There is a “real possibility” that the EU will ban imports of soybean meal from the US, Argentina and Brazil in 2009/2010 because of their likely cultivation of Round-Up Ready 2 soya before it is approved in the EU.

That will raise the prospect of a massive shortage of feed protein which would have a devastating effect on the EU meat sector, according to an internal DG AGRI report.

Noting that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) takes 2.5-10 years to authorise a GMO while in the US the process takes on average 15 months, the report highlights the problems of “asynchronous authorisations” – the discrepancy that exists “where a GMO is fully approved for commercial use in food and feed in one country but not in others”.

For soybean and soyameal, of which the EU currently imports roughly 35 million tonnes compared with EU production levels of roughly 12 million tonnes, the report indicates that the possible loss of the US as a supplier could easily be compensated. The loss of Argentina would be more difficult (leaving a shortage of just over 3 million tonnes) and this “medium impact scenario” would potentially see port products rise by 74% and beef exports fall by 95% in 2010.

However, with the emerging demand on the Chinese market, the report signals that even Brazil may convert to GM soya in the next two years which would leave the EU with an import deficit of 32 million tonnes, only 6-7 million tonnes of which could be made up by increased production.

Under this “worst case scenario”, the report estimates that there would be a significant drop in EU pig and poultry production while all EU meat exports would virtually stop and imports rocket. This would lead to a sharp drop in pig and poultry consumption and a notable increase in beef consumption.

An examination of the maize sector estimates that EU imports from the US are relatively easy to substitute – by EU production and by other suppliers and even by other grains. The report therefore concludes that a partial ban is unlikely to have a strong overall economic impact – although there could be regional problems for instance in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK resulting from the additional transport costs, e.g. from Hungary relative to the current supply by sea.

Industry responses were prompt:

Coceral, the European grain and feedstuffs traders and Fefac, the EU compound feed manufacturers welcomed the “need to take urgent action to avoid negative implications for EU livestock production and agriculture overall”. JeanMichel Aspar, Coceral President, stated that “the present strict zero-tolerance policy of the EU is disproportionate and will lead to a complete halt of vital feed supplies from South and North-America, as no trading company will bear the risk of guaranteeing absence of traces of GMOs approved in some third countries but not yet in the EU”. He stressed that “the EU is totally dependant on soybean meal imports as major source of vegetable proteins, for which no substitutes are available in sufficient quantities on EU or world markets”.

Pedro Corrêa de Barros, Fefac President, noted that the current de facto import ban for corn gluten feed will increase feed costs to the EU livestock industry by another €60-90 million at a time of record-high feed grain prices. He pointed out that “a similar ban on soybean meal imports will have devastating consequences for European livestock producers, wiping out entire pig and poultry production chains in the EU”.

Coceral and Fefac recommend:

* aligning the speed of the GMO authorisation procedure between the EU and the major exporting countries;
* a risk proportionate, workable tolerance for the low level presence of products that have obtained a positive EFSA opinion or have been approved by another OECD country to be present in cargoes of traded feed materials.

More comments on the consequences were offered by EuropaBio:

1. They, too, welcomed the report and called on the institutions urgently to address the issue of the low level presence of EU–unapproved GM materials entering Europe in traded commodities.
2. They urged Member States to vote to approve, in a timely manner, GM crops that have received a positive safety assessment from the EU’s independent scientific body, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and to keep pace with approvals in other global regions, many of which are key trading partners of the EU.
3. Recently Commissioners Mandelson, Fischer Boel and Kyprianou have acknowledged the supply crisis developing in the European feed industry and the need to find practical solutions. This underscores the need to improve the EU approval system to function more swiftly or risk threatening Europe’s ability to fundamentally source sufficient feed for our livestock sector.
4. The zero tolerance in operation in the EU for the low level presence of EU-unapproved GM plant materials found in imported commodities - which have been approved by other Regulatory Agencies - is disproportionate to any potential risk.
5. It is essential for the EU to establish a workable tolerance for the low level presence of products that have obtained a positive EFSA opinion or have been approved by another OECD country to be present in cargoes of traded commodities.
6. Clear and pragmatic tolerance levels for the low level presence of EU unapproved GM material in EU food and feed imports will avoid international trade disruption, limit the impact on EU agriculture in the short term and enable other countries the freedom to continue to choose between different farming systems.
7. This situation is fully comparable with the plans that the European Commission has to create thresholds for adventitious presence of biotech seeds in non-GM seeds to avoid internal trade disruption in the EU.
8. This is not the first time the EU has had to agree procedures for handling products only approved outside the EU but which could be found in imports into the EU. For example, the EU has managed to establish tolerances for the presence of EU un-approved plant protection products or medicinal substances.
9. The industry urges EU Member States also to vote in favour of cultivation dossiers so that EU farmers are not left behind in the competition with their counterparts elsewhere in the world.

Sources:

1. Economic impact of unapproved GMOs on EU feed imports and livestock production. European Commission – Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (16.7.07). (The full report can be downloaded from http://www.cedab.it/cgi-bin/documenti/economic_impactgmos_en.pdf)

2. GMO zero tolerance devastating for EU feed industry. All About Feed (19.7.07) (http://www.allaboutfeed.net/home/id102-15615/gmo_zero_tolerance_devastating_for_eu_feed_industry.html)

3. Economic impact of EU unapproved GMOs on Europe's feed and livestock production. EuropaBio (17.7.07) (http://www.europabio.org)

<<<back