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

4 Connecting the evidence base and EU policy development
Summary of emerging points in Chapter 4
• Evidence indicates that the slow and expensive EU
GM regulatory framework has acted as an obstacle
to agricultural innovation. The EU is falling behind
international competitors in efficient land use for
food production and other applications in the
bioeconomy.
• There are important implications for the EU relating to
the following: (1) critical mass and multidisciplinarity of
public sector science and the provision of future skills;
(2) viability of a diverse private sector, with the aim to
encourage smaller companies and open innovation
alongside multinational companies; (3) capitalising
on research opportunities coming within range for
new GM crop traits; (4) developing and using New
Breeding Techniques; (5) developing new applications
for the bioeconomy, for example for human health
and production of green chemicals; (6) facing
major environmental challenges, for example those
associated with climate change and shifting pest and
pathogen populations; (7) ensuring informed public
engagement to support choice, political debate and
priority-setting; (8) achieving strategic coherence to
tackle current policy disconnects within the agriculture
sector and between it and other sectors.
• There is a need to modernise and reformulate the
regulatory framework for GM crops to be sciencebased,
transparent, proportionate and predictable,
taking into account the extensive experience gained
worldwide.
• Academies of science in the EU have an important
public role to play in reviewing the scientific evidence
and clarifying what information is reliable.
4.1 Emerging conclusions on global
socio-economic and environmental
impacts
Chapters 2 and 3 have discussed some of the evidence
available to exemplify the multiple roles and impacts
of GM crops in agriculture worldwide. There are
methodological issues associated with impact assessment
(Chapter 2 and Appendix 4) and data quality is sometimes
a limiting factor in the evaluation. Nonetheless, many
scientists have concluded (for example, Qaim, 2009;
Carpenter, 2010, 2011; Park et al., 2011; Lusser et al.,
2012b; Mannion and Morse, 2012) that there is now a
sufficiently large body of evidence on herbicide-tolerant
and insect-resistant GM crops to substantiate their
use in contributing to sustainable development goals.
For example, from a comprehensive review of published
work it was concluded that ‘available impact studies show
that these crops are beneficial to farmers and consumers
and produce large aggregate welfare gains’, together
with environmental and health benefits (Qaim, 2009).
Taken together, the published evidence indicates that, if
used properly, adoption of these crops can be associated
with the following:
• reduced environmental impact of herbicides and
insecticides;
• no/reduced tillage production systems with
concomitant reduction in soil erosion;
• economic and health benefit at the farm level,
particularly to smallholder farmers in developing
countries;
• reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural practices.
The issue of whether GM crop technology is a cause
of environmental damage has been controversial and,
of course, it is critically important that the scientific
assessment of the benefit–risk balance takes account
of environmental as well as human safety issues.
Extensive review of the data available on crops relevant
for agriculture in Europe (Sanvido et al., 2007; Sehnal
and Drobnik, 2009; DG Research, 2010a; Balazs et al.,
2011) provides no validated scientific evidence that the
cultivation of GM crops has caused any environmental
harm. A recent comprehensive assessment from the Swiss
National Science Foundation (2012), reviewing more than
2000 studies, confirms that no health or environmental
risks have been identified related to GM technology.
A recent statement by the Board of Directors for the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS, 2012) also reaffirms that GM crops are the most
extensively tested crops ever added to the food supply
chain, with the evidence showing that crop improvement
by biotechnology is safe and that GM and their non-GM
counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.
Some of the controversies in the early phase of
technology development arose from uncertainties in
incomplete datasets, for example relating to the putative
effect of GM crops on non-target organisms and on soil
ecosystems or lack of long-term experience relating to the
possibility of gene flow to wild relatives or invasiveness in
natural habitats (Sanvido et al., 2007). It is important for
the scientific community to continue to develop evidencebased
criteria for the consistent evaluation of specific
effects on the environment to assist regulatory authority
assessment of direct and indirect impact and to inform
the public dialogue.
EASAC Planting the future | June 2013 | 25