It’s high time for the current EU policy to be scrutinised with regard to how to deal with gene-modified organisms (GMO). There is quite some disturbance going on about the security of herbal-feeding-stuff supply for the overall EU pig farming as a result of the EU’s current GMO policy, hindering the pig farmers from producing pork at internationally competitive prices.

The farmers feel particularly concerned about what happens in the grain trade and on the soy market. Apart from the fact that those products become ever more expensive all over the world, the EU Commission makes the situation get worse through imposing higher import duties as well as through its restrictive attitude towards genetic engineering. Thus, the prob-lem of high feed costs goes on with aggravating, leaving the European pig farmers having to cope with competitive disadvantage. In this respect it is essential indeed for the EU Commis-sion to put things right as fast as can be in order to re-establish international competitiveness pertaining to feed costs. All those unfortunate discussions about practising no tolerance at all need to be brought to an end now; the more so with regard to the fact that animals fed on GMO fed are being imported into the EU anyway from the USA, Brazil or Argentina.

Since the beginning of 2007, the swill prices have increased by 45 to 50 percent. Thus, enor-mous additional cost was created to the disadvantage of the EU pig farming which cannot be passed on to the end-consumer, a fact which goes for the meat-producing sector in particular. For wheat alone, which is among the most important feeding stuffs, prices have increased by almost 90 percent within a year’s time.

Only recently, a report was published by the Agricultural Head Office (AHO) titled Eco-nomic impact of unauthorised GMOs on EU feed imports and livestock production. In this report, it was confirmed that the current EU policy would most likely lead into an import ban to be imposed on bruised soy; about 35 million tons (equal to 75 percent) of all proteins of herbal origin fed to EU livestock are given by way of feeding soy. Again, this would mean an up to 44-percent decrease in pig- and poultry stock until the year 2010!

In view of the consumers’ growing concern about higher prices to be paid for provisions and feeding stuffs, the implications of the following EU Commissions’ memoranda with regard to their realisation urgently need to be taken account of: (EG) no. 1829/2003 and 1830/2003. The same goes for the AHO report about the effects asymmetric admissions may have on trade.

Rather than only reluctantly allowing for gene-modified plants to be made use of, the EU should consider introducing a reasonable risk-management policy. Inter alia, practicable fig-ures need to be fixed for marginal values as regards the existence of GMOs within the chain of feeding-stuff suppliers. A step in the right direction was taken by EU Agricultural Com-missioner Mrs Mariann Fischer Boel when announcing that low quantities of GMOs may be imported into the EU although they are not part of EU admissions. The following may be the reason for such change of mind relating to the issue of GMOs: Fear is growing within the EU that the USA might impose punitive tariff duties on EU products, which as a matter of fact is most likely to happen as a result of non-realisation of the WTO dictum with reference to how to deal with GMO products in the near future.

It is quite an essential thing to do that EU Commissioner Fischer Boel is now being supported in her attitude as to GMOs by the most important EU agrarian states and by Germany and France in particular. The German Minister of Agriculture, Mr Horst Seehofer, needs to show his colours without hesitation in order to avoid that the feed-cost situation, which proves to be very severe already for the German pig farmers, continues to aggravate.