GM Crops In Europe Research Articles

Controversy first: factors limiting the success of Directive (EU) 2015/412 for national decision-making on the cultivation of GM crops

ABSTRACTThe cultivation of GM crops in Europe has a long history of disagreement. While the legal framework is based on a safety assessment, the disagreement goes beyond such risks and is rooted in political, social and cultural grounds. In 2015, with the discussion having become deadlocked—neither Member States (MS) who wanted to cultivate GM crops nor those who did not could have their way—Directive (EU) 2015/412 was adopted. This Directive which, in addition to the safety assessment, enables MS to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory based on non-safety considerations, was supposed to remove the deadlock and give MS autonomy to restrict cultivation. However, as of 2018, it seems that this approach has been only partially successful. In this article, we identify factors limiting the effective use of the new Directive; and, then using Poort’s model of interactive legislation combined with an ethos of controversies, we analyse the potential of the Directive.

Well Informed Farmers and Consumers are Positive About Gm Crops in Europe and Africa

Genetically modified (GM) crops are cultivated globally on more than 185 million hectares, but the use of GM crops in Europe and Africa is very limited. Politicians are reluctant to allow such crops because they fear negative public reaction. The political hostility in the EU towards GM crops also has a significant impact on how African policy makers form their opinions for accepting GM crops in their own countries. However, studies reveal that specific types of GM food are welcomed by consumers and that few Europeans avoid GM labels when buying food. Similarly, African farmers and consumers are generally positive about GM crops. Policy makers should take these results into account when a decision needs to be made on whether or not to allow GM crop cultivation in their country.

Environmental risk assessment of blight-resistant potato: use of a crop model to quantify nitrogen cycling at scales of the field and cropping system.

Environmental risk assessment of GM crops in Europe proceeds by step-wise estimation of effect, first in the plant, then the field plot (e.g. 10-100m-2), field (1000-10,000m-2) and lastly in the environment in which the crop would be grown (100-10,000km2). Processes that operate at large scales, such as cycling of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), are difficult to predict from plot scales. Here, a procedure is illustrated in which plot scale data on yield (offtake) and N inputs for blight resistant (both GM and non-GM) and blight-susceptible potato are upscaled by a model of crop resource use to give a set of indicators and metrics defining N uptake and release in realistic crop sequences. The greatest potential damage to environment is due to loss of N from the field after potato harvest, mainly because of the large quantity of mineral and plant matter, high in N, that may die or be left in the field. Blight infection intensifies this loss, since less fertiliser N is taken up by plants and more (as a proportion of plant mass) is returned to the soil. In a simulation based on actual crop sequences, N returns at harvest of potato were raised from 100kgha-1 in resistant to 150kgha-1 in susceptible varieties subject to a 40% yield loss. Based on estimates that blight-resistant types would require ~20% of the fungicide applied to susceptible types, introduction of resistant types into a realistic 6-year cropping sequence would reduce overall fungicide use to between 72 and 54% depending on the inputs to other crops in the sequence.

Society and GMOs—chicken and egg?

The debate about GM crops in Europe holds valuable lessons about risk management and risk communication. These lessons will be helpful for the upcoming debate on GM animals.

Farmer’s choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of GM crop adoption

It has been hypothesised that farmers in countries that do not adopt GM crops do or will have fewer seed options. By extension, there is concern that the choices made by countries that have so far rejected GM crops have had an impact on their productivity. To estimate how much real world choice maize farmers have in countries with different degrees of GM crop adoption (Austria, Germany, Spain, Switzerland), we used surveys of seed catalogues from local and regional seed suppliers, transnational seed corporations and public national and European seed registration catalogues as an approximation for real world choices available to farmers. We further compiled and analyzed yield data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation FAO to compare yields over the same period of time in GM-adopting and non-adopting countries. We found no evidence that restrictions and regulations of GM crops in Europe have decreased seed choices for farmers in the non-adopting countries Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In contrast, we observed that in Spain, which has adopted GM maize, the seed market was more concentrated with fewer differentiated cultivars on offer. In Spain, overall numbers of maize cultivars declined, with an increasing number of non-GM cultivars being replaced by GM cultivars. Moreover, there was no detectable yield advantage in GM-adopting countries, even when we extended our analysis to the United States. In the non-adopting European countries of our analysis, farmers have more maize cultivars available to them today than they had in the 1990s despite restricting GM-varieties. Along with the increasing adoption of GM cultivars in Spain, the studied GM-maize adopting country in Europe, came a decline in farmers’ choices of total numbers of available maize cultivars.

Case studies on the use of biotechnologies and on biosafety provisions in four African countries

This review is based on a study commissioned by the European Commission on the evaluation of scientific, technical and institutional challenges, priorities and bottlenecks for biotechnologies and regional harmonisation of biosafety in Africa. Biotechnology was considered within four domains: agricultural biotechnologies ('Green'), industrial biotechnologies and biotechnologies for environmental remediation ('White'), biotechnologies in aquaculture ('Blue') and biotechnologies for healthcare ('Red'). An important consideration was the decline in partnerships between the EU and developing countries because of the original public antipathy to some green biotechnologies, particularly genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food from GM crops in Europe. The study focus reported here was West Africa (Ghana, Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso). The overall conclusion was that whereas high-quality research was proceeding in the countries visited, funding is not sustained and there is little evidence of practical application of biotechnology and benefit to farmers and the wider community. Research and development that was being carried out on genetically modified crop varieties was concentrating on improving food security and therefore unlikely to have significant impact on EU markets and consumers. However, there is much non-controversial green biotechnology such as molecular diagnostics for plant and animal disease and marker-assisted selection for breeding that has great potential application. Regarding white biotechnology, it is currently occupying only a very small industrial niche in West Africa, basically in the sole sector of the production of liquid biofuels (i.e., bio-ethanol) from indigenous and locally planted biomass (very often non-food crops). The presence of diffused small-scale fish production is the basis to develop and apply new (Blue) aquaculture technologies and, where the research conditions and the production sector can permit, to increase this type of production and the economy of this depressed areas. However, the problems bound to environmental protection must not be forgotten; priority should be given to monitor the risks of introduction of foreign species. Red biotechnologies potentially bring a vast domain of powerful tools and processes to achieve better human health, most notably improved diagnostics by molecular techniques, better targeting of pathogens and a better knowledge of their sensitivities to drugs to permit better treatment. Biosafety regulatory frameworks had been initiated in several countries, starting with primary biosafety law. However, disparate attitudes to the purpose of biosafety regulation (e.g., fostering informed decision-making versus 'giving the green-light for a flood of GMOs') currently prevent a needed consensus for sub-regional harmonisation. To date, most R&D funding has come from North America with some commercial interests from Asia, but African biotechnology workers expressed strong desire for (re-)engagement with interested parties from the European Union. Although in some of the visited countries there are very well qualified personnel in molecular biology and biosafety/regulation, the main message received is that human resources and capacity building in-house are still needed. This could be achieved through home-based courses and capacity-building including funds for post-degree research to motivate and retain trained staff.

Sustainable introduction of GM crops into european agriculture: a summary report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project

In 2003, the European Commission established the principle of coexistence which refers to “the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards” and laid down guidelines defining the context of this coexistence1 . In order to determine what is needed for the sustainable introduction of GM crops in Europe, the cross-disciplinary SIGMEA Research Project was set up to create a science-based framework to inform decision-makers. SIGMEA has (i) collated and analysed European data on gene flow and the environmental impacts of the major crop species which are likely to be transgenic in the future (maize, rapeseed, sugar beet, rice, and wheat), (ii) designed predictive models of gene flow at the landscape level, (iii) analysed the technical feasibility and economic impacts of coexistence in the principal farming regions of Europe, (iv) developed novel GMO detection methods, (v) addressed legal issues related to coexistence, and (vi) proposed public and farm scale decisionmaking tools, as well as guidelines regarding management and governance. This publishable version of the final activity report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project, covers the fourteen major issues under investigation.

Sustainable introduction of GM crops into european agriculture: a summary report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project

In 2003, the European Commission established the principle of coexistence which refers to “the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards” and laid down guidelines defining the context of this coexistence1. In order to determine what is needed for the sustainable introduction of GM crops in Europe, the cross-disciplinary SIGMEA Research Project was set up to create a science-based framework to inform decision-makers. SIGMEA has (i) collated and analysed European data on gene flow and the environmental impacts of the major crop species which are likely to be transgenic in the future (maize, rapeseed, sugar beet, rice, and wheat), (ii) designed predictive models of gene flow at the landscape level, (iii) analysed the technical feasibility and economic impacts of coexistence in the principal farming regions of Europe, (iv) developed novel GMO detection methods, (v) addressed legal issues related to coexistence, and (vi) proposed public and farm scale decisionmaking tools, as well as guidelines regarding management and governance. This publishable version of the final activity report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project, covers the fourteen major issues under investigation.

Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union

The institutional environment for planting GM crops in Europe is heterogeneous. Poland wants to ban the planting of GM crops; Spanish farmers have been growing Bt-maize for several years; 120 communities in Belgium have declared themselves to be GMO-free; a local grain trader in Germany has announced that it will pay the same price for Bt and non-Bt maize. Luxemburg wants to fine farmers up to 750,000 for non-compliance with coexistence rules and in Poland a prison sentence of up to three years may be given; farmers in Upper Austria must apply for authorization for each field intended to be planted with GM crops and farmers in Denmark have to pay a levy of 100 DK per hectare of GM crops. In 2003, the European Commission stated that “no form of agriculture, be it conventional, organic or agriculture using genetically modified organism (GMOs), should be excluded in the European Union” but simultaneously decided to follow the principle of subsidiary that “measures for coexistence should be developed and implemented by the Member States” (CEC 2003a, p. 1). Since then, some Member States have developed, and others are still developing, a diversity of coexistence measures that may have a profound impact on the adoption rate of GM crops. Against this background, we ask the following question: How will the different coexistence policies among EU Member States affect the adoption of GM crops?

Science, politics, and the GM debate in Europe

Europe today stands at a crossroad, facing challenges but also opportunities. In its intent to make Europe a leading technology-based economy by 2010, the European Commission has identified biotechnology and genomics as fields for future growth, crucial for supporting the agricultural and food processing industry. Since first commercialization in 1996, GM crop areas have grown at double-digit rates, making this one of the most rapidly adopted technologies in agriculture. However, in contrast to other world areas and despite European Commission support, Europe has found itself ‘bogged-down’ in a polemic between opponents and supporters of plant biotechnology. As a result, planted areas have remained small. This stalemate is due to a lack of political leadership, especially at the Member State level, all the more surprising in light of European early development and competitive advantage with crop biotechnology. This situation proves once again that, for cutting-edge innovations, a solid science base alone is not sufficient. Acceptance or rejection of new technologies depends on interlinked political, economic, and societal factors that create a favorable or unfavorable situation at a given time. This article will look at GM crops in Europe and the role science and politics have played in the introduction of crop biotechnology.

Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops

The commercialisation of GM crops in Europe is practically non-existent at the present time. The European Commission has instigated changes to the regulatory process to address the concerns of consumers and member states and to pave the way for removing the current moratorium. With regard to the safety of GM crops and products, the current risk assessment process pays particular attention to potential adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment. This document deals with the concept of unintended effects in GM crops and products, i.e. effects that go beyond that of the original modification and that might impact primarily on health. The document first deals with the potential for unintended effects caused by the processes of transgene insertion (DNA rearrangements) and makes comparisons with genetic recombination events and DNA rearrangements in traditional breeding. The document then focuses on the potential value of evolving “profiling” or “omics” technologies as non-targeted, unbiased approaches, to detect unintended effects. These technologies include metabolomics (parallel analysis of a range of primary and secondary metabolites), proteomics (analysis of polypeptide complement) and transcriptomics (parallel analysis of gene expression). The technologies are described, together with their current limitations. Importantly, the significance of unintended effects on consumer health are discussed and conclusions and recommendations presented on the various approaches outlined.

95/04241 Separation of CO 2 by amines

This review is based on a study commissioned by the European Commission on the evaluation of scientific, technical and institutional challenges, priorities and bottlenecks for biotechnologies and regional harmonisation of biosafety in Africa. Biotechnology was considered within four domains: agricultural biotechnologies (‘Green’), industrial biotechnologies and biotechnologies for environmental remediation (‘White’), biotechnologies in aquaculture (‘Blue’) and biotechnologies for healthcare (‘Red’). An important consideration was the decline in partnerships between the EU and developing countries because of the original public antipathy to some green biotechnologies, particularly genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food from GM crops in Europe. The study focus reported here was West Africa (Ghana, Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso).The overall conclusion was that whereas high-quality research was proceeding in the countries visited, funding is not sustained and there is little evidence of practical application of biotechnology and benefit to farmers and the wider community. Research and development that was being carried out on genetically modified crop varieties was concentrating on improving food security and therefore unlikely to have significant impact on EU markets and consumers. However, there is much non-controversial green biotechnology such as molecular diagnostics for plant and animal disease and marker-assisted selection for breeding that has great potential application. Regarding white biotechnology, it is currently occupying only a very small industrial niche in West Africa, basically in the sole sector of the production of liquid biofuels (i.e., bio-ethanol) from indigenous and locally planted biomass (very often non-food crops). The presence of diffused small-scale fish production is the basis to develop and apply new (Blue) aquaculture technologies and, where the research conditions and the production sector can permit, to increase this type of production and the economy of this depressed areas. However, the problems bound to environmental protection must not be forgotten; priority should be given to monitor the risks of introduction of foreign species. Red biotechnologies potentially bring a vast domain of powerful tools and processes to achieve better human health, most notably improved diagnostics by molecular techniques, better targeting of pathogens and a better knowledge of their sensitivities to drugs to permit better treatment.Biosafety regulatory frameworks had been initiated in several countries, starting with primary biosafety law. However, disparate attitudes to the purpose of biosafety regulation (e.g., fostering informed decision-making versus ‘giving the green-light for a flood of GMOs’) currently prevent a needed consensus for sub-regional harmonisation. To date, most R&D funding has come from North America with some commercial interests from Asia, but African biotechnology workers expressed strong desire for (re-)engagement with interested parties from the European Union. Although in some of the visited countries there are very well qualified personnel in molecular biology and biosafety/regulation, the main message received is that human resources and capacity building in-house are still needed. This could be achieved through home-based courses and capacity-building including funds for post-degree research to motivate and retain trained staff.