Are EU GMO rules starving the poor? 

A key argument put forward by GM producers is that GM technology could be the key to solving developing countries' hunger problem. 

• Does Europe have the right to systematically reject GMOs – even those that fulfil their own safety requirements? 
• Is Europe, through its stance on GMOs and strict authorisation procedures, stifling the development of a technology crucial to boosting food production and breaking the cycle of malnutrition and starvation in developing countries?  

In a debate organised by think-tank Friends of Europe , green NGOs rejected this idea.

Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard said that the EU should not dismiss all GMOs automatically, because the technology could help to solve developing countries' hunger problem. 

"In a global world, the EU's actions impact on other countries," she said, explaining that developing countries' inability to export to the EU discourages them from investing in and producing GMOs. 

She believes that the scepticism in Europe about genetic engineering in agriculture stems from the fact that few GMOs "have brought unquestionable benefits to the European table". But she underlined the fact that the EU must assess each GMO on its own merits, because crops that can resist diseases and insects can be grown in the third world. 

"Like it or not, GMOs are here to stay," she said, adding that the EU has a special role to play in the debate because it can contribute to ensuring that GMOs are used in a safe and beneficial way for consumers by, for example, investing public research in this field. 

Per Pindstrup-Andersen, Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), stressed: "Not a single person has died or become sick because of GM foods." Nevertheless, he agreed that more studies should be carried out on allergies, etc… "The EU could have generated a lot of information on GMOs during the moratorium, but it simply sat on its hands," he complained. 

Although he conceded that Europeans have the right to know about the benefits and risks, he criticised the EU's dogmatism in refusing all GMOs. 

"The debate in Europe is very one-sided," he said, adding: "If millions of farmers in India and China are willing to break laws to get genetically engineered food, there must be a reason." 

He underlined the importance of understanding the risk-benefit trade-off for developing countries, saying that for many the question is not "Is genetic engineering the best solution?" but rather "Is there any other solution?" 

For the moment, he said, Europe is standing in the way of developing countries solving their own problems because of its straight-out rejection of GMOs. "Developing countries are scared of losing their export market to Europe if they start cultivating GM crops," he said. 

But, he agreed that Europe has an important role to play in encouraging the development of biosafety regulations, which are often very weak in developing countries. 

Simon Barber, Director of External Relations, EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, said that the public had "very limited knowledge" about GMOs and about agriculture in general. He accused green groups of spreading unfounded rumours, saying: "After ten years of GM plants, what negative effects have ever been seen?" 

He added: "Many other plant-breeding technologies are just as scary and do not only produce benefits…To categorically say that the technology should not be used is not ethical." 

Furthermore, he said that imposing a ban on GMOs was not feasible anyway as "the international trading system simply cannot segregate crops on a 100% basis". 

Fouad Hamdan, director of Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), believes that it is an exaggeration to say that GMOs can save developing countries, because there are only four types of GM crops: soy, maize, oilseed rape and cotton. 

The majority of these crops are destined for feeding animals, not people, in rich countries. 

Furthermore, he said, GM crops only benefit large farmers, not small ones who cannot afford expensive patented seeds. And, as for the environment, he said that the use of pesticides has actually increased in Europe following the introduction of GMOs. 

He refuted the argument that NGOs were stirring up fear on false pretences, saying: "I still believe that the benefits of GM food are almost nil…NGOs are working with independent scientific facts, not with biotech-industry funded research." 

Therefore, he concluded: "The EU can with a lot of confidence tell developing countries to be cautious too. The organic market is the future.” 

But, a South African representative said: "Most Africans don’t have the luxury of choice of what to eat and what not to eat. If genetic engineering can bring some relief to this food insecurity, then let it be. And if it is too risky, then come up with another solution."