet in force". Belgian Minister Annemie Neyts said she did not share the "collective psychosis" surrounding GMO questions. Miguel Arias Canet, from Spain, was in favour of authorising the marketing of GMOs, founded on a case-by-case assessment of the risks for human health. Spain considers it necessary to continue research in this respect while following the Community's precautionary principle. Dutch Minister Laurens Jan Brinkhorst feels it is necessary to "set in place conditions that are favourable for developing research, while remaining aware of the risks, and leaving the choice up to the consumers". German Minister Renate Künast restated his reticence concerning risk assessment. On the Commission's side, it is said that one cannot envisage lifting the moratorium before the EU has a sound legal basis on authorisation of experimental dissemination and marketing, that is, not before 17 October 2002, the date when the updated directive will be implemented (18/2001 amending Directive 90/2000). Two other proposals are soon expected concerning genetically modified seeds. On one hand, it is a matter of establishing provisions to designate accountability when, for example, a research centre pollutes a field. On the other hand, it is a matter of defining arrangements for environmental risk assessment as well as the labelling of these seeds. EUROPE recalls that, so far, only two varieties of GMO-derived seed have been included in the common catalogue as seed varieties that may be marketed in the EU.
During the final press conference, Commissioner Franz Fischler made the following three observations: (1) the EU has a choice between deciding on its own policy on GMOs or not doing anything and therefore having outside rules imposed on it; (2) "we must ensure that competitive conditions are balanced between traditional agriculture and biotechnology agriculture"; (3) "I am not opposed to the idea, supported by scientists, of moving forward along the road to international harmonisation for research. On the other hand, it is imperative that the EU should preserve the right to keep its own level of risk management". During the debate, Mr Fischler pointed out that, "it is not my understanding of political leadership to echo populist stances and play on fears in order to score cheap political points". He went on to add: "We should take a pro-active stance. We must explain to the people out there what they risk if we turn our back on this technology. We must make clear what benefits biotech can bring to them, from hunger-relief by making crops resistant against drought to its responsible application in the field of medicine". He also stressed that biological farming must be GMO-free. On this last point, he called for the adoption of a tolerance threshold and did not rule out the possibility of one day having to establish preferential geographical areas for biological crops. Commissioner David Byrne felt that the excessive amount of unfounded criticism does not reflect the scientific approach on food safety that he recommends. He invited all parties to hold a rational debate and to adopt a balanced approach.
Concerning renewable raw materials, Mr Fischler told Ministers that the Commission must take a stance over the next few weeks on an initiative that should make it possible to promote the use of biofuel by reserving a share of the transport fuel market for bioethanol and biodiesel. He added that the potential to guarantee a share of the EU market through commercial means or direct payments for growing specific plants are particularly limited under the current WTO rules and therefore the only way open in the future would be to ensure our biomass production was sufficiently competitive against fossil fuels and competitors from outside the EU. He explained that farmers already had a number of measures at their disposal designed to encourage the use of biomass, such as the authorisation of non-food arable farming on frozen land or aid for investment in rural development programmes. He added that the very wide gap between the cost of bioenergy and energy generated from fossil fuels was a major handicap which could only be dealt with by taking political measures to demonstrate the true cost/benefit ratio, by taxing fossil fuels, for example, by scrapping the taxes on biofuel or compulsorily reserving a specific part of the market exclusively for biofuel.
The CEJA wanted a debate on "positive technologies"
The President of the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA), Hans-Benno Wichert, said on Monday that he was disappointed that the Ministers and experts had not breathed a word about positive technologies (that is technology that can be used to develop more environmentally-friendly farming methods) or about the use of the internet to more widely disseminate scientific information and enter dialogue with public opinion. More generally, the CEJA believes that the use of new technology is one way for farmers to remain cost effective. Mr Wichert said that by increasing the production of biomass for non-food ends to cover some 10% of the landmass currently given over to arable farming in Europe, it would be possible to cut CO2 emissions by 6%. The CEJA commented that before the implementation of reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy in 1999, the Commission had refused to grant direct aid for this purpose on the grounds that the Blair House agreements did not allow any increase in specific aid.