We must build more resilient, sustainable global food systems that can feed an increasingly hungry world, or there will be dire consequences, warn Kip Tom and Ronald J. Gidwitz.
In the last two decades, Europe has decided to go its own way in agricultural policies. While both North and South America, and also Japan have moved to even more technology-driven modern agriculture, Europe went backward and keeps banning more and more scientifically proven advances and methods in agriculture.
The new EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides recently told EURACTIV.com that her “priority is to gather more information” on gene editing. To this end, she said, "we will be preparing a study on new genomic techniques, foreseen for spring 2021”. Clearly, the design and set-up of such a study will be crucial to its outcome, writes Nina Holland.
The EU is leading the science-based fight against climate change and it will also lead on science-based plant innovation, writes former EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis.
Building long-lasting relationships with our distributors and their customers is based on a core element: trust.
Europe seems increasingly ready to face the challenges of the 21st century and to lead the way to a ‘greener’ and more sustainable future. But what role can the EU Parliament play in the face of recent unsubstantiated “objections” against GMOs?
For many years leading European food retailers have been following a strict non-GMO policy. Retailers are the parties most concerned when it comes to GMO regulation. For them, the proper implementation of the ECJ ruling is crucial, writes Heike Moldenhauer.
It has been over 12,000 years since the Neolithic Revolution, when our nomadic ancestors began planting roots, quite literally -- trading in their hunter-gatherer lifestyles to cultivate crops. Today we’re facing another revolution in agriculture – one we must tackle together, writes Neal Gutterson.
Reading the opinion of Greens / EFA members of the European Parliament on plant breeding, one can’t help but be amazed by their obsession with GMOs, writes Garlich von Essen.
‘Evidence-based policy-making’ constitutes one of the key slogans of the Juncker Commission and the Better Regulation agenda. But reality reveals a wide gap between theory and practice, writes Daniel Guéguen.
The EU Court of Justice will soon publish its ruling concerning the legal statute of a group of biotechnologies, which have been called “new plant breeding techniques” by the industry.
Today, more than ever, EU regulators must ensure that risk management decisions meet public demands for high standards of protection whilst simultaneously stimulating competitiveness and prosperity in Europe. Basing decisions on the best available science is the pre-condition for achieving these goals, argues Dirk Hüdig.
Chemicals, even naturally occurring ones, often sound scary, and they certainly can be hazardous. But most, when appropriately managed, deliver significant benefits, writes Rick Phillips.
The unseen life of farmed fish has given them low visibility in civil society, in policy circles, and in the animal welfare movement, despite scientific consensus that fish are sentient, and suffer pain, fear, and stress. Now it is time to act, writes Douglas Waley.
Reducing exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals will benefit healthcare systems and economies as a whole, writes Christian Zahn.
As the world focuses elsewhere, two untested varieties of genetically modified maize are slowly manoeuvring their way through the legislative hoops of the European institutions towards Europe’s fields, writes Mute Schimpf.
Will the report of the EU Court of Auditors (ECA) regarding the EU system for the certification of sustainable biofuels spark an outbreak of common sense within the Commission, asks Dick Roche.
Bioenergy advocates claim that Europe’s forests are well managed and don’t contribute to global warming. Yet, biomass production in Europe is projected to rely more and more on materials that have a high risk of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, writes Linde Zuidema.
An upcoming assessment by a European Commission committee on the risks of UV radiation and sunbeds is hamstrung by in-built bias and a failure to comprehensively address all the issues, warns Frank Harbusch.
Innovation and consumer protection are not opposites. Indeed there is huge potential to use innovation to deliver safer products that benefit consumers, writes Monique Goyens.
European Commission draft rules to identify and ultimately ban endocrine disrupters are illegal because they clash with existing pesticide and biocide regulations, Alice Bernard writes. The environmental lawyer warned that EU judges could throw out the changes to the long-awaited scientific criteria for the chemicals.
A group of scientists has written to the European Commission to voice concerns about burden of proof and confused evidence requirements to identify and classify endocrine disruptors under the PPP and Biocides Regulations.
It is time for the European Commission to stop mucking about and act responsibly on glyphosate. If it grants a temporary extension it must include restrictions that minimise human exposure, writes Franziska Achterberg.
The scope of the European Commission’s Fitness Check on chemicals is limited to a comparison of the “hazard versus risk” approaches in chemicals legislation. This is misguided, writes Dolores Romano, who argues a hazard-based approach can help protect people and the environment while supporting innovation.
