EUROPEAN Parliament has sent a strong message to the rest of the world
about the direction it intends to take on international trade in
agricultural goods.
It has chosen a route of protectionism through the back door.
The European Parliament voted earlier this month to institute rules
that require labelling of products that contain genetically modified
organisms and require a tracking method to trace movement from farm to
plate.
The regulations still have to be voted upon by the 15 countries in the
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
European Union, but they still send a message that fortress Europe is
alive and well.
With no scientific proof that GMOs pose any health threat, the proposed
regulations amount to a trade ban on agricultural imports from North
America, mainly the United States, where 75 percent of the world’s GM
crops are grown.
Most Canadian farmers have also embraced GM technology and the fallout,
especially for canola, could be significant.
The draft regulations require all food and animal feed made from GMOs
sold in the EU to be labelled. Non-GM products would have to contain no
more than 0.5 percent GM material.
Processed foods made from GMOs would have to be labelled, although meat
from animals fed GM feed would not require labels.
People in the canola industry are watching intently as they hope the
new rules bring an end to an EU moratorium on GMO approvals. But most
in Canadian agriculture have little to cheer.
Growers of traditional canola, and the canola industry in general, have
been calling for higher tolerance levels of GM in non-GM products. In
the past, they have said a tolerance level of one percent is unworkable.
Even more startling in the European draft policy is mention of a data
tracking system. Details on how this would work have not been spelled
out, but reaction indicates many players feel it would place enormous
costs and burdens on grain handling systems.
The National Corn Growers Association in the U.S. said the measures
would require crop segregation into traditional and biotech varieties,
from farm to consumer. It is identity preservation on a massive scale.
Should Canadian farmers forever abandon the European market? Or are
European consumers prepared to pay the added costs of segregation?
Ultimately, European consumers are driving this initiative. Perhaps
instead of throwing money at a problem that doesn’t exist, European
politicians could use funds more productively by spending on public
education.
They could extol the benefits of drought-resistant GM products, or
those that contain needed nutrients, or those that can be grown with
fewer chemicals, less tillage and soil erosion.
You would think the green tides in Europe would find that a cause worth
promoting.
