Precautionary principle | Researchers say too much regulatory oversight can result in paralysis and a lack of decisions
OMAHA, Neb. — Progress is stifled when regulators are too cautious during risk assessments of new technology that has the potential to boost crop yields or create healthier animals, said an American businessperson.
“We as an industry must have access to innovative ideas, innovative methods, innovative technologies, and if we in fact are going to feed nine billion people by the middle of this century, then you have to understand the proponents of the precautionary principle are doing everything they can to act as if it is 1914 instead of 2014,” Mark Walton of Recombinetics, a Minnesota based animal genetics company, told the National Institute of Animal Agriculture convention held in Omaha, April 1-4.
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
However, he said few want to enter the regulatory maze of government approval in North America and Europe when the burden of proof becomes too heavy with no payoff in site.
“Go out and talk to people about paying for livestock biotechnology. Investors aren’t very interested in doing it. Industry hasn’t been very excited about looking at it because of their fears about the blow back that comes,” he said.
“That has been driven by the precautionary principle.”
Walton argued that too many people become involved in these kinds of reviews, and paralysis sets in and no decisions are made when everyone’s opinion receives equal weight.
“Open and informed discussions are necessary, but when the review falls outside the knowledge realm of many people, opening the door to full democratic discussion becomes a popularity contest,” he said.
“We cannot literally ever prove that something is 100 percent safe.”
He said too much caution creates non-tariff trade barriers.
Stan Bruntz of the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the World Trade Organization sets out the basic rules for food safety as well as animal and plant health requirements.
Member countries have the right to ask for higher standards, but they need to base their requirements on scientific and relevant information.
However, the reality is that policy is formed because of emotion and politics, he added.
Dermot Hayes of Iowa State University said the precautionary principle could stall a free trade deal between the United States and the EU.
“The precautionary principle is a deal breaker, and I think it is going to break the deal,” he said.
A ban on genetically modified crops and growth hormones for livestock in the EU restricts farmer productivity, he added.
Hayes said the U.S. has experienced incredible yield increases in corn and soybeans while European production is relatively flat.
The EU grows 100 million acres of feed grains and oilseeds, he added, which means a five percent yield improvement would allow the region to grow more crops rather than importing from Brazil.
Europe also rejects growth enhancers even though American pigs fed ractopamine produce larger carcasses with more lean meat.
Hayes said an additional one million tonnes of pork would be available if the 251 million pigs slaughtered annually in Europe had the same carcass size as in the United States.
Walton said other products have been rejected that would be of considerable benefit to farmers in the developing world.
For example, farmers in the Philippines have gone to court to allow field testing of B.t. eggplant, a genetically modified variety that produces its own pesticide against a boring insect.
Forty percent of the crop can be spoiled because of insect damage.
He said farmers are forced to use more insecticides, which are probably more damaging to the environment.
Convincing the public about the overall benefits of biotechnology has not been that successful, said David Edwards, head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).
“Our job is convincing others these things are beneficial and can be utilized in the public realm after being checked for safety,” he said.
“We have great stories that are not being heard because we are not believed.”
For example, China has invested $12 billion in biotech research and produced a small number of mastitis resistant dairy cows. The USDA had a similar project, but it has been shelved.
The University of Guelph’s Enviropig seemed like a good idea, but inaction in the regulatory process saw the project frozen. The Enviropig made phytase in its saliva to reduce its phosphorus emissions.
Edwards said projects to create influenza resistant chickens and pigs are also in the works, but many are at a crossroads because of unpredictability in the regulatory system.
“These things have really stalled innovation in areas where we could be feeding people,” he said.
BIO has produced information websites at www.bio.org/articles/genetically-engineered-animals-frequently-asked-questions and www.gmoanswers.com.
