|
Brookes West &
Neville Craddock Associates
London, 21 September
2005:
Delivering and maintaining ‘non GM’ policies in the EU food and feed
sector is set to become more challenging in the coming year. This is
according to new research on the global GM market by three leading
European agricultural and food experts.
The report, entitled
“The
Global GM Market: Implications for the European Food Chain. An analysis of
labelling requirements, market dynamics and cost implications”
(PDF 666 KB), identifies numerous food and feed ingredients in the food
chain derived using genetic modification. It also concludes that the
availability of non GM soybeans & derivatives from Brazil (the largest
supplier) is likely to decline in the next 12 months, resulting in an
increase in the price differential between non GM and GM soy - possibly
reaching as much as 25%.
For
livestock
product producers (producing meat, milk and dairy products), this widening
price differential, for a primary feed ingredient, could result in feed
costs rising by between 6% and 10% in the next 1-3 years, and lead to a
decrease in profitability of between 9%-29%. This level of loss is likely
to be unsustainable.
For manufacturers of
products such as cooking oils and margarines, their switch away from using
GM derived ingredients has also been adding significantly (over 16%) to
raw material costs. This level of additional cost is also set to continue
for the next 1-3 years.
The report suggests
that these additional costs and feasibility problems (currently largely
absorbed by the supply chain), may be unsustainable and may cause many
businesses to re-think their
“GM-avoidance”
policies.
“This is the first
time that a serious attempt has been made to quantify the economic impact
and feasibility of
“GM-avoidance”
policies. Many
European food businesses which have
chosen
to apply these policies to their products are likely to be unaware of the
extent to which many common food and feed ingredients are obtained from
GMOs. These businesses should find the report thought provoking”;
according to Graham Brookes, one of the co-authors of the report.
Ends
A full copy of the
report can be accessed by clicking the title: “The
Global GM Market: Implications for the European Food Chain. An analysis of
labelling requirements, market dynamics and cost implications”
(PDF 666 KB)
For more information
contact:
Notes to the Editor
1.
This report examines the feasibility and cost of maintaining “GM
avoidance” policies.
2.
In response to consumer concerns and the requirements of previous
legislation, many food businesses have adopted public “non-GM” or “GM-free”
policies. In some cases, companies have extended policies to the sale of
products (such as milk and eggs) obtained from animals or poultry that have
not been fed GM derived animal feed.
3.
The legal background against which these policies were developed has
recently changed significantly and EU Regulation 1829/2003 now requires all
foods and feeds to identify the presence of all derivatives of GMOs,
irrespective of whether they can be detected analytically. The legislation
applies to all foods and animal feeds and encompasses numerous common ingredients and additives produced directly or
indirectly from genetically modified organisms.
4.
The
research was commissioned by ABE (Agricultural Biotechnology Europe) in
response to requests from the food and feed chain about the long term
feasibility and cost implications of maintaining “GM avoidance” policies,
particularly in the light of increasing availability of GM-derived
ingredients and extended EU labelling requirements. ABE is a pan-European
communications programme aimed at providing factual and science-based
information about agricultural biotechnology -
www.abeurope.info.
Graham Brookes (Brookes West, UK), Neville Craddock (Neville Craddock
Associates, UK) and
Professor
Bärbel Kniel (Biotask AG, Germany)
This relates
to the soybean price differential for ‘hard IP’ soybeans which may rise
from about 10% to 25% - “Hard Identity Preservation”: supplies that have strict IP systems from point of production through
the supply chain and which may operate to stricter threshold levels for
adventitious presence of GM derived material (eg, 0.1%). Regular
testing through the supply chain occurs to ensure that supplies meet
buyer specifications.
|