The study, funded by COCERAL, the European association representing agri-trade, FEDIOL, the federation representing the EU vegetable oil and proteinmeal industry, and FEFAC, representing EU feed associations, has concluded that the European Commission’s proposal to allow countries to opt out on the domestic use of genetically modified (GM) feed products would, if adopted, put the future of the EU livestock industry at risk.
The research focuses on the effect of this opt-out clause on Germany, Poland, France and Hungary, four EU countries that have signalled an intention to use it. The "importance of the livestock sector" in these countries is an additional reason why they were chosen to be case studies.
Moreover, the study limits itself to examining the impact of using non-GM soya bean and soya bean meal, since approximately 90% of soya beans and derived products are GM, according to FEFAC.
EU use of soya bean meal
In the years 2012 to 2013 and 2014 to 2015, the EU used 28.5 million tonnes (mt) of soya bean meal for feed, 36.1mt in soya bean equivalent, the report says. Out of this total, more than 35mt, or around 97%, were imported. The four potential opt-out countries considered in the report used 12mt of soya bean equivalent, according to the USDA 2015 and Oil World 2015.
In its analysis, the study concludes there are currently not enough non-GM soya beans available in the world to replace GM soya bean and meal use in the four potentially opting-out countries. It also says that “even if farmers in the main soya bean growing countries [USA, Brazil and Argentina] were persuaded to grow more non-GM soya beans (by offering significant price premia compared with GM soya bean prices) so that supplies were sufficient, practicability and cost implications would remain significant.”
The practicality implications mentioned in the study include the need to maintain two strictly separated supply chains for GM and non-GM feed. “This will require increased efforts and costs in exporting countries and in the EU opting out jurisdictions,” it says.
The study says national GM bans for feed use would likely lead to a loss of competitiveness to the intensive livestock sector in these countries. “If GM soya bean meal had to be replaced by non-GM soya bean meal, the entire sector could potentially foreclose or relocate (whether to EU non-opting out member states or third countries).”
Criticism
Criticising the study, Jochen Koester of AgroTrace, a company which specialises in the import and distribution of non-GM soy, grain and sugar from South America and Asia, said COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC "have close ties to the GM industry and to the giant commodity traders who ship GM feed around the world. The reality is that South American farmers can produce as much affordable certified non-GM feed EU farmers want, provided it is ordered a season ahead of time.
“The German government is very well aware what its livestock industry is up to and proactively supports these moves,” Koester continued. “It has also done its homework and knows that its livestock sector is not in any danger. PHW Group, Europe’s largest poultry supplier, is one of the driving forces behind the entire poultry sector going non-GM.”
In a statement to the Irish Farmers Journal, PHW group, Germany’s largest poultry supplier, confirmed it uses only non-GM feed products.
“Moreover, ADM, Cargill and Glencore [global food trade companies] have begun to process non-GM soya beans to animal feed in Europe and have had their production certified,” Koester added. Cargill confirmed to us that it sources both GM and non-GM soya beans to serve the needs of its customers in Europe. “We process both at various locations around the continent,” the company said. ADM said it does not currently crush non-GM beans in Europe, but the company is currently adding that capability to its facility in Straubing, Germany. Glencore has yet to respond.
GM opt-out clause
In September, the EU agriculture committee rejected the Commission’s draft law that would give member states the power to restrict or prohibit the use of EU-approved GM food or feed on their territory.
The rejection was carried by 28 votes in favour to eight against, with six abstentions. The proposal was also later rejected by the environment committee and the European Parliament as a whole will vote on the matter on Wednesday 28 October.
EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis has expressed surprise at the resistance to the plan to allow bans on GM food and feed imports, saying it offered a new possibility to opt-out “for national societal reasons”.
SHARING OPTIONS: