Socio-economic impact of GMO

In the discussion concerning regulation of biotechnology launched by France Presidency the socio-economic impact was suggested as one of factors employed in assessment of newly developed crops for the release to the market. Some delegations oppose this idea arguing by the vague definition of the term.

Nevertheless it is without doubt that GM crops and particularly their regulation have pronounced socio-economic effects. Let us try to supply few suggestions based on the experience of the Czech Republic.

It is obvious that the key negative socio-economic factor in the Europe constraining biotechnology consists in shameful misinformation of public documented by the Eurobarometer 2006. Certain pressure groups were very successful in implanting the parallel between prions causing BSE (mad cow disease) and transgene in minds of Europeans. As a result half of the citizens in the Europe believe that after eating the genetically modified fruit the transgene will survive and propagate in their bodies changing their heredity.

It should be noted that the official policy of EU administration supports this regrettable situation. Any document and presentation concerning regulation of GM crops includes the phrase "...in order to provide higher protections of the health of people and animals..." not providing factual reasons why GM crops might endanger the health more than crops developed by any other breeding method, e.g. by irradiation.

Such superstition has high economic impact and prevents companies to invest into the transfer of consumer-beneficial crops from laboratories to the market. As a result consumers complain that there are no GM crops providing advantage to them not realising that their misinformation is the cause. Absence of such products is another socio-economic factor.

More than that. The tough European regulations comparable with that of toxic chemicals persuade people that GM crops should be equally dangerous. Naturally, such atmosphere of public fear imposes heavy burden on bringing GM crops to the market and prevents farmers from employing modern technology and deriving benefit from them. This is serious socio-economic impact of EU policy in the field of biotechnology.

Fortunately Czech citizens, as documented by the above mentioned Eurobarometer research, are more favourable to modern technologies including GM crops than people in other Central European countries. Also farmers in Czech regions, which are under the infestation of Ostrinia nubilalis have been growing Bt maize instead of "traditionally" spraying insecticides. The area of GM maize is growing year by year and farmers report higher yield by 10 to 15 per cent and reduced expenses. Savings of the insecticides price, fuel, machinery and labour is higher that the additional seed price, so that net income grows.

This is in concert with reports from other countries where more GM crops are grown, showing that these crops when properly used bring benefit to growers. Thus European policy approving GM crops - except for Bt maize - only for import and processing brings negative socio-economic impact leaving the benefit abroad and rather importing certain problems with consumer misbelieve.

Czech farmer as well as in the whole Europe are handicapped when using the modern biotechnology. Organic farmers (called "ecological farmers" in CR) guarantee the absence of contamination of their products by pesticides and other chemicals. Getting higher price in the market they are requested by the law to take measures preventing such contamination possibly coming from neighbour standard farmers. This follows from the standard market rules. In order to benefit from the public superstition organic farmers ad "GMO-free" as another guaranty to the advertising of their products. However, in this case the economic burden connected with measures preventing the "contamination" of their products by transgenes is by European regulation transferred to the farmer who uses GM crops. Thus the cost of measures (isolation areas, etc.) that help organic farmers to be fair with their marketing slogan and get higher price are paid by farmers using GM crops. This curious "punishment" of farmers using GM crops should be definitely included in the assessment of socio-economic factors connected with modern biotechnology in agriculture.

Potentially positive socio-economic impact for Czech farmers was abolished by EU decision. There are regions in the Czech Republic mostly specialised on potato production due to the soil and weather conditions. However the demand drop caused reduction in the potato planting almost to the half that is quite ominous for the rural region. The company BASF developed an industrial potato with altered starch composition. It could be used in paper and textile industry and other applications. In this way it would support not only farmers but also the local starch mils and improve social structure of the community. It was expected the industrial potato to be approved in 2007 due to the positive scientific statement of EFSA. However the planting was not allowed by European Commission bringing big disappointment.

These few examples demonstrate that GM crops could provide positive socio-economic impacts, however the regulation that is based mostly on ideology having no scientific background prevents them to come in reality. This is why the socio-economic aspects should be included in the decision making process weighting the effects of both models: introducing and not introducing the GM crop. Anyway, such method of evaluating any action by comparing consequences of its application and not application is requested by the precautionary principle as defined by EU in 2000.

Author: Jaroslav Drobník