The Use of GM Crops in Developing Countries
Liability
It has been suggested by some that the use of GM crops by farmers in developing countries might be exploited by the multinational seed industry in such a way that seed of questionable quality were provided. We are not aware of any such instances. However, it is clear that the same standards of liability need to apply to both developing countries and developed countries. Where there is clear evidence of damage attributable to the seed producer, compensation will need to be provided, regardless of whether the seed is GM or non-GM (paragraph 5.36). We note that in previous instances of crop failures in developed countries, compensation has been negotiated successfully. We recommend that possible scenarios, which include the principle of compensation, be considered by policymakers and the seed industry. Agreed standards should be published widely, taking into account in particular the situation of small-scale farmers in developing countries. Illiteracy and lack of adequate infrastructure for effective communication can present additional obstacles that need to be considered. Wherever possible, agreements should be established, to facilitate compensation of small-scale farmers who, in the event of loss or damage, are unlikely to be able to afford appropriate legal action (paragraphs 5.36 and 5.45-5.46).
The impact of European regulations on GM crops
The freedom of choice of farmers in developing countries is being severely challenged by the agricultural policy of the European Union (EU). Developing countries might well be reluctant to approve GM crop varieties because of fears of jeopardising their current and future export markets. They may also not be able to provide the necessary infrastructure to enable compliance with EU requirements for traceability and labelling (paragraphs 5.20-5.21).
One strategy which developing countries might choose could be to adopt GM crops for domestic use only. However, problems could arise if separation of GM crops and non-GM crops for export cannot be readily achieved. For example, small amounts of GM produce might become mixed with non-GM produce during storage. If current attitudes among EU policy makers and consumers prevail, countries which depend on exports to the European market might then be at considerable disadvantage (paragraphs 5.43-5.48).
A number of recent authoritative reviews have concluded that, based on current evidence, neither GM crops, nor food produced from GM crops, pose a significant risk to humans who consume them. However, complications could arise where risks for human health or the environment are exaggerated by the scepticism of some commentators from developed countries. Policy makers in developing countries would then be faced with very difficult choices. If a national policy that allowed the responsible domestic use of GM crops were adopted, it might well be perceived as promoting unsafe foods, and could lead to the loss of EU export markets. It is therefore important that policy makers in developing countries seek a range of advice about these issues.
There is a considerable imbalance between the hypothetical benefits afforded by the EU policy for its own citizens, and the probable and substantial benefits that could be afforded to developing countries. Current provisions of the revised Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation 1830/2003/EC on Traceability and Labelling and of Regulation 1829/2003/EC on Food and Feed have not given sufficient consideration to the effects that these policies are likely to have on developing countries. We recommend that the European Commission (EC), the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and appropriate non-governmental organisations which monitor the agricultural policies of developing countries examine the consequences of EU regulatory policies for the use of GM crops in developing countries. We recommend that the European Commission establish a procedure to report on the impact of its regulations accordingly (paragraph 5.50).