European dilemmas

The European Union (EU) has restrictions on genetically modified (GM) feed raw materials and on the use of land animal proteins (LAPs) in feed that do not apply elsewhere in the world. This places extra constraints on feed producers and farmers in Europe.

Pre-market approval of new GM crops is much slower in the EU than in most other countries. This asynchronous approval means many agricultural raw materials in widespread production cannot be used in the EU. Consequently, it is increasingly difficult for feed producers in Europe to source a number of important raw materials with a guarantee that they are free of genetically modified (GM) varieties that are not approved in EU. Where they can be found, supplies are limited and there is a premium to pay. The strict zero tolerance rules applied in the EU mean the slightest trace of a non-approved GM variety will result in the rejection of the entire raw material or feed batch.

In addition to the challenge of asynchronous approval, production of non-GM feed is becoming problematic. Because of the benefits GM crops offer arable farmers, uptake is widespread. Current estimates suggest more than 90% of global soya production is genetically modified; 100% in Argentina and 95% in the US, with Brazil at 70–75% and increasing. Emerging economies such as China and India are also active in genetic modification of crops, supported by public funding. Though there is limited information available at present, there certainly will be more GM plant varieties being grown in the near future. One option being used to secure non-GM supplies is the Identity Preserved route. There are dedicated non-GM suppliers but the classification comes at a price. In the early 2000s it was a premium of $ 5–10 per tonne. By mid 2009 that was $ 40 and rising.

Where a GM variety is EU approved, any feed intended to be non-GMO feed cannot use a raw material with more than 0.9% adventitious presence of that GMO variety. Above that level, it must be labelled as containing GMOs.

Several retailers ask for non-GM claims, ‘without biotechnology’, to be applied to premium animal protein products as a differentiation to support the higher price. If the trend becomes widespread there may not be enough non-GM raw materials to meet the demand. Another area of genetic research and development may soon lead to commercial results with crops being a potential source of the health-promoting omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA currently derived from the fishmeal and fish oil. That would ease the pressure on marine raw materials and present the retailers with a challenge.

Fishmeal and fish oil are important components of feed for farmed fish such as salmon and many marine species, including sea bream and sea bass. They provide a natural source of protein and energy and the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. The crucial challenge is to ensure the wild fish stocks that ultimately are the source of all fishmeal and fish oil are not over-exploited. If that were to happen, the stocks would collapse and we would lose this valuable resource.

In some parts of the world, dependence on fishmeal and fish oil is eased by using LAPs such as haemoglobin meal, poultry meal and poultry oil in fish feeds. Currently that is not widely possible in the EU because of resistance from regulators and retailers.