Should Europe be setting ag policy for the world?
What happens when one region of the world – a major hub for global trade – chooses ideology and politics over science when it comes to innovation in agriculture? Unfortunately, Europe is showing us exactly that – and the result is not good for anyone.
While Canada and Europe are supposed to enjoy improved access to each others’ markets through the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Europe’s current policies when it comes to agricultural technologies are having the opposite effect.
We as Canadians enjoy better access to things like high-quality European wine, cheese, olives and coffee, but Canadian products are not always given the same warm welcome in Europe. Canada produces some of the highest quality and safest grains, oilseeds and pulse crops in the world and we expect Europeans to put trust in the products we send across the ocean in the same way we embrace European goods. That is at the heart of what free trade agreements are all about.
This reciprocal agreement falls apart when we look at things like new crop varieties developed through genetic modification (GM), for example. A new GM crop will generally not be released to farmers in Canada until it has been approved for import into the EU. Releasing these new crop varieties prior to EU import approvals could have potentially devastating impacts on trade.
In Canada, on average, it takes about two years to get a new GM crop through the regulatory approval process. According to EuropaBio, it takes an average of six years for the EU to approve GM crops for importation. And scientific risk assessments made by the European Food Safety Authority can be ignored in favour of politics by individual member states within the EU.
The result is that Canadian growers – and others around the world – cannot access the latest technology they need to more efficiently and sustainably grow food to feed the world. And Europe’s ideologically-driven approach to regulating agricultural technologies is likely going to continue when it comes to new plant breeding techniques like gene editing, which offer incredible potential for farmers, consumers and the environment.
When it comes to crop protection products, the EU is incorporating a hazard-based approach to the approval and renewal of pest control products. This runs contrary to the approach of other World Trade Organization (WTO) members who embrace internationally agreed upon principles of risk-based regulation when it comes to pesticides.
The practical implications of this mean that products may be banned in Europe that have been assessed and deemed as safe for use based on a risk assessment by other WTO members. And without any degree of certainty as to whether import tolerances for residues of these products might be set, the resulting effect is essentially that farmers outside of Europe would be reluctant to use the product in question if their crop could be destined for export to Europe. This could affect their pest management decisions and ultimately the viability of their crop.
Canada recently joined together with 16 other countries to write a letter to the WTO to express their concerns about Europe’s implementation of non-tariff trade barriers when it comes to agricultural products. The language in the letter is unequivocal in its call for the WTO to ensure the EU lives up to its responsibility to uphold the rules of fair trade. The letter states:
In order to face the challenge of producing more food in a safer and sustainable way, farmers must be able to access the full range of safe tools and technologies that are available for agricultural production. Yet, our farmers’ choice of safe tools is increasingly undermined by regulatory barriers that are not founded on internationally agreed risk analysis principles and do not take into account alternative approaches to meeting regulatory objectives. This is already having a substantial negative impact on the production, and trade of, safe food and agricultural products, an impact that is likely to increase in the future.
And;
In implementing these measures [incorporating a hazard-based approach to the approval and renewal of plant protection product authorizations], it appears that the EU is unilaterally attempting to impose its own domestic regulatory approach onto its trading partners. As a result, the EU is effectively prohibiting the use of critical tools to manage pests and resistance, while damaging the livelihood of farmers beyond its borders, especially those in developing countries and LDCs. Agricultural production varies by region and what works in Europe may not be appropriate in other climates and regions. The EU’s insistence that farmers around the world will find “alternatives” rings hollow for many of the EU’s trading partners who know that, in most cases, viable alternatives simply do not exist or in fact may carry higher risks to use than the substances effectively banned by the EU.
Given that Europe is a major importer of food and feed – the EU’s livestock, poultry and feed industries are about 70 per cent dependent on imported protein – it is alarming that their policies, which limit access to innovations at home, are now being forced on other countries around the world. And these are the countries, like Canada, who are embracing new tools and technologies to sustainably grow food for markets in need like Europe.
As the global demand for food and feed continues to rise and as farmers are faced with increasing pressure from changing weather patterns and pest challenges, there will need access to the latest tools and innovations to produce more food on existing agricultural land. And this is a critical time for governments and policy makers around the world to recognize this. The alternative is turning more land (think natural habitats like rainforests) into agricultural production and that is not good for anyone.
Pierre Petelle
President and CEO, CropLife Canada