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

to whether surveillance and regulation are necessary and,
if so, to what degree.
If the EU is to be competitive, it is also essential that
regulation of the outputs of the New Breeding Techniques
and molecular farming must have a firm foundation in
sound science. Any risk of adopting a new technology
must be compared with the risk of not adopting it and all
innovation should be evaluated according to the same
standards and principles.
3. Promoting competition. The current expensive
GM regulatory situation in the EU encourages
monopolies.
The EU regulatory framework should be reformulated to
facilitate technology development, support commercial
competition and generate diversity in innovation. The
current domination of commercial GM practices by a
few multinational companies is not simply a matter of
patent rights or business practices but can also be directly
attributed to the bureaucratic, time-consuming and
expensive regulatory framework that deters all but the
biggest companies. It is important to consider how best
to stimulate open innovation practices to encourage
smaller companies and public sector activities, to create
the desired flexible and dynamic competition within the
EU, and to avoid a relatively narrow genetic base that
might compromise the attainment of food security.
It is vital that policy-makers learn lessons from the political
and trade problems caused in the EU as a consequence
of GM approval mechanisms. Plant breeding regulations
should not hamper the interchange of science and
technology or free trade.
4. The global context. EU policy actions influence
the developing world.
The wider consequences need to be taken into account
when deciding EU strategic options. Agricultural
biotechnology can help to transform agriculture in
African and other developing countries, if governments
establish and use efficient regulatory systems. There is
evidence that attitudes to GM in the EU have created
difficulties for scientists, farmers and politicians in African
and other countries. EU decision-makers need to be
aware that inadvertent consequences of their policy
choices can undermine the stated objectives of the EU
agenda for international development and detract from
EU efforts in capacity building. Therefore, reforming the
current regulatory framework in the EU and creating
necessary coherence between EU domestic objectives
and a development agenda based on partnership and
innovation is important for developing countries as well
as for EU Member States and for elsewhere in Europe.
Recommendations
EASAC concludes that the potential benefits of crop
genetic improvement technologies are very significant.
Capturing these benefits in agricultural innovation
should be a matter for urgent attention by EU policymakers,
alongside the development of indicators
to monitor success in attaining the objectives (for
example, for efficient and diversified land use). EASAC
recommendations based on the four conclusions of the
Working Group in the preceding paragraphs can be
summarised as the following.
Regulatory framework. The European Commission
should re-examine its current policy objectives and
principles governing the broad area of agricultural
biotechnology and should act in union with other
frameworks, for example the integrated pest
management strategies. As an immediate step, the
European Commission together with Member States
should consider further those process efficiency
recommendations made in the external evaluation
reports 35 but not yet implemented. The European
Commission and the other EU Institutions should
aim to achieve greater coherence in policy objectives
and practices in protecting societal interests, to
address the policy disconnects and inconsistencies
discussed previously. The regulatory framework should
be recalibrated to be science-based, transparent,
proportionate and predictable, focusing on the trait
and product, not the technology, and conforming to
established timetables and evidence-based criteria for
decision-making. The framework should take account
of extensive experience gained, and good practice
instituted, in regulating GM crops outside the EU.
There must be an improved commitment to assessing
benefits rather than focusing mainly on potential risk and
uncertainty. The European Commission also needs to
take a lead in discussions with Member States to reaffirm
the cardinal principle that regulatory decisions and their
implementation must be based on science. In addition
there is need for urgent action to agree the status and
regulation of New Breeding Techniques and, in particular,
to confirm which products do not fall within the scope of
GMO legislation.
Public engagement. The scientific community needs
to maintain its commitment to engage with other
stakeholder groups, including the food industry, media
and NGOs and the public. Researchers must be proactive
in clearly articulating the consequences of research
findings and the opportunities and potential value in
agricultural innovation, not just for GM crops but also for
plant breeding more generally. Researchers need support
from the academies of science in doing this. EASAC and
its member academies will continue playing a significant
35
DG Sanco (2011) GMO Evaluation, available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/index_en.htm.
38 | June 2013 | Planting the future EASAC