Debate on genetically modified crops organised by Dutch Minister for Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Food (LNV).
11 June 2009
Although worldwide genetically modified crops are grown extensively (over 100 million hectares annually), resistance in Europe remains high. Initially the aversion concerned human and animal health. Later on, the subject of possible ecological damage became prominent. Currently, part of the criticism refers to the agricultural system in which gmo's prosper best.
After 'the lessons learned from nuclear power', EU authorities declared 'genetic modification' the first new technology where risk assessment and regulation would take place beforehand, in stead of afterwards. This European process has grinded to a halt, however. Even crops that were evaluated favourably by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), still become the subject of political bickering within EU-bodies. A number of EU member states feels comfortable with this standstill, mainly because their citizens reject gmo's. In other countries, like the Netherlands, authorities regret Europe having to miss the benefits of such new crops, like an agriculture less harmfull to the environment or using up less space. At the same time, gmo-products seep into the EU (because of travelling abroad and importing animal feed and cotton) and, directly or indirectly, reach EU consumers' kitchens and wardrobes.
After some earlier (series of) debates (most notably the series organised by the temporary committee on biotechnology and food, led by Jan Terlouw), Dutch minister Gerda Verburg of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Food safety organised a seminar with opponents and proponents of gmo's on June 9th 2009. A report by Hans van der Lugt of this meeting appeared in the Dutch daily NRC, a day later.
The article mentions how Professor Raoul Bino (still director of the Plant Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre) elborates on the technology and the advantages of crops requiring less, and less harmfull, chemical crop protection. Nico Roozen of NGO Solidaridad emphasized the importance of 'fair trade' for prosperity and wellbeing in developing countries. The nature of the traded agricultural goods, conventional or gmo, was less relevant to him. According to professor Louise Fresco (University of Amsterdam and a columnist for the NRC newspaper) enough food was currently produced globally and, above all, it was poverty (likely caused by societal destabilisation and armed conflics) which blocked progress in some parts of the world, and not the nature of the crops produced. She also pointed out that the effect on complex soil life systems is still completely unknown. Furthermore the 'absense of proof of negative effects' from Americans eating gmo's was something different than 'the proof of absense of negative effects'.
From the article it is not possible to tell wheather, and why, the concerns of professor Fresco on these last two matters are restricted to gmo crops, or if they also include convential agriculture (ánd gardening ánd pets) or even human activity in general.
According to the article, minister Verburg stated in her opening address that, as far as she was concerned, a categorical rejection of gmo's was no longer relevant. Conventional cattle feed contains gmo-derived components in a number of EU member countries, and, upon being asked, only 2 persons among her audience could guarantee they were not wearing any clothing produced from gmo cotton plants.
At the end of the day, she added that, regarding gmo crops, she wants a role more independent form the EU. If EFSA comes with a favourable report, that should be sufficient basis for member countries to allow growing such crops, without having to take part in 'political games', that stall decision taking and progress in the EU for years on a row now.
source: Hans van der Lugt in Dutch daily NRC June 10th 2009