10 March 26, 2015 2015 Logan County Farm Outlook Magazine Lincoln Daily News.com
a relative restrictive GMO regulation,
while major exporters (e.g. Argentina,
Brazil, Canada and Ukraine) have a “soft”
regulation according to their comparative
advantage in the production of agricultural
products. Finally, within the EU countries
there is a certain degree of variance.
Countries such as Austria and Italy “have
imposed a de facto ban on the cultivation
of GM maize approved by the European
Commission. Moreover, the majority of
Italian and Austrian regions are members
of the European GMO-free Regions
Network.”
In her article “Are GMOs doomed on the
global market?,” Carolanne Wright noted
that some countries have taken a stance
against GM imports. For example, in
November 2013, China banned imports of
U.S. corn after “genetically modified Bt
protein (MIR162)” was identified--costing
more than “$4 billion in revenue losses for
U.S. corn and soybean industries.” Recent
reports from Reuters show that restrictions
are beginning to ease. Russia has taken the
strongest stance against GMOs because
of “legislation that would make the illegal
introduction of genetically modified crops
into the country a crime that is treated in a
similar manner as terrorism.”
The regulations in developing countries
are less clear. As Vigani and Olper state,
“Many developing countries do not have
clearly defined GMO regulations. . . [and
the ones that do]”are often incomplete
or requirements are not specified.
For example, in Mexico and Vietnam
the labeling of GMO ingredients is
compulsory, but no labeling threshold is
defined and not well specified exemptions
are permitted.” Countries that do not have
a “labeling threshold” could have a “factual
ban on GMO imports . . . [and] react with
an overall rejection of products containing
GMOs,” but it is not proven. On the
other side are “regulations that specify a
minimum threshold content permit [and]
GMO imports, even though the threshold
is very restrictive.” What results is often
an overestimation of GMO restrictions “in
those countries where regulations are well
documented and comprehensive.”
Despite its restrictions, the European Union
is very dependent on imports of Genetically
Engineered feed. The Directorate-General
for Agriculture and Rural Development
has noted that “the EU imports a lot of
GE feed” in order to maintain their animal
agriculture since the EU cannot” produce
most of the oilseed meal and other protein-
rich feedstuffs required to feed its livestock.
. .In addition, “98% of EU soybean meal
is imported from Brazil, the USA, and
Argentina [and] 80% of this imported feed
is GE. With these imports, the EU “would
only be able to replace 10- 20% of imports
by high protein substitutes, resulting in
a substantial reduction in animal protein
production, exports and consumption, and
a very significant increase in animal protein
imports and cost in the EU.”
Continued to page 12
