b'Examples of the working fields of EuropaBio.CHANGING THE NARRATIVE is prohibitive, reaching between 11 million16.7 million and Many organisations feel it is high time for a more rational EUtaking around six years on average for a mere import authori-narrative on biotechnology, especially in the agricultural arena.sation, both up by over 50 per cent compared to a decade ago. But to do this we need to recognize the benefits of GMOs andThis predicament exists despite 25 years of safe use of GM crops genome edited crops, and at the very least distinguish betweenand thousands of individual EU and other government approvals transgenic and non-transgenic crops, says Dupont-Inglis. Theconfirming their safety. She underlines that with such massive July 2018 Court of Justice of the EU ruling on mutagenesis hasinvestments of time, money and expertise necessary for attain-only further divided stakeholders by relegating all productsing authorisation, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) derived from new methods of mutagenesis breeding, includinghave been all but excluded from investing in GM crop authorisa-genome edited crops, as GMOs.tions in Europe, and even large multinational corporations have In this respect we welcome Council Decision (EU)practically given up on GM cultivation in Europe. The impacts 2019/1904 which requested the Commission to submit a studyhave been devastating, for example in the UK, where it has been on the status of novel genomic techniques. But even moreshown that the EUs GMO regulations cost the UK agricultural importantly we hope that it will now quickly lead to a worka- sector between 428 million and 534 million in farm income ble Commission proposal that will deliver more practical andbenefits between 1996-2006, with an additional 65 million - 82 science-based rules. Such a proposal should be proportionatemillion still slipping away each year. Considering that biotech about crops developed using genome editing, which do not con- crops tackle some of the pest and diseases which Europe desper-tain foreign or inserted genetic material. These should not beately needs to fight, especially in the context of climate change, classified or regulated as if they were transgenic. I find this predicament self-defeating and sad.That said, transformative change will require more than a Commission proposal, in her view. It will take more responsi- THE FUTURE OF EU FARMINGbility and leadership at all levels. The fact is that both the EUI am optimistic that Europe will continue to be a leader in all Parliament and several EU Member States have been partiallyfields of biotechnology, including healthcare and industrial bio-implicated in accepting the disinformation campaigns of a fewtechnology, where huge value is already added and even hope-anti-GMO activists by objecting to or abstaining from votes onfully in agricultural biotechnology with a little more effort. We GMO approvals, despite positive EFSA opinions and provenhave a highly skilled and innovative workforce and a strong economic benefits. I hope that a new generation of EU decisionpolitical focus on health and sustainability, she says. According makers will now follow the science, not just on climate changeto Dupont-Inglis, with a bit of leadership and common sense, and vaccinations, but also on GMOs, and take responsibility forthe EU can do more not only to improve the integration of bio-capturing the full potential of biotechnology for the benefit oftechnology into its sustainability agenda, but to also spur more people and planet, she adds. research and innovation with potential positive sustainability applications abroad. But first decision makers must heed the THE FARMERS TOOLBOX call of the biotech community to facilitate the development and Farmers have fewer tools in their toolbox to fight pests and dis- application of workable policies.eases. In the EU, the cost of authorizing a new transgenic plant 38IEUROPEAN SEEDIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'