GM food regulations help monopolisation by multi-nationals
It is a conundrum. Costly regulatory hurdles to get a GM food to market mean only big multinationals such as Monsanto can afford to take research to a commercial stage.
Are the costly regulatory requirements to get a GM food to market simply making it easier for big multinationals such as Monsanto to increase their monopolisation of the world’s main food commodities?
A recent opinion piece by David Leyonhjelm in Business Spectator suggests this, but I question whether this is a bit simplistic.
The reasoning
The following two paragraphs give you the gist of his thoughts on this matter:
“Compared to discovering new herbicides or insecticides, introducing genetic modifications into plants is not especially expensive. It is well within the financial means of universities and public research organisations, for example, as well as medium agribusiness companies.
Only big companies with deep pockets can afford the cost of generating the data, proving to the regulators that there is nothing to fear, and implementing obligatory post-sale monitoring and reporting. The company the anti-GM crowd loves to hate, Monsanto, is one of the main beneficiaries of this.”
I am sure Ingo Potrykus, the developer of Golden Rice, would surely agree.
Quantum economics
Economics is akin to quantum physics as far as I am concerned. There is a macro world where known forces produce predictable outcomes; then there are the micro/quantum events that defy all attempts to understand, hence our inability to predict the vagaries of the stockmarket or recessions. So, is Leyonhjelm’s point too simplistic?
For a start, among those opposed to GM food, and even among some that have no issue, there is considerable distrust of the multi-nationals involved in development of GM crops and likewise a distaste of the notion that these companies can own our food supply, companies whose motivation (real or perceived) is purely profit without care or respect for those of us representing the great unwashed.
So it’s easy isn’t it, simply lower the regulatory requirements to allow greater competition and reduce the multi-national stranglehold. But in Australia, at least, there is also considerable distrust among GM opponents of the food regulators. “Rotten to the core,” is what one opponent said at a recent meeting. They want stronger regulations with some calling for GM foods to be treated the same as pharmaceutical products.
It is a catch 22
Your thoughts
So, this is a call for anyone with more expertise than me on this issue to add some meat to the above statements and my following questions: Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated.
The first question is can simply reducing the regulatory hurdles for GM crops provide the opportunity for smaller companies, universities, CSIRO, etc to take their research to the commercial stage? That is, will it provide incentive for increased research on crops and traits such as local or indigenous crops with localised problems, and present an affordable path to commercialisation, crops that generally have minimal appeal to multi-national companies?
Will it have any effect on the monopolisation of the main commodity crops that are dominated by the multi-nationals at the moment?
If by chance Leyonhjelm’s argument stacks up, does anyone have any thoughts on how to reduce the costs of meeting regulatory requirement, on the theory making them weaker will cause further outcry from the opponents and making them tougher is politically too difficult and possibly economically unviable?
All thoughts, big picture or quantum world, appreciated.