b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKTHE NEXT EUROPEAN REGULATORY CHALLENGEFOR SEED BREEDERSA s the European Union has startedpany afford to wait ten years and pay tens ofEuropean policy process, this is not going to realise that the benefits of newmillions of euros to comply with demandsto happen. So how can Brussels create a genomic techniques (NGTs) to foodfrom agencies and governments? Willregulatory environment that will not stifle security far outweigh the risks (especially assmaller seed breeders need to enter intoNGT research or only help the largest com-Farm2Fork will seriously impact Europeanagreements with bigger companies. panies in the most profitable seed markets?farm yields), there is now a more favourableSteps taken by the pharmaceutical reg-regulatory environment for innovative seedUSEFUL IDIOTS istration process could be helpful. If there breeding technologies. But do not think, forThe irony of creating near impossible reg- is a drug that shows promise in fighting a moment, that this will mean smooth sail- ulatory hurdles is that the activist NGOsa major disease, it can be fast-tracked for ing for those bringing new seeds onto thehave created a cost and time environmentemergency use authorisation. When a new market. Following the hoops laid out in theadvantageous to big companies and only forseed solution could help smallholders deal past for new agricultural technologies, weseeds in lucrative cash crop markets ratherwith serious threats to food supply, should can expect a very expensive, and thus verythan technologies that would help small- we force farmers to wait 20 years for some exclusive, regulatory process.holders facing local challenges with smallercompany to have a completed dossier? If One of the most attractive advantagescrop varieties. So, the NGOs are inadvert- there are clearly understood trial phases, of NGTs is the low cost of entry for innova- ently promoting a type of agriculture theylike the drug development process, then tors. Labs in developing countries can con- despise while disincentivising cutting-edgeonly the most intransigent ideologues centrate on solutions to local agriculturalinnovations from young, local researchers. would interfere with emergency-use leg-challenges rather than relying on big com- Every time I see a new NGO campaign,islation for seed solutions during massive panies with deep research budgets chasingI look to see which big industry will profitcrop failures.more lucrative markets for commodityfrom it. In the energy arena, companiesIf the European Commission is bent seeds. But if activists are forced to accept alike Gazprom overtly financed NGOs likeon imposing stifling regulatory restric-less restrictive regulatory regime for NGTsFriends of the Earth to attack nuclear andtions, then they should consider finan-(which they still insist are GMOs), theypromote the Nord Stream gas pipeline, whilecially supporting SMEs trying to bring will fight tooth and nail to make the regu- those demanding a faster fossil fuel transitionpromising innovations to market. Leaving latory hurdles as restrictive as possible (andare knowingly enabling another decade (atsmall organisations with no choice but to thus more expensive). least) of dirty coal emissions. Governmentsbe acquired or to enter into unfavourable In 2005, I was the Product Stewardshipjust shrug and say they are giving the peoplepartnerships does not encourage innovation CommunicationsManageratCefic(which people?) what they want. or competition. The European Commission (European Chemical Industry Council),Activists are often single-minded inneeds to be accountable for the conse-during the first reading of REACH intheir search for simple solutions to promotequences of their actions.the European Parliament. The regulationtheir ideologies. The Greenpeace GoldenFinally, companies should be outed threated to incur serious research costs onRice debacle shows how easy it is for theby their peers for supporting NGOs who industry to meet the registration require- well-fed to exploit the present regulatorypromote a climate of fear and regulatory ments. I noticed then that the big chemicalsystem based on some privileged puri- restrictions. companies were not too concerned about thetan ideology. The situation worsens when costs while the SMEs were, and they verylarge companies work with these NGOs to loudly voiced their fear they would go bank- advance their interests while claiming to be rupt (and more vulnerable to big companiesconcerned about sustainability.scooping them up on the cheap). Fast-forward two decades and BrusselsSTEPS TO IMPROVE THE has become even more regulatory-restric- INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTtive so we should ask how such high com- It would be nice if we could all agree thatThis is a shortened version. For the full pliance costs will create barriers to enterbetter (less) regulation on seed innova- version, see here: european-seed.com/markets for all but the biggest seed-breed- tions is the best route forward but giventhe-next-european-regulatory- ing companies. Can a small biotech com- the participatory, consensus nature of thechallenge-for-seed-breeders/40ISEED WORLD EUROPEIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'