‘Phantom fears’ on GM hit Europe

UNILEVER boss Niall FitzGerald said Europe had given into “phantom fears” about genetically modified (GM) food and bought into the Frankenstein food scare tactics of its opponents.

He told the IBEC conference on EU/US regulation, the end result was a brain drain from Europe by disillusioned scientists.

In his address, the Unilever chairman and chief executive, said from a multinational perspective, effective regulation meant finding a balance between the cost and the benefit to society.

Clearly, he implied Europe failed to do that in the case of GM foods.

Speaking in an EU/US context, he said there were compelling commercial and societal reasons to go after a balanced approach to regulation.

He warned Europe was in danger of being left behind if it failed to adopt the more pragmatic US approach.

GM food was the most obvious and controversial example where it has caused an incredible furore.

GM crops were introduced without undue fuss in the US.

The US and the rest of the Americas testify to the safety of GM-based foods, he said.

“But we have rejected the living laboratory of thousands of miles of crops and millions of consumers to look at, but we persist in labyrinthine approvals procedures here, as if no external evidence was available,” he said.

As a result, Europe was falling behind in an important area of science and neglecting public benefit in favour of “phantom fears.”

Mr FitzGerald went on to say he found the reaction in Europe to GM foods “profoundly distressing.” As a result, Europe was suffering a brain drain as disillusioned scientists head for the US, where there was a more progressive attitude.

Their gain is Europe’s loss, he said.

As a multinational chief executive operating across the globe, Mr FitzGerald has had to deal with the vastly different attitudes in the two continents

Unilever’s Flora pro.activ was approved in 100 days by the US authorities while the EU took 26 months. And it is not the case that EU consumers are eight times safer, he said.

Europe’s failure to reach agreement on a pan-European patenting system was also slammed by Mr FitzGerald.

It takes twice as long to get one in Europe and costs three times more than in the US.

Member States are resisting the idea of an EU patent, which he said led Commissioner Bolkestein, responsible for its introduction to ask: “how can ministers with a straight face say they want more R&D and innovation in Europe and then in the next breath block the community patent?”

In the years ahead, it was vital that the differences between EU and US regulation were ironed out.

There was too much at stake for us not to address all the relevant issues that keep us from competing at the most efficient and effective level, he said.