In 2015, we considered two important proposals put forward by the European Commission (EC) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The first dealt with allowing member-states to ban or restrict the cultivation of crops containing GMOs in their own territory, while the second addressed the issue of GMO use and trade in the EU countries.
Probably no other phrase today raises so many doubts within European societies as ‘GMOs’. Everything connected to genetic engineering evokes a wide range of emotions; hence the topic is very delicate and controversial.
However, we can’t deny the fact that genetic engineering has been present in our lives for many years and cannot be completely abandoned. While Europeans in general accept the use of GMOs for production of drugs and vaccines, for example, people are still afraid of genetically modified crops and feeds.
Public opinion overflows with publications demonising GMOs and suggesting that they are harmful. The facts – proving that GMOs are no more harmful for humans and environment than natural organisms – are a drop in the ocean and cannot get through to our citizens. Professional academic bodies are unable to calm down people who perceive genetic engineering as a threat to natural ecosystems.
As Members of the European Parliament, we cannot disregard opinions from both sides of this conflict. We are aware of our responsibility in constructing European legislation and its influence on health and protection of environmental biodiversity. The laws we are trying to create cannot rely on common views but have to be based on reliable scientific data, even when it differs from opinions manifested through different political actions.
In the EU, food, feed and crops containing GMOs have to be labelled, while the list of approved GMO products can be found on the EC website. Most of them are made of corn and soybean, whereas in the field of cultivation the only approved genetically modified plant is the MON810 corn (resistant to pests – particularly the European corn borer).
The European Food Safety Authority is responsible for giving permission for every single genetically modified product. At the beginning of 2015, the European Parliament accepted a directive which gave member-states much more freedom in making decisions about cultivating genetically modified crops in their territory.
According to the rules that came into force in April 2015 every EU country decides if modified plants pronounced safe can be grown on its land. Currently, in most of the member-states including Poland, cultivation of genetically modified crops is not permitted.
But the EC wanted to go further. Last October, the European Parliament worked on a proposal suggesting even stricter limits in the matter of GMO use. The introduction of this could end with giving member-states control not only in regard to cultivation, but also in allowing or banning GMO trade and usage.
Of course we rejected the EC project since it was not only unreal, but also dangerous. Despite the fact there is no real possibility to implement such rules on the European single market – as it would trigger border controls between countries approving or disapproving GMOs – it is necessary to emphasise that these restrictions would cause terrible harm to European agriculture.
Socio-economic impact
Nowadays, the most important matter in the discussion is the influence of GMOs on health and the environment. In this constant dialogue we can barely hear voices referring to economic issues, yet they are essential.
If we took a closer look at animal feeding and production, we could observe the enormous social and economic consequences such restrictions would have. Livestock farming is the sector that would suffer most and, among others, Polish society would pay a very high price for these limitations.
Poland is the biggest poultry producer in Europe. The basic ingredients of feeds used in poultry production are protein components, mostly soybean meal produced from the beans. Our national production was not and is not able to handle current demand; therefore Poland imports about 2 million tonnes of soybean meal per year, mostly from South America.
About 98% of the meal is made of genetically modified soybean, which is 20-30% cheaper than ‘GMO-free’ soybean. The cost of feed alone constitutes about 60–70% of the poultry production costs. At the moment there is no way to replace modified soybean and, without it, Polish poultry production will not be as competitive as it is now.
Moreover, the market shortages will be filled with Asian and American poultry in an instant. Scientists agree that imports will be more expensive and the imported meat will be produced from transgenic feeds. There is a reasonable concern that our domestic production will not only be ruined but also replaced with more expensive poultry, fed with GMOs forbidden in Poland.
This will lead to destruction of our important agricultural sector on the one hand; and on the other, it will not protect consumers from eating food produced with GMOs. This is a vicious circle.
Predictions are not optimistic at all. The EC has not had its last word yet and, according to Polish law, genetically modified feeds can only be used until Jan 1, 2017. After that, unless the legislation changes, the production, trade and usage of modified feeds will be forbidden.
The opinion of the Polish government is commonly known, and it differs from the EU regulations. Politicians from the Law and Justice Party have opted for stringent laws. In proclaiming a ‘GMO-free Poland’, they risk suffering international legal consequences, but theoretically they are the voice of our society which is reluctant to accept GMOs. Naturally, we have to listen to vox populi, but first we need to inform the entire population.
Support gained by scaring citizens is a political deception and using the electorate’s lack of knowledge to create law will only result in more trouble and is inherently dishonest. Meanwhile, trustworthy research approves the safety of GMO feed. Unfortunately, at the moment expert opinion is not enough to sway citizens.
Source: New Europe, Jan 4, 2016
