Is it time to move from sabre rattling with the European Union over the use of genetically modified crops to outflanking it?
Stuart Smyth, research chair in agri-food innovation at the University of Saskatchewan’s agriculture college, thinks so.
Smyth’s address to delegates at the Emerging Technologies for Global Food Security Conference in Saskatoon last month was the buzz of the event.
He argues that the EU is so entrenched against the use of biotechnology and is so influenced by environmentalists bent on obstructionism that it’s time to “fence Europe out of global agricultural trade” so developing nations that are interested in using biotechnology have options other than to accept EU restrictions on the use of GMOs if they want to trade with the 28-member organization. (Britain hasn’t officially pulled out yet.)
Read Also
Determining tariff compensation will be difficult but necessary
Prime minister Mark Carney says his government will support canola farmers, yet estimating the loss and paying compensation in an equitable fashion will be no easy task, but it can be done.
Developing countries seeking to trade with the EU at lower tariff rates must sign the Cartagena Protocol, which urges them to adhere to the precautionary principle, which the Canadian Environmental Law Association defines as “a duty to prevent harm, when it is within our power to do so, even when all the evidence is not in.”
However, GMOs have not been shown to harm. In fact, they have increased yields.
This puts pressure on developing nations with small budgets who must do business with the EU to forgo the opportunities offered by GMOs.
Some of the EU’s efforts may be mitigated.
China bans domestic production of GM crops for human consumption but is actively pursuing GMO research, and there are reports of large-scale illicit use of GMOs in farmers’ fields.
And while cotton is the only GM crop approved for growing in India, it’s possible the technology will move further in that direction there.
If GMOs make significant inroads in the Asian giants, global momentum in favour of biotechnology will be strong, given that both countries are major agricultural importers.
It is a significant development to get into a proxy battle with the EU through developing countries.
However, it’s irresponsible to deny developing nations the chance to use technology that can help them feed their populations by holding an economic hammer over their heads.
So the G8 has struck a partnership with 10 African nations called the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which encourages them to use GMOs, with billions of dollars in G8 funding. This represents a key post in the “fence” policy.
An important test for the use of biotechnology in Europe and its trading nations — and hence an opportunity to find some common ground — will be CRISPR/Cas9, the gene editing technology that generates new crop traits without introducing foreign DNA.
The United States has determined that CRISPR technology won’t be subject to the same rules as GMOs, but Canada considers traits developed that way as novel and so will be assessed by Health Canada, though none have yet gone through the process.
If CRISPR technology yields its promised effects yet is rejected by the EU in the manner of GMOs, the signal will be clear, and the fence will become more robust.
Canada would do well to push for European acceptance of CRISPR to avoid a massive trade dispute that will force developing nations to choose sides.
