10 I EUROPEAN SEED I EUROPEAN-SEED.COM elite germplasm and variety development to those regions that are already embracing the new breeding methods and are gearing their respective regulatory frameworks to support this. And, as stated before, we should not underestimate what the ruling does to the human resource base of Europe’s plant breeding. We will see short- to medium-term relocation of R&I personnel of both companies and institutes to third countries, similar to what we observed with the ‘classical’ GM-related research and product development. But what is worse is the fundamental message the ruling sends to anybody considering a career in plant sciences in Europe: you’re not welcome here! That may prove the most devastating effect in the long run. ing methods are therefore taken-up worldwide and at the pace and breadth we predict, this will quickly result in dozens and probably soon hundreds of new varieties in many, many differ- ent species. All of these will be considered conventional in the countries they will be grown in. Even if these countries would acknowledge the EU’s different interpretation: such a massive influx of import applications can never be handled by the current EU system. It simply lacks both the necessary resources and the political will. ES: BAYER, BASF, AND PROBABLY MEANWHILE SOME OTHERS, ALREADY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WILL NOT PURSUE ADVANCED GENETIC PLANT BREEDING ANY MORE IN THE EU. ARE YOU SEEING MORE COMPANIES/INVENTORS SAYING THIS TOO? GvE: I would expect that this position will become the rule, not be an exception. It also needs to be said that such relocation of PBI related R&I activities (and consequent product development and marketing) will be easier for those entities that already pos- sess respective facilities outside the EU. The smaller and more regionally or even locally focussed European companies are the ones that will suffer most. It is sad to see that history seems to repeat itself. We already observed this effect with the classical GM technology and products. Those now applauding the ruling as preserving a diverse European plant breeding sector will in the end see that quite the contrary will become true. Only larger companies would be capable of crossing the high regulatory and financial bars of the EU’s GM authorisation system. Smaller and medium sized companies and all those active in niche markets and speciality crops will effectively be prevented from accessing these advanced breeding methods. ES: WHAT NEXT STEPS WILL ESA NOW BE TAKING? GvE: Of course, we are still in the process to fully analyse the ruling and all foreseeable consequences. And we will discuss these also with our colleagues in public research, our customers, the European farmers and vegetable growers, as well as our part- ners along the EU agri-food chain. The very clear and unusually outspoken reactions of many of them show, I think, that there is a wide agreement amongst us that this ruling now has to be accepted from a purely juridical point of view; but that its wider socio-economic consequences are unacceptable not only for us but for Europe as a whole. To turn an old saying around: If it’s broken, fix it! How it can be fixed to me is still uncertain and will still require long and difficult discussions. But that we will try to fix it, that much is for certain. What is equally clear is that we, that Europe in the first place needs to have a political debate, not a legal one, on the future of its agriculture, its related sectors in general and spe- cifically on plant breeding innovation. Maybe the start of dis- cussions about the new European Common Agricultural Policy and related budget provides an opportunity for that; and maybe the severe drought problems in vast parts of Europe underline the importance and the urgency to set Europe’s plant breeding sector free from rules that prevent instead of stimulating inno- vations that could help us to more successfully address climate change, healthy diets, environmental sustainability and food security. It is not yet too late to have this debate; but it is high time. 150 years after Mendel’s discoveries revolutionised the understanding of the development of plants, we will do all we can to assure that Europe not only has a history of plant breed- ing to be proud of, but that it also will have a future. Most countries all over the world are now realising that the rather simplistic approaches of the old GM rules are not fit for purpose for the next era of plant breeding innovation ES: WHAT IMPACT DO YOU THINK THE DECISION WILL HAVE ON IMPORTERS OF GMO FOOD AND FEED? AND DO YOU THINK THE DECISION WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON FUTURE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS (SINCE AGRICULTURE USUALLY IS A STICKING POINT IN ALL SUCH DISCUSSIONS)? GvE: It is probably a bit too early to fully understand and predict the consequences. It is a fact that the EU approval system for GM food and feed imports already today is largely dysfunctional. Member States disregard the opinion of the EU’s competent scien- tific authority EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and gen- erally fail to approve any new product according to the applicable rules and procedure. Similarly, the European Parliament passes (non-binding) resolution after resolution asking the Commission NOT to apply the legislation and in the absence of a decision by Member States- approve the import authorisation based on the safety confirmation of EFSA. All of this tit-for-tat has resulted in a continuous backlog and undue delays – with the known negative consequences for the international trade. And: all of this has hap- pened with just a handful of applications of generally well-known products that everybody agreed to be GMOs! With the new methods, things will be very different. Firstly, most countries other than the EU do NOT consider them to result in regulated GMOs. This means we have a fundamental difference already at the starting point. And if the new breed-