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

decision-making is accessible by the wider scientific
community. These matters are important (Podevin et
al., 2012) and EASAC is concerned that many European
policy-makers, by contrast with policy-makers elsewhere,
may not yet appreciate the significance for food security
of the new techniques emerging (Atanassov et al., 2010).
Notwithstanding the general importance of recalibrating
GMO legislation, discussed earlier in this chapter, as
a short-term consideration it is also important for EU
regulators to confirm that the products of the New
Breeding Techniques, when they do not contain foreign
DNA, do not fall within the scope of GMO legislation.
This clarification of status would give strong, immediate
support to the competitiveness of the EU plant breeding
sector which, thus far, has been responsible for a
significant proportion of the worldwide research on New
Breeding Techniques.
Much innovative thinking and experimentation has
gone into the development of new technologies for crop
genetic improvement. Patented intellectual property
attaches to some of the New Breeding Techniques but
terms of license may still stimulate innovation among
public sector researchers and smaller companies. It would
be perverse if the costs of regulation in the EU were again
to provide an impediment such that the ‘cost of entry’
could only be afforded by large multinational companies
interested in markets for globally traded crops.
4.5 Public attitudes and engagement
Discussion about GM crops tends to have become a
proxy for other much-needed discussion about food
shortages and price increases, food safety and farming
systems, as well as about social justice, international trade
agreements, fair competition, economic power of multinational
companies and the apparent conflict between
intellectual property protection and benefit sharing (Royal
Society, 2009; Sense about Science, 2009). These broad
controversies cannot be settled by focusing debate onto a
single technology.
Survey data indicate that public respondents across the
EU often express negative sentiments about GM food
(DG Research, 2010b). To some extent, the response is
influenced by the framing of the question; for example,
‘transgenic’ is sometimes deemed safer than ‘GM’. In all
EU countries the new breeding technique of cisgenesis
receives higher public support than transgenesis (DG
Research, 2010b; Podevin et al., 2012). Moreover, as
indicated in the response to the CAP consultation, there
is a high level of public agreement that farmers should
be encouraged to take advantage of biotechnology
(European Commission, 2010). This support was
confirmed in analysis of the more recent responses to
the consultation on the potential of the bioeconomy to
address key challenges in Europe (European Commission,
2012b); the greatest expression of public confidence
was for a role of the bioeconomy in securing a sufficient
supply of food and biomass. It was noteworthy that NGOs
expressed much greater concern on potential risks than
did the public.
There is also a growing body of evidence to show that
the actual GM food purchase behaviour of consumers
does not correspond to their stated, sceptical attitude,
‘… when GM food products are available on the
shelves, consumers are generally willing to buy them’
(conclusion reached from EU Framework Programme
‘ConsumerChoice’, discussed in JRC–FAO workshop,
Lusser et al., 2012b). Accordingly, as highlighted by DG
Environment (DG Environment, 2012), previous surveys
may have exaggerated the extent of negative feeling
towards GM products and it may be that GM foods will
become increasingly acceptable, if the advantages (such
as lowered pesticide residues and competitive price) are
clearly indicated.
Emerging evidence also indicates that European farmers
are willing to adopt GM crops (Areal et al., 2011). To a
significant extent, farmers share the attitudes of public
sector scientists in calling for streamlining of the GM
regulatory framework and for better engagement
between the farming, scientific and policy-making
communities and the public (Farmer Scientist Network,
2012).
Public participation in discussions about agricultural
innovation remains highly important (EGE, 2008; Butschi
et al., 2009) and further work is required to optimise the
methods for engagement (including use of the social
media, Rutsaert et al., 2012). The European Commission
has funded useful research on communication (DG
Research, 2010a) and excellent public information is
available from other sources (for example, Sense about
Science, 2009). The scientific community needs to
maintain its commitment to engage with the public
about the value of new techniques, and scientists have
a responsibility to communicate proactively in ways
that are understandable to society at large. Academies
of science have an important role to play in reviewing
the evidence and providing clarity about reliable
information. As part of this commitment, EASAC will
produce a lay summary of the present report and will
stimulate continuing discussion with citizens in the
Member States. However, EASAC also emphasises that
responsible policy-making requires leadership founded
on carefully weighing all the evidence and not just
following public opinion.
4.6 Intellectual property
There is no doubt that patenting in biotechnology has
raised strong emotions. The issues have been broadened
by bringing in various public interests through the
Convention on Biodiversity and private interests through
30 | June 2013 | Planting the future EASAC