Boosting the bio-economy

The European Commission may now have drawn up a strategy for the EU, but the uncertainties about the impact of biotechnology linger.

When the European Commission presented a strategy paper on “a bio-economy for Europe” last month, many were left scratching their heads. Use of the term ‘bio-economy’ may be growing in some areas of political discourse, but it is unfamiliar to most of the wider public. 

In a sense, all products and services come from biological resources – even those made by chemical or industrial processes. But the term ‘bio-economy’ is now being used to refer to those products and services that come directly from a renewable natural resource, one that the earth produces naturally. Such products include biomass, which can generate energy, bio-waste, which can be used as an alternative to chemical fertilisers, and biofuel, which can propel cars.

“We must drive the transition from a fossil-based to a bio-based society with research and innovation as the motor,” Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the European commissioner for research, innovation and science, said as she launched that strategy paper. “This is good for our environment, our food and energy security, and for Europe’s competitiveness for the future.”

The action plan set out in the paper involves better targeted research funding and more support for public-private partnerships. The Commission estimates that the EU’s bio-economy already has a turnover of nearly €2 trillion and is responsible for 9% of employment in the EU. But the Commission stopped short of endorsing the recommendations of an advisory group that had proposed setting indicative or binding targets for certain bio-based product categories.

The strategic plan was generally welcomed by the biotechnology sector. “For the first time, the European Commission has a coherent approach for this complex economic and scientific arena and it is supported by several relevant departments of the Commission, including agriculture, environment and industry,” said Lars Christian Hansen, head of the European region at Novozymes, a Danish biotechnology company. “This sends a strong signal the bio-economy has become a European priority.”

Controversy

But not every aspect of the ‘bio-economy’ will be regarded as a good thing by everyone. Increasing the production of natural resources such as agricultural crops to serve industrial or energy uses, can cause a displacement of crops grown for food, or cause the degradation of land.

Biofuel is a case in point. Derived from a renewable resource, these types of alternative fuel were embraced enthusiastically by the Commission five years ago. In 2007, the EU set a target of 10% of transport powered by biofuel by 2020. But since then, evidence has mounted that some types of biofuel cause more carbon emissions than they save if one takes into account where they are transported from and the amount of land needed to grow them – particularly ‘indirect land-use change’ (ILUC), ie, the knock-on effects of turning land used for growing food to growing fuel crops. Additionally, there is some evidence that when food crops are used for biofuel, such as maize for ethanol, it hurts the food supply and disrupts commodity prices.

Confusion about the potential impact has been compounded because research into the (often unintended) consequences is still developing.

“ILUC research is very under-developed,” says Andre Faaij, a professor of energy system analysis at Utrecht University. “It’s been a peculiar pathway that has developed on this issue. Early work was focused on the many possibilities of biofuel and biomass and improvements in agricultural management. Then, in 2008, it was presented as ‘this is a scandal, something we thought was good is actually bad.’ The truth is that the models we are still using are not particularly well suited to describing these effects, and exclude the possibilities we have to manage land better by more effective agricultural management.”

Biotechnology

Another area of controversy is how far technological development in the bio-economy should go. The part of the biotechnology sector with which the public is most familiar is the development of genetically modified (GM) organisms – where crops used for food, feed or industrial purposes are altered to increase yield.

When it comes to the European public, what they do know they do not like. A 2010 Eurobarometer survey found that 70% of Europeans think that GM food is “fundamentally unnatural” and 59% say such food is unsafe for health. Policymakers are worried that the hostility to GMs has affected public perception of biotechnology in general.

Jo Leinen, a German centre-left MEP, says that regardless of the controversy surrounding GM crops, other kinds of biotechnology need support in Europe. “You have the white, red and green biotechnology,” he said. “White is for medicine, red is for industry and green is for food. It’s only the green biotechnology where there’s a concern.”

What is still unclear is whether, when citizens become more familiar with the idea of a bio-economy, they will welcome it or not.

Click Here: Cheap France Rugby Jersey