The essential elements for rediscovering an understanding of agriculture's role for the world and Europe are in place (see this column yesterday). There is, however, a lot of prejudice in different areas that still persists, especially with regard to the difficulty of moving on from awareness to taking action. Certain aspects are extremely controversial, particularly biofuels and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The scientists don't agree with each other and the tone of the polemic between the different political forces is often excessive. Some of the positions taken appear to be motivated more by political convictions than by looking at the arguments and everything has been complicated by the weight of the economic and financial interests at play.
Biofuels and the irrational. It is impossible that biofuels, which were claimed a little while ago to be the climate's saviour against oil pollution, suddenly become the enemy of humanity and the root of all evil. The political forces which only yesterday were criticising the European production target as being insufficient, are now denouncing biofuels as being responsible for food shortages and loudly calling for an immediate moratorium on all production.
Yesterday's enthusiasm was excessive and the current curses being hurled around are too. In Europe, the land given over to biofuels is much less than that left fallow, which results in reducing food production, facilitating imports to the benefit of the large trade interests and multinationals, to the detriment of subsistence production elsewhere, particularly in Africa. Europe has to stop artificially and arbitrarily leaving land fallow and instead focus efforts on second generation biofuels that use waste and biomass. This money would be much better spent than that needed to cover the ground lost to speculation and subsequent oil price hikes. The European authorities must at the same time take the objections to the excessive development of biofuels into consideration, whether these are environmental, food-related or technical. These objections are sometimes serious and well-founded; they need to be taken into account, as well as the arguments that go in the other direction, as expressed by Brazil. For the moment, this dossier seems to be dominated by irrationality.
GMOs and the impossible dialogue. The dossier on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) is just as complex and controversial. Instead of the arguments and objective data, supporters and opponents of GMOs are heaping mutual curses on each other, without taking into account any of the reasons put forward by their opposite number. The surface arguments and hateful tone of them are preventing any dialogue taking place. There are in fact valid arguments on both sides. When a parasite can destroy an entire harvest, leading to the bankruptcy of a farm, destitution and hunger, how can the usefulness of a seed that resists this parasite be contested? But there are so many arguments in the opposite direction too! The built-in dependency of farmers on the huge companies that own the patents, the risk of accidental contamination and, above all, the loss of biodiversity, an irreplaceable treasure that humanity has the duty to safeguard so that the earth can live.
I am aware that I am still unable to form a clear opinion on this mater but I'm in good company: last week's debate at the European Parliament (see the report in EUROPE 9651) confirmed the fact that there was no certainty at all about whether GMOs are useful to producers by reducing animal feed costs. The European Commission confirmed that member states are practically never able to attain qualified majority for or against one or other of the GMOs. I am convinced that both caution and reservations are still required in high measure.
How can poor countries be helped? At a general level the priority for agricultural policy should focus on the poor countries threatened by food shortages and famine. There are, nonetheless, a number of perplexing questions surrounding this issue too. The European commissioner for development, Louis Michel, doesn't help us a lot. He lists a number of obvious banalities: agriculture is at the basis of development; it is agriculture that feeds our people. Let's not have any doubt about it. The self-sufficiency of every country should be the objective. It's getting better because this was not contained in previous orientations. At the same time, he rejects the sending out of European food surpluses to countries in crisis because this can disrupt local production and he advises against increasing European production because this would have an effect on world prices. In this respect it is difficult to get what he's driving at: are not the real urgent needs exactly those, at least temporarily, of providing food aid to countries in crisis and lowering world prices?
(F.R.)