Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using ... - EASAC

Bt cotton provides a good example of the value of
incorporating insect-resistant GM crops in integrated
pest management systems for more effective and
sustainable control of pests.
5. Canada has been selected on the basis of its
regulatory system for Plants with New Traits, which
include the products of genetic modification. This
system focuses on regulating the product rather than
the breeding process by which such product was
developed and it is this aspect that we discuss, rather
than some of the other impacts for Canada.
The USA, the leading technology developer and an
early adopter of GM crops, will not be specifically
considered in this chapter although it should be
emphasised that there have been historically divergent
approaches between the EU and USA about the
introduction and marketing of GM foods and seeds
(Lynch and Vogel, 2001). Many other studies have
focused on the USA (Fernandez-Cornejo and Caswell,
2006; Bonny, 2008; Fuglie et al., 2011; O’Donoghue
et al., 2011; Owen et al., 2011; McHughen and Smyth,
2012; United States Department of Agriculture,
2012). In the comprehensive assessment by the US
national academies (National Research Council,
2010) of how GM crops are affecting US farmers 3 ,
substantial economic and environmental benefits
(lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced
use of pesticides, better yields) were found, compared
with conventional crops, if GM approaches were
properly integrated with other proven agronomic
practices for weed and insect management. It is also
worth noting that the USA is continuing to consider
how best to support its science and innovation in
agricultural biotechnology. For example, in its launch of
the National Bioeconomy Blueprint (The White House,
2012), the USA is reinforcing five strategic objectives:
to strengthen R&D, advance from laboratory to market,
reduce regulatory burden, develop the workforce
and foster partnerships 4 . The US President’s Council
of Advisers on Science and Technology has recently
submitted its report to the President on Agricultural
Preparedness and the Agricultural Research Enterprise.
In addition to recommending continuing research
investment, the Council of Advisers drew attention to
the need for an internal review of federal regulatory
policy to promote clarity 5 .
2.2 Emerging trends
The different strategic decisions on agriculture in other
countries are likely to have consequences for EU policy, in
terms of agricultural production, international trade and
investment in agricultural research and development.
2.2.1 Agricultural production
GM is a plant breeding technology that, in effect,
accelerates the breeding process by overcoming some
of the limitations of conventional breeding techniques.
Policies that restrict the use of this technology in the
EU will probably affect food production by effectively
limiting the technology options available to overcome the
challenge of increasing agricultural productivity. These
policies may impact the level of competitiveness of the
EU as an exporter of food, biomass and non-food plant
products, and increase dependency on imports to meet
demand. These aspects have been reviewed extensively
before and will not be considered further in this review
(von Witze and Noleppa, 2010; Chidambaram, 2011;
EPSO, 2011; Dixelius et al., 2012; see also Chapter 4).
2.2.2 International trade
Alternative agricultural and technology policies adopted
in major commodity export countries outside the EU,
and the stance of the EU on imports of GM crops,
also have an impact on international trade. The USA,
Australia, Canada and the four emerging economies
of Argentina, Brazil, China and India account for a
major portion of global grains and oilseed production
and play a significant role in the global trade of these
commodities. These countries have also all adopted GM
crops, and in 2012 they collectively planted over 150
million hectares of GM crops (over 90% of the global
total; James, 2012).
The EU, on the other hand, is a key importer of soybeans,
maize, wheat and rice (GM rice is a product that is in
the ‘pipeline’, with GM wheat further into the future).
Labelling and segregation requirements add to the costs
of imports and hence increase food prices. In addition, the
EU’s demand to source non-GM food or feed imports may
be progressively limited by declining availability and/or
increased costs of conventional crops in major commodity
exporting nations.
The number of commercialised GM events is predicted
to rise from approximately 40 released so far, to over 120
by 2015, with a diversification in both crop species and
traits engineered (Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010; and
see Chapter 4). This will involve both a diversification of
crop species and the selected traits (Stein and Rodriguez-
Cerezo, 2010). Trade-related problems are therefore
likely to be exacerbated in the future. The implications
for international trade of diverging and asynchronous
3
Introduced in 1996 in the USA, in 2009 GM crops accounted for 80–90% of soybean, maize and cotton grown.
4
For example, one key partnership exemplified in the Blueprint for the USA–UK is to design and engineer agricultural systems to
maintain or increase crop yields with minimal input of nitrogen fertilisers.
5
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast.
10 | June 2013 | Planting the future EASAC