WASHINGTON– American biotechnology firms want U.S. trade negotiators to stress the need for a more flexible import process of genetically modified products as trade talks with the European Union pick up speed.
How to deal with genetically modified imports is the most contentious issue facing trade agreement negotiations between the U.S. and European Union this summer.
“We need a trade agreement that is flexible and can accommodate technology,” said Matt O’Mara, director of foreign affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “We need technology. There is no more land. We need to use existing resources in a much more efficient way.”
But the administrative arm of the EU, known as the European Commission, made clear that regulation on genetically modified products is off limits in these talks.
“These negotiations are not about compromising the health of our consumers for commercial gains,” said commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.
Multiple studies published in the last 10 years reveal a strong association between genetically modified foods and disease in animals.
Genetically modified corn was linked to decreased fertility in mice, according to a 2008 study by the Austrian Research Institute of Organic Agriculture.
Intestinal damage in older mice that were fed genetically modified maize was reported in 2008 by the National Institute of Research on Foods and Nutrition in Rome.
Some experts claim that genetically modified seeds have failed to deliver in the findings of thousands of field studies conducted over the past 20 years.
“None of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in major food or feed crops,” scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman wrote in a 2009 report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent scientific advocacy group.
However, some agriculture organizations have reported that farmers around the world are reaping the economic benefits of using modified seeds and biotech crop varieties.
Crop biotechnology and modified seeds netted $19.8 billion in 2011 at the farm level, according to an annual report produced by the UK-based consultancy firm PG Economics.
O’Mara said agriculture and technology are synonymous at this point and “we need to embrace that.”
Despite the differences in findings, the European Union maintains strict regulation for the cultivation, sale and importation of genetically modified products that are proving to be a sticking point for American biotechnology leaders.
“To be clear, we are not seeking to change any of the EUs approach to cultivation or labeling,” O’Mara said. “A great deal of the delays that we see in the approval process come after the European Food Safety Authority has issued a positive opinion.”
Under current EU rules, applications for genetically modified products are sent to the European Food Safety Authority for importation approval, then sent on to separate EU member states for opinion. Thus far, 52 genetically modified organisms have been authorized.
Even though the EU maintains it will not reconsider this process, American lawmakers are pushing for change. Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk stressing that a deal must reduce EU restrictions on genetically modified crops.
“While we recognize the positive steps the EU has recently taken with respect to imports of beef washed with lactic acid and with respect to swine, there is still much work to be done. We urge you to resolve these and other unwarranted agricultural barriers as part of the FTA [free trade agreement] negotiations on both an individual and a systemic basis,” said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The trade agreement, once in place, would bring economic gains of $157 billion a year to the EU and $125 billion to the U.S., according to the Center for Economic Policy Research. Global GDP would increase by nearly $132 billion.
The second round of negotiations for the trade agreement is slated for the week of Oct. 7 in Brussels. If a treaty is signed by President Barack Obama, legislation to institute the final agreement will be sent to Congress for approval.