"We need a modern policy framework which enables our farmers to meet world food demand in an environmentally sustainable way," said Fischler, speaking at a forum on the future of EU agriculture on 27 March 2008.
The former agriculture commissioner said that a market-driven approach to agriculture cannot deal with issues such as environmental security. "Participants in this conference acknowledge market failure in respect of food security and environmental security. Neither receives sufficient government attention or support," said Fischler, currently chairman of the RISE foundation, which supports and monitors rural private investment.
As for the current EU debate on GMOs, the former commissioner said that the problem regards real benefits for consumers. "As long as we are not able to demonstrate to consumers that there is a benefit, their consumption behaviours won't change."
In addition to this, there are "two fundamental open problems" linked to the debate. The first, he said, is that the agricultural sector must in future also produce new plants which are not used for food and feed but for other purposes, such as biofuels. "For these non-food purposes, GMO techniques could play an increasing role."
The second question is climate change and the need to adapt plant varieties to new climatic conditions in a way that allows plants to consume, for example, less water. "The discussion here is to know whether there is enough time to do this through traditional breeding methods or whether the development is so fast that it will be necessary to use GMO techniques which can produce new varieties far more quickly," said Fischler.
Fischler's views were echoed by John Atkin of Syngenta, a world leader in agribusiness based in Switzerland, which sponsored the conference. "By 2030, 50% more food will be needed. This is two billion more people and mouths to feed via better diets," said Atkin. "Technology can contribute hugely to responding to the challenges of food security. For this, it is important to demonstrate what technology can do and illustrate the consequences of better seeds, better chemicals and better use of fertilisers," he added.
Regardless of several positive safety assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU 27 remain divided over the acceptability of GMOs and several member states are resisting pressure from the European Commission to lift their individual GMO bans on certain varieties of GM maize exported by the American giant GM producer Monsanto, for example.
Early this year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined Austria, Germany and Poland in invoking an EU safeguard clause enabling France to suspend the marketing and growth on its territory of a GM crop that has EU-wide authorisation.
The Commission has never substantiated the applications invoking the safeguard clause while EU environment ministers have repeatedly failed to reach a qualified majority for or against the Commission's proposals to lift the national bans.
