1 / 13

ISAAA Press Conference Pretoria March 8, 2012 Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern

ISAAA Press Conference Pretoria March 8, 2012 Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern Global Status of GM Crop Development The Situation in Europe. System map of the principal issues, challenges and feedback loops in the risk management component of the legislation EPEC-SANCO (2011)

umika
Télécharger la présentation

ISAAA Press Conference Pretoria March 8, 2012 Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISAAA Press Conference Pretoria March 8, 2012 Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern Global Status of GM Crop Development The Situation in Europe

  2. System map of the principal issues, challenges and feedback loops in the risk management component of the legislation EPEC-SANCO (2011) Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

  3. EPEC-SANCO (2011) Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf http://www.ghkint.com/

  4. The comments from the EPEC-SANCO show the nearly un-surmountable difficulties of European Regulation, due to a disorganized mix of politics and wrong risk conception of GM crops, all this contrary to the food and environmental safety experience worldwide. EPEC-SANCO (2011) Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

  5. Nonetheless, consultees’ frustration with the risk assessment phase is modest compared to that caused by the risk management stage. The research conducted for this study suggests that it is the lack of decisions, whether positive or negative, that is of particular concern. The lack of qualified majority is mainly attributed to the polarized views within and among Member States and a significant number of abstentions; EPEC-SANCO (2011) Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

  6. This situation gives rise to comments, heard repeated in consultations, that the legislative framework is not being implemented as intended. Empirically, the risk management aspects of the framework as implemented are not efficient, transparent or, in aggregate, fit for purpose. Consultees agreed that the current situation with GMO authorizations in Europe is not sustainable. EPEC-SANCO (2011) Evaluation of the EU legislative framework in the field of cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, and the placing on the market of GMOs as or in products under Directive 2001/18/EC Final Report, pp. 137. European Commission DG Sanco http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf

  7. Innovation in agbiotech. (a) Location and sector of organizations conducting R&D for the 558 transgenic product quality innovations identified. Private sector consists of corporate and privately held firms. Public sector consists of government research laboratories, universities and nonprofit research institutes. (b) Annual entry, exit and the numbers of innovations active in the R&D pipeline were calculated from observations of the 558 innovations tracked in the primary survey. The number of active innovations stopped growing in 1998, after which those new innovations that entered were more likely to be published and less likely to move toward commercialization. Fig.1 from (Graff et al., 2009b). Graff, G.D., Zilberman, D., & Bennett, A.B. (2009) The contraction of agbiotech product quality innovation. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 8, pp 702-704 http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Regulation/Graff-Contraction-Agbiotech-Innovation-2009.pdf

  8. But the world has seldom seen a greater discrepancy between the inherent hazard of a product and the level of regulatory burden imposed on it than exists today for crops improved through biotech. It is important, here, to be very clear: there is no basis in science for regulation specific to crops and foods improved through biotech or ‘GMOs’ Giddings, V., Potrykus, I., Ammann K., & Fedoroff, N. (2012) Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 3, pp 208-209 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Giddings-Confronting-Gordian-Knot-2012.pdf

  9. By any honest reckoning, the level of scrutiny to which crops improved through biotech are subjected is completely unwarranted by the body of knowledge acquired over three decades of experience with such crops, including 15 years in commercial production. This is true around the world, but nowhere is the chasm between regulatory regime and the implications of facts and experience greater than in Europe. Although Europe is sufficiently wealthy to buy its food, the indirect effects of European regulations and attitudes have had a unconscionably inhibitory effect on the introduction of biotech crops in less developed countries in most need of them, particularly on the African continent. Giddings, V., Potrykus, I., Ammann K., & Fedoroff, N. (2012) Confronting the Gordian knot, Opinion. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 3, pp 208-209 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Regulation/Giddings-Confronting-Gordian-Knot-2012.pdf

  10. Check for updates at http://www.europabio.org/filter/agricultural/type/position or contact EuropaBio for more info

  11. Status of overall approvals 47 GM products are authorised in total 71 GM products in the authorisation system: • 55 in EFSA • 16 awaiting Commission/Member State action Background: Since the current authorisation framework is in place (2004) At any given year more GM applications have been submitted (green box) than authorisation decisions were made. This results in an ever increasing backlog, both in EFSA as in the Commission. Ever more GM products are being cultivated at a rapidly increasing rate in many countries, and the EU has a high import dependency for many relevant crops. Check for updates at http://www.europabio.org/filter/agricultural/type/position or contact EuropaBio for more info

  12. Paarlberg, R. (2009) Starved for Science, How Biotechnology is kept out of Africa Harvard University Press; 1 edition (August 5, 2009) Cambridge, USA, IS: ISBN-10: 0674033477 ISBN-13: 978-0674033474 pp 256 http://www.amazon.com/Starved-Science-Biotechnology-Being-Africa/dp/0674033477/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331185222&sr=1-1#_

More Related