Joint EPTA Project on “Genetically modified plants and foods"

Introduction

What are genetically modified plants and foods?
The first genetically modified organism was produced in the seventies. In the last three decades, great progress was made in modern biotechnologies. In the year 2005, the estimated global area of genetically modified (GM) (or transgenic) crops was around 90 million hectares. GM crops were grown in 17 countries. Leading country is the USA, with 49.8 million hectares (55% of global total). The most important GM crop was soybean with 54.4 million hectares (60% of global GM area). In contrast to this development, the cultivation of GM crops in Europe is very limited. In the year 1999, a de facto moratorium on GM crops was introduced in the European Union, which was in force until 2004.

Opportunities and risks of genetically modified plants and foods
Biotechnology, and especially genetic engineering, is one of the most controversially discussed modern technologies. This technology is seen on one side as an important key to economic competitiveness growth, and on the other hand provokes concerns about health and safety issues and about ecological impacts.

The new European Directive on deliberate releases (2001/18/EC) and the following EU regulations have put into force a new frame for GM crops and foods in the EU, including an emphasis on the precautionary principle, an enforced risk assessment, a time limit for authorizations, an introduction of follow-up evaluations and a change in the labelling regime.

At the same time, a new generation of GM crops, capable of producing medicine, industrial chemicals, etc. is emerging. This development leads to new questions for the risk assessment and regulation, and for the discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of these new GM crops.

Why conduct an EPTA project on genetically modified plants and foods?
Many citizens in the European Union and in Switzerland are opposed or sceptical about GM food. In the past fifteen years, heated debates about genetically modified plants and food have taken place in many European countries. These debates have common characteristics and specific national developments.

Many projects of European technology assessment (TA) institutions have reviewed and contributed to these debates. They used different approaches, as consensus conferences or scientific assessments. GM crops and foods are a major topic for the European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Network (EPTA Network).

Aims of the study

The project should provide information on:

Regulatory challenges for the European system in the next years
Points of public debate in the future
Approaches for Technology Assessment to handle the future issues

The project focuses on GM plants and their use as feed and food, but also includes new applications as plant-made-pharmaceuticals or plant-made-industrials. GM animals are not included.

Results

Results of the study
All in all, the final reports points out that the regulatory system for GM plants and food in Europe does not seem to be fully prepared to meet all existing and foreseeable future challenges. Five key areas of challenges for the European system of GMO regulation in the years to come were identified, as were a number of possible approaches for future technology assessment activities.

Recommendations

The future of GM plants and food in Europe is a question as to which kind of sustainable agriculture will be developed in Europe in the light of different, and sometimes conflicting, sustainability goals. A broad societal dialogue on future sustainable European agriculture in a global context is, therefore, needed in order to determine the future role of GM plants and food.

Crop development may again come to the forefront of public research. To make good use of any money that becomes available in this context, it would be necessary to assess not only the technical performance of newly developed plants but also the chances of these plants to meet societal goals.

Non-food GM plants might render an ongoing revision of the regulatory framework necessary. This pertains to parameters for risk assessment and management, confinement, coexistence and liability, as well as to the question of including benefit evaluation. While it is possible that public perception will change as new consumer-oriented GM products become available, this cannot be taken for granted. Since public attitudes are subject to the influence of many factors, including ethical concerns, consumer protection policy is not the only one of relevance. A variety of other fields from agricultural policy to GM regulation are also relevant. An early discussion and open dialogue concerning the potential opportunities and possible problems can help to prevent disappointment on either side. Meeting the expectations regarding the high quality of information remains a major challenge.

Doubts as to whether coexistence will work may pertain to particular items of regulation on the assessment and management of GM plants; however, they could also be taken as an indication that the expertise involved or elements of the authorisation process are at stake. In particular, independence from the vested interests of authorities involved could be better demonstrated by incorporating a broader spectrum of scientific opinions and/or representation of interests. Regarding authorisation, a recurrent problem seems to be the proper disentanglement of science and policy. The requirements for scientific evidence,
on the one hand, and room for manoeuvre in politics, on the other, do not seem
to be sufficiently defined. Likewise, a defined remit for political decision-making
at the national level would be desirable, for example in order to restrict, or
promote, the use of GM plants.

The recent WTO conflict highlights the need to reconcile different international agreements in order not to thwart the aims of these agreements. Therefore, not only areas specific for GM organisms (GMOs) might be considered to be at stake, but also the possible integration of environmental and social standards into WTO regulations. Many of the problems encountered at the WTO level are said to have derived from different interpretations by member states of the EU regulatory framework. Possible solutions would be to give more leeway to national sovereignty (subsidiarity) or to increase
harmonisation among Member States. A considerable number of experts seem
to consider further harmonisation and a reform of competent authorities/institutions an option for further improving the robustness of the EU
regulatory system.

Procedure

Methodology
A combination of two approaches is used to achieve the project’s objective: a look in the past with project reviews and a look in the future with a questionnaire survey.
The reviews include the relevant TA projects of the EPTA members and other important TA activities as national participative events. The aim is to learn where we are today, how the debate has evolved and what the challenges are for the future.

The questionnaire survey aims at collecting information and informed guesses from TA practitioners and experts on new challenges in the area of GM plants and foods.

Timetable
Project start: October 2006 | finish: summer 2009

Downloads

Summary available in German and French

final report (in English)
- Annexe 3 (in English)
- Annexe 4 (in English)
- Annexe 5 (in English)

Events

Contacts

Project partners

Persons participating

TA-SWISS Project Supervisors

Dr. Danielle Bütschi , TA-SWISS, e-mail

Project coordinator

Dr. Rolf Meyer, TAB, e-mail

Project team

Danielle Bütschi, TA-SWISS
Jofey Craig, POST
Els van den Cruyce, Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment viWTA
Soren Gram, Danish Board of Technology
Armin Grunwald, TAB
Rolf Meyer, TAB
Arnold Sauter, TAB
Stef Steyaert, Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment viWTA
Helge Torgersen, ITA

Communication

Susanne Brenner, TA-SWISS. email

Links

TA-SWISS links
PubliForum "Genetic engineering and nutrition"

Further links
EPTA Network

Last update: 28.01.2010 nbz