Europe has been tying the agricultural science community in knots for decades.
Despite overwhelming evidence indicating the safety of genetic modification, the region continues to dig in its heels.
Some European Union members have flirted over the years with approving the sale and/or cultivation of genetically modified crops, but the general message remains the same: GM crops are bad and must be avoided at all costs.
For years, the EU has been running the very real risk of being left behind in the race for improved food production, and the stakes continue to grow as new technologies are developed and rejected.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
It has prompted many to wonder how Europeans think they will manage to keep feeding themselves.
It wasn’t much of a surprise when they decided to put gene editing under the same rules that govern genetic modification. In other words, it wasn’t going to happen in the EU.
That decision perpetuated the general dismay that many in the agricultural sector feel as Europe slipped further down the anti-science rabbit hole.
So, imagine the shock last week when the European Commission proposed revision of its biotech rules to loosen the rules for gene editing.
It may split plants subject to new genomic techniques into two categories: those that could also occur naturally or by conventional breeding and those that could not. The former would be exempt from the EU’s current GMO restrictions.
It will be awhile before concrete action can be taken, considering the proposal must first be approved by the European Parliament and member states.
As seen many times before, it can take a long time to get anything done in the EU’s political and bureaucratic environment.
As well, opposition to the proposal is already building. For example, the Greens political party has warned that such a move would bring higher prices and less diversity.
There are also potential concerns for North American agriculture if this proposal turns into action. Agricultural research in this part of the world has seen a great deal of investment in recent years. Would much of that investment transfer to Europe if gene editing was allowed?
Another potentially dark cloud is Europe’s increased ability to produce more crops if gene-edited varieties became possible, with the potential to eat into Canada’s exports.
However, these concerns are more than offset by what can only be called a vote for science over ideology.
It’s an excellent step — if a rather small one — in the right direction.
Europe isn’t going to change overnight, even if this gene-editing proposal is approved. The bloc doesn’t seem interested in changing policy on the broader subject of GM crops.
However, gene editing has been described as a more powerful tool than genetic modification, and GM breeding may eventually lose its relevance as the power of gene editing is fully unleashed.
The EU’s first steps toward approving gene editing are small and nascent, and there are other anti-science decisions being made on the continent that exporters and importers must also deal with.
At this moment, however, take the glass-half-full approach and bask in the small ray of hope that has suddenly appeared in the east.
Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Michael Robin, Robin Booker, Laura Rance and Mike Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
