Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
18 SEEDWORLD.COM JUNE 2016 Chinas growing dependence on food imports might be causing policymakers to rethink. This years annual statement on agriculture that was released by the leader- ship in January said that for the first time China would carefully promote GM food crops. Matin Qaim a professor of inter- national food economics and rural development at the University of Gttingen in Germany notes that China faces a similar situation as Europe where much of its research on GMOs has not gone beyond the limits of the laboratory setting. They have not brought most of these products to market simply because theyre concerned about consumer sentiments Qaim says. Innovation Stifled in Europe An understanding of the real- world importance of GM crops is essential to countering anti- GMO sentiment notes Justus Wesseler an economics professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He says the conse- quences of banning GMOs are being clearly seen in Europe. Europe does import GMOs that it needs but currently only culti- vates one crop Bt maize in Spain Portugal Czech Republic Slovakia Romania and Poland. This is not necessarily bad for large seed and chemical companies according to Wesseler as they can continue to sell their old products in Europe and the pressure to inno- vate is low. However he says the high regu- latory costs of the EUs cultivation restriction on GMOs is a barrier to entry into the market and therefore harms smaller seed companies. We did calculations for herbi- cide resistant maize. The EU would have gained about 82 million euros per year in 2005 prices which roughly speaking has been a loss of about 820 million euros from 2005-2015. For herbicide resistant sugar beets we calculated annual benefits of roughly 170 million euros every year for that 10-year period. These net benefits would be distributed between farmers and the downstream supply chain including consumers. Furthermore Wesseler notes that if the importing of GMOs to Europe were suddenly banned this would be extremely harmful to agriculture in the EU as well. Feed prices would substantially increase in the short term. Of course markets would adjust in the long run but this would be a very costly strategy. We would need more land to produce the same amount of goods wed see an increase in pesticide use and as a result damage to the environment and to human health he says. Like Qaim Wesseler has also studied the consequences of a GMO ban in the developing world and the results of regulatory delays or outright bans on GM products paint a dire picture for the econo- mies of developing nations too. For example regulatory road- blocks that prevent a bacterial wilt-resistant GM banana from being grown in Uganda cost the African nation as much as 300 million a year according to the study results. Reduced yields and higher prices for consumers aside the social ramifications of a GMO ban are something not often consid- ered by the people who advocate for such a ban. Thats according to Britains Mark Lynas a former anti- GMO activist who is now a pro- GMO author and journalist who focuses on climate change. Imagine if mobile phone tech- nology had been banned when it was beginning to emerge 30 years ago. Our lives would be very differ- ent than they are now he says. Back then I think it would have been impossible to quantify the effects of such an approach but it illustrates the dangers that could result if you try and ban science and the progress it results in even more so when its based on fears that are entirely unsubstantiated and misinformed. As anti-GMO sentiment in Europe rages on Lynas witnesses firsthand the very real social impact of that sentiment which has all but closed the door to GMO crops being grown in Europe and resulted in a shallower talent pool in the scientific community. A lot of scientists are leaving Europe. A lot of research is no longer being done here because they know their work will not be deployed outside the laboratory he says. Europe is losing its edge in all sorts of new technologies. Its more likely to go elsewhere unfortunately. Wesseler agrees. Research is already moving to other places. Banning GMOs would only speed the process. We see this in the decline of patent applications in the life sciences field he says. We not only observe it in the field of GMOs but also in biological control meth- ods new enzymes pharmaceutical products and others. 820 million euros have been lost from the EUs economy for corn alone due to GMO restrictions. 179.7 million hectares of biotech crops were planted worldwide in 2015. 2020 China will expand its soybean planting to 9.3 million hectares. The only GMO crop approved for cultivation in Europe is Bt maize and thats not for all of Europe.