Andrew Travels To Belgium To Address EU Acceptance Of Biotechnology
ANKENY, Iowa - U.S. soybean producers are involved in every issue they know regarding the growing need to feed a hungry world. That includes working toward wider international acceptance of biotechnology. Seeing a positive shift in Europeans’ attitudes toward GMOs, the American Soybean Association (ASA) is working to capitalize on the opportunity.
In December, Jim Andrew of Jefferson, Iowa, traveled on an ASA mission to Brussels, Belgium, to address EU acceptance of biotechnology. Coordinated by consultant Benno vander Laan, the mission included meetings with Members of the European Parliament (MEP), political leaders, the European Commission and representatives of European trade associations.
ASA’s endeavor is not a new one. For several years, ASA and several biotech companies have maintained an effort to educate farmers, political leaders, journalists, and government officials in the European Union to overcome resistance and regulations regarding the acceptance of genetically modified grains in international trade and in processing.
Andrew, who serves as a director of the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA), as well as ASA, says, “Early on, various nongovernmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others, proliferated doubts and questions regarding the long-term effects of GMOs. This led to zero tolerance in soybean shipments from the U.S., food and grocery labeling regulations and widespread concerns amongst the consuming public in the EU regarding GMOs in their meat and groceries. “
Over the years, Andrew reports, the ASA biotech working group has sent several missions to the EU. “With the new election of MEPs and the retirement of some government officials, we have witnessed a softening of the previous stonewall of GMO imports in the EU,” he says.
During their December visit, the ASA group met with several parties to discuss the benefits of the new soy biotech events planned for commercialization between now and 2020. In light of those events, they urged the MEPs to pressure the European Commission and governments to speed up the EU’s approval process and to set reasonable tolerance levels for traces in grain shipments.
“We are slowly gaining acceptance of GMOs in Europe,” Andrew says. “However, many politicians are scared to go against the wishes of their constituents after the propaganda voters have been subjected to by the press and environmental groups.”
ASA is using a two-pronged attack in its efforts. One aspect of the effort is focused on developing desire among European farmers to have access to the benefits of GMOs in order to be competitive. The second area of attention is the development of a key support base among European politicians and regulators. That effort is showing results in recently proposed legislation, as bills have been introduced to allow member countries to individually cultivate GMOs within their borders, as long as other member countries have the ability to opt out of any internal production. Key supporters of this proposal indicated to the Americans that they felt it has a good chance of passage and is viewed positively particularly by the younger people of the EU. Supporters expressed a belief that domestic growing and usage of GMOs would have a significant positive effect on acceptance within the EU.
“Overall, the mission was extremely rewarding,” Andrew concludes. “We were able to capitalize on the work done over the years toward overcoming a problem that has existed in U.S.-EU trade relations for years. With the easing of the rigid positions of the past, ASA should continue to cultivate the pro-GMO constituency we have already developed within the EU and take full advantage of the thaw that presently exists.
“The eventual resolution of this trade issue would greatly expand world trade,” Andrew says. “Many other developing countries have followed the lead of the EU in rules and regulations regarding GMOs. With the number of GMO grain events in the future pipeline, failure to rapidly resolve these issues will lead to trade gridlock in a hungry world. It behooves the soybean industry to continue all efforts possible to resolve this issue as soon as possible.”
In December, Jim Andrew of Jefferson, Iowa, traveled on an ASA mission to Brussels, Belgium, to address EU acceptance of biotechnology. Coordinated by consultant Benno vander Laan, the mission included meetings with Members of the European Parliament (MEP), political leaders, the European Commission and representatives of European trade associations.
ASA’s endeavor is not a new one. For several years, ASA and several biotech companies have maintained an effort to educate farmers, political leaders, journalists, and government officials in the European Union to overcome resistance and regulations regarding the acceptance of genetically modified grains in international trade and in processing.
Andrew, who serves as a director of the Iowa Soybean Association (ISA), as well as ASA, says, “Early on, various nongovernmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others, proliferated doubts and questions regarding the long-term effects of GMOs. This led to zero tolerance in soybean shipments from the U.S., food and grocery labeling regulations and widespread concerns amongst the consuming public in the EU regarding GMOs in their meat and groceries. “
Over the years, Andrew reports, the ASA biotech working group has sent several missions to the EU. “With the new election of MEPs and the retirement of some government officials, we have witnessed a softening of the previous stonewall of GMO imports in the EU,” he says.
During their December visit, the ASA group met with several parties to discuss the benefits of the new soy biotech events planned for commercialization between now and 2020. In light of those events, they urged the MEPs to pressure the European Commission and governments to speed up the EU’s approval process and to set reasonable tolerance levels for traces in grain shipments.
“We are slowly gaining acceptance of GMOs in Europe,” Andrew says. “However, many politicians are scared to go against the wishes of their constituents after the propaganda voters have been subjected to by the press and environmental groups.”
ASA is using a two-pronged attack in its efforts. One aspect of the effort is focused on developing desire among European farmers to have access to the benefits of GMOs in order to be competitive. The second area of attention is the development of a key support base among European politicians and regulators. That effort is showing results in recently proposed legislation, as bills have been introduced to allow member countries to individually cultivate GMOs within their borders, as long as other member countries have the ability to opt out of any internal production. Key supporters of this proposal indicated to the Americans that they felt it has a good chance of passage and is viewed positively particularly by the younger people of the EU. Supporters expressed a belief that domestic growing and usage of GMOs would have a significant positive effect on acceptance within the EU.
“Overall, the mission was extremely rewarding,” Andrew concludes. “We were able to capitalize on the work done over the years toward overcoming a problem that has existed in U.S.-EU trade relations for years. With the easing of the rigid positions of the past, ASA should continue to cultivate the pro-GMO constituency we have already developed within the EU and take full advantage of the thaw that presently exists.
“The eventual resolution of this trade issue would greatly expand world trade,” Andrew says. “Many other developing countries have followed the lead of the EU in rules and regulations regarding GMOs. With the number of GMO grain events in the future pipeline, failure to rapidly resolve these issues will lead to trade gridlock in a hungry world. It behooves the soybean industry to continue all efforts possible to resolve this issue as soon as possible.”
The Iowa Soybean Association develops policies and programs that help farmers expand profit opportunities while promoting environmentally sensitive production using the soybean checkoff and other resources. The Association is governed by an elected volunteer board of 21 farmers.
-30 -
Funded by the soybean checkoff