**5.2 Soybean use in the EU**

As most of the crops choices made by farmers over the last decades, soybean cultivation is highly linked to the several changes in CAP. Among those more related to soy cultivation (i.e. linked to oilseed and protein rich crops) we can notice the changes due the Blair House agreement, in 1992, for duty free soybean importation and the Berlin agreement, in 1999, for decreasing aids to oilseeds and open widely the European market to global trade.

<sup>12</sup> Economic European Communities or EU-6

In the Dillon round of GATT negotiations (1960-62), the EEC12 negotiated zero duties on soybeans and several other agricultural products. At the time, soybean was of little importance in international trade with ca 4 MT traded in 1961. Furthermore, there were no varieties of soy available at this time that could be grown in this EU-6. Thus the EU-6 had no producers to protect and found in their interest to keep borders open to soybeans and their products. At that time, pasturages, cereal and some domestic protein rich crops provided most of the necessary feed. That period was the beginning of a drastic change into the

However, the high European internal costs of feed grains forced livestock producers to substitute cheaper soybean meal. In addition to the competition between European feed grains and imported soybean meal, soybean oil competed with domestic vegetable oils such as sunflower oil, olive oil or rapeseed oil, and, when used in margarine, competes with butter. To compete with cheap soybean oil, local oils were subsidized, which was attacked under GATT in 1987. In 1973, a shortage in US soybean exports impacted most of the current EU-MS, including France which was considered as the least soybean dependent EU-MS (Berlan et al., 1977; Hasha, 2002). As maize and soybean compete for both feeding and surface, this kind of shortage is expected to come back with the growing use of maize for bio-ethanol production (Headey, 2011). Several EU-MS attempted to reduce their growing

dependence from soybean by national protein plans – but up to now unsuccessfully.

The European cropping of soybean was, up to 2007, restricted to some EU-MS and aimed at food or a few feed specialties (e.g. organic) with most of the production being based in Italy. Among the several reasons why EU is not a soybean producer we can distinguish a relatively unfavorable climate with cool spring and drought early summer, with a Northern predominance, in the EU compared to third countries producing soybean and a relatively high population density with rather small farms and fields. However, several soy varieties are cultivated in Canada and thus soy cropping in the EU-27 would now be possible after appropriate selection of cultivars, provided the seed companies could find some benefit in that selection. This would be probably the case after GM soybean approval for European

The EU was in 2007 still under construction and two new countries coming from the implosion of the former soviet bloc entered the EU-25. At its entrance into the EU, Romania officially stopped cropping GM soybean and came back to old varieties of non-GM soybean whose cropping was also not favored by the current European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP; Badea and Pamfil, 2009; Dinu et al., 2010). However, the interest in GM soybean was

As most of the crops choices made by farmers over the last decades, soybean cultivation is highly linked to the several changes in CAP. Among those more related to soy cultivation (i.e. linked to oilseed and protein rich crops) we can notice the changes due the Blair House agreement, in 1992, for duty free soybean importation and the Berlin agreement, in 1999, for

decreasing aids to oilseeds and open widely the European market to global trade.

**5. Soybean in the EU** 

European livestock production.

cultivation.

declining from 1996 to 2002 (Brookes, 2005).

12 Economic European Communities or EU-6

**5.2 Soybean use in the EU** 

**5.1 A rapid historic overview of the last decades** 


With an important increase since 2006 due to the food crisis.

Table 2. 2008 figures of soybeans, oil fats and meals' import, production and processing (sources: Fediol, 2011 and FEFAC, 2011). BE: Belgium; DE: Germany; FR: France; IT: Italy; NL: The Netherlands; PT: Portugal; SP: Spain; SL: Slovenia; UK: United Kingdom.

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 17

However, despite the end of European aids on cereals the proportion of cereals into compound feed increased since 1995, while the proportion of meals of all origins fluctuated

Compound feed consumption in the EU-27 represents ca. 147.6 Mt, a quantity thus similar to the US consumption of 149 Mt, with a nearly constant percentage of the global consumption over the past decade*.* This compound feed consumption was accompanied by an increasing production of pig meat and poultry to be compared to a constant beef and veal production, a difference which is mostly due to the entrance of new EU-MS in 2004 and 2007 (FEFAC, 2010; European Commission DG-Agri, 2010*).* However, the increase in European meat production is parallel to a general trend of decrease (beef, veal, pig) or stagnation (poultry) of European meat consumption. In 2009, the proportion of compound feed for animal rearing again decreased to ca. 30% of the total feedstuffs quantity which corresponds

The soybean meal is used for all animal feeding, particularly since the ban in 2001 of meatand-bone meals due to the mad-cow / BSE disease, with an exception for organic production or some animals growing under specific signs-of-quality. This important source of protein cannot be fully replaced by fish meal which was another reason for increasing the imports of protein rich commodities. Due to its high content of protein and relative poorness in fat, the soy meal is relatively difficult to replace in poultry, piglets and calves feeding. Alternative sources of protein such as sweet lupine, field pea or rapeseed meal are generally less palatable until the animals reach maturity. This explains the figure of compound feed mostly used for poultry and pig production (FEFAC, 2011). The issue of protein source is of

The origin of imported soybean may depend on EU-MS, for instance France mostly imports soy from Brazil while The Netherlands and Portugal are the top 2 importers of the US exports of soybean (Dahl and House, 2008). Up to 2008, EU was the first destination of exported soybean from USA, Brazil and Argentina. The European protein crops imports

However, the development of GM crops in the 3 main exporting countries definitely impeded exports, particularly in the US. Brazil, up to now, took into account the undesirable effect of asynchronous approvals of GM crops on its exports toward the EU (Aramyan et al., 2009a; Aramyan et al., 2009b; Boshnakova et al., 2009; DG AGRI European Commission, 2007; Dobrescu et al., 2009; Konduru, 2008; Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2009; Stein and

As the animals fed with GMOs do not have to be labeled in the EU, most of the feedstuffs in the EU-27 is produced from GM soybean. However several NGO and consumers associations are requesting such animal labeling, a request supported by polls and experimental auctions studies (Kontoleon and Yabe, 2006; Noussair et al., 2004). The EU organic farming threshold of labeling is also of 0.9% (European Commission, 2007a, 2008a). However, this EU threshold can be superseded by national measures. More generally speaking the EU has numerous signs-of-quality, based, not only on brands as in third countries, but mostly on EC-approved processes or origins. The consumers' reluctance was thus taken into account in production procedures of most of these quality signs by

to a general change into the European livestock production schemes.

less importance for mature animals and more particularly for cattle.

represented in 2009 ca. 20 Mha cultivated outside Europe.

between 30 Mt and 40 Mt.

Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010b).

**5.2.4 The animal labeling issue** 

eliminating GMO use into feedstuffs.

In 2006, the EU imported mostly soy beans and also meal. Crushing capacities have been developed in the Netherlands and Germany. As The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium have important harbors to where the most important part of EU imports of soybeans and meals are discharged, a large part of their imports are re-exported either as beans or more generally as meals and oils. Indeed, The Netherlands are currently a net exporter of soy meal toward other EU-MS. However, other European oilseeds compete with soybean. Generally speaking the proportion of rapeseed crushing is in constant increase over the last years, rapeseed crushing having overtaken soy crushing in 2005 due to the use of oilseed rape in European bio-fuels production. The table 2 provides the figures in 2008 of the soy beans, oil, fats and meals production imports and exports for the first top 5 EU-MS.

The table 3 provides a figure of soy beans and meals imports in the EU from 1980 to 2008. As it can be seen, European soy beans and meals imports are relatively stable, when compared to prices and yearly weather variations, since 2004, i.e. with the integration of 10 and then 2 new Member States into the EU in 2004 and 2007, respectively.


Table 3. Imports (× 1,000 T) of soy beans and meals in the EU (source: Fediol, 2011).

#### **5.2.1 Non-food non-feed use**

Compared to the other uses of soybean the use of soybean, with or without chemical changes, in printer inks, as antifoam agent to bio-fuels and cosmetics are currently rather anecdotic (Gelder et al., 2008; Roebroeck, 2002). For instance most of the European sources of bio-fuel rely on oilseed rape. This part will probably increase with the new CAP reform favoring sustainable and environment friendly agriculture and supporting renewable, low carbon emitting energies sources.

#### **5.2.2 Food use**

Only a few percent of soybean is used for food purposes (Gelder et al., 2008). Lecithin and oil are the main products used in food, the latter being also used in margarine production, together with some specialties such as some kind of yogurts, vegetarian steaks, or the usual Asian specialties such as Tofu, nato (Roebroeck, 2002). Soy milk is mostly imported from Canada, by some worldwide companies.

#### **5.2.3 Feed use**

Soybean is mostly imported in the EU-27 for compound feedstuffs production (Popp, 2008). With the end, in the 1990's, of European intervention on cereals, which were used with some soy meal for compound feedstuff production, together with the ban of meat-and-bone meal from most of the feedstuffs (in fact meat-and-bone meal, despite being mostly destroyed, continues to be used in feeding short-living animals such as chickens and fish), the European feedstuff industry was looking for another source of cheap source of protein.

In 2006, the EU imported mostly soy beans and also meal. Crushing capacities have been developed in the Netherlands and Germany. As The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium have important harbors to where the most important part of EU imports of soybeans and meals are discharged, a large part of their imports are re-exported either as beans or more generally as meals and oils. Indeed, The Netherlands are currently a net exporter of soy meal toward other EU-MS. However, other European oilseeds compete with soybean. Generally speaking the proportion of rapeseed crushing is in constant increase over the last years, rapeseed crushing having overtaken soy crushing in 2005 due to the use of oilseed rape in European bio-fuels production. The table 2 provides the figures in 2008 of the soy

beans, oil, fats and meals production imports and exports for the first top 5 EU-MS.

2004 EU-25

Table 3. Imports (× 1,000 T) of soy beans and meals in the EU (source: Fediol, 2011).

new Member States into the EU in 2004 and 2007, respectively.

2005 EU-25

2006 EU-25

2008 EU-27

Soy

Soy

2007 EU-27

**5.2.1 Non-food non-feed use** 

carbon emitting energies sources.

Canada, by some worldwide companies.

**5.2.2 Food use** 

**5.2.3 Feed use** 

The table 3 provides a figure of soy beans and meals imports in the EU from 1980 to 2008. As it can be seen, European soy beans and meals imports are relatively stable, when compared to prices and yearly weather variations, since 2004, i.e. with the integration of 10 and then 2

beans 15,298 15,064 14,127 14,670 14,732 17,353 18,239 17,922 14,779 13,301 11,760

meals 23,227 24,321 23,405 23,029 22,632 20,352 19,605 17,870 15,840 10,471 7,226

Compared to the other uses of soybean the use of soybean, with or without chemical changes, in printer inks, as antifoam agent to bio-fuels and cosmetics are currently rather anecdotic (Gelder et al., 2008; Roebroeck, 2002). For instance most of the European sources of bio-fuel rely on oilseed rape. This part will probably increase with the new CAP reform favoring sustainable and environment friendly agriculture and supporting renewable, low

Only a few percent of soybean is used for food purposes (Gelder et al., 2008). Lecithin and oil are the main products used in food, the latter being also used in margarine production, together with some specialties such as some kind of yogurts, vegetarian steaks, or the usual Asian specialties such as Tofu, nato (Roebroeck, 2002). Soy milk is mostly imported from

Soybean is mostly imported in the EU-27 for compound feedstuffs production (Popp, 2008). With the end, in the 1990's, of European intervention on cereals, which were used with some soy meal for compound feedstuff production, together with the ban of meat-and-bone meal from most of the feedstuffs (in fact meat-and-bone meal, despite being mostly destroyed, continues to be used in feeding short-living animals such as chickens and fish), the European feedstuff industry was looking for another source of cheap source of protein.

2003 EU-15

2002 EU-15

2001 EU-15

2000 EU-15

1990 EU-12

1980 EU-9 However, despite the end of European aids on cereals the proportion of cereals into compound feed increased since 1995, while the proportion of meals of all origins fluctuated between 30 Mt and 40 Mt.

Compound feed consumption in the EU-27 represents ca. 147.6 Mt, a quantity thus similar to the US consumption of 149 Mt, with a nearly constant percentage of the global consumption over the past decade*.* This compound feed consumption was accompanied by an increasing production of pig meat and poultry to be compared to a constant beef and veal production, a difference which is mostly due to the entrance of new EU-MS in 2004 and 2007 (FEFAC, 2010; European Commission DG-Agri, 2010*).* However, the increase in European meat production is parallel to a general trend of decrease (beef, veal, pig) or stagnation (poultry) of European meat consumption. In 2009, the proportion of compound feed for animal rearing again decreased to ca. 30% of the total feedstuffs quantity which corresponds to a general change into the European livestock production schemes.

The soybean meal is used for all animal feeding, particularly since the ban in 2001 of meatand-bone meals due to the mad-cow / BSE disease, with an exception for organic production or some animals growing under specific signs-of-quality. This important source of protein cannot be fully replaced by fish meal which was another reason for increasing the imports of protein rich commodities. Due to its high content of protein and relative poorness in fat, the soy meal is relatively difficult to replace in poultry, piglets and calves feeding. Alternative sources of protein such as sweet lupine, field pea or rapeseed meal are generally less palatable until the animals reach maturity. This explains the figure of compound feed mostly used for poultry and pig production (FEFAC, 2011). The issue of protein source is of less importance for mature animals and more particularly for cattle.

The origin of imported soybean may depend on EU-MS, for instance France mostly imports soy from Brazil while The Netherlands and Portugal are the top 2 importers of the US exports of soybean (Dahl and House, 2008). Up to 2008, EU was the first destination of exported soybean from USA, Brazil and Argentina. The European protein crops imports represented in 2009 ca. 20 Mha cultivated outside Europe.

However, the development of GM crops in the 3 main exporting countries definitely impeded exports, particularly in the US. Brazil, up to now, took into account the undesirable effect of asynchronous approvals of GM crops on its exports toward the EU (Aramyan et al., 2009a; Aramyan et al., 2009b; Boshnakova et al., 2009; DG AGRI European Commission, 2007; Dobrescu et al., 2009; Konduru, 2008; Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2009; Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010b).

#### **5.2.4 The animal labeling issue**

As the animals fed with GMOs do not have to be labeled in the EU, most of the feedstuffs in the EU-27 is produced from GM soybean. However several NGO and consumers associations are requesting such animal labeling, a request supported by polls and experimental auctions studies (Kontoleon and Yabe, 2006; Noussair et al., 2004). The EU organic farming threshold of labeling is also of 0.9% (European Commission, 2007a, 2008a). However, this EU threshold can be superseded by national measures. More generally speaking the EU has numerous signs-of-quality, based, not only on brands as in third countries, but mostly on EC-approved processes or origins. The consumers' reluctance was thus taken into account in production procedures of most of these quality signs by eliminating GMO use into feedstuffs.

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 19

without the support of the European GMO-Free regions and Brazilian producers such as the Brazilian ABRANGE association. Generally speaking, the European GMO-free regions' network supports their producers into their search for long-term supply of "cheap" non-GM

The premiums ranged from an average of 16 US\$ in 2004 to ca. 70 US\$ in 2009 for US farmers (Foster, 2010; Milanesi, 2011). While it is generally difficult to determine the premiums fluctuations over the year due to the confidentiality of the contracts, the changes observed into the non-GM soybean market of Tokyo show a general trend of a 10% premium over the GM soybean, with of course important peaks up to 40% in 2008 due to both the food crisis and an decrease of US 2007/08 soybean cropped surface in that year (Foster, 2010; Headey, 2011). Compared to the "only" 83% of soybean price increase over 30 years, such premiums could thus be very incentive, particularly when linked to long-term

The increase of price of compound feed due to this non-GM soy would be of less than 3% (Gryson and Eeckhout, 2011). Since feed cost represents ca. 77% of price of chickens, this would induce a final small increase of some cents per chickens' kilo (Milanesi, 2008, 2009). Most of the European imports of both GM and non-GM soy are through the main commodities traders namely ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus (Green and Hervé, 2006). However, as these traders advertised they were facing a shortage of non-GM soy, several new SMEs, such as Solteam, are currently developing their own import network to provide European feed producers with non-GM commodities. With the growing surfaces of GM soybean in Brazil, alternative sources of non-GM soy are actively looked for beside longterm contracts and premiums use for sustaining the availability of American non-GM soy. However, the main forthcoming issue might be the availability of low cost non-GM soybean varieties both in third countries and EU-MS (Milanesi, 2011; Then and Stolze, 2010). As currently observed, the availability of non-GM seeds is decreasing with a few new varieties being commercially released. Accordingly, old non-GM seeds cannot compete with new GM varieties what can explain, together with a lack of support of oilseeds by the European CAP, the dramatic decrease in yields and total production observed in Romania at its entrance in 2007 in the EU-27 (Dinu et al., 2010). Despite the fact that new but small plant breeder and seeds sellers (such as eMerge a Cargill subsidiary) are appearing, their ability to access to soybean germplams is questionable as private sector is focusing on GM varieties and public research is focused on germplasms (Heisey et al., 2005; Heisey et al., 2001; Naeve et al., 2010; Orf, 2004). The availability by the big seeds companies of non-GM soy varieties will highly

depend on their forward or backward breeding strategies (Milanesi, 2011).

retailers and consumers (Elbehri, 2007).

**5.3 Soybean cultivation in the EU-27** 

It may worth noting that while traders such as Cargill are developing such seeds companies which will help them to maintain the non-GM flows towards several importing countries: competing on global commodities trade does not mean, for such companies, excluding higher added value market niches. In the meantime, participatory breeding of non-GM soy varieties is also developing as observed for numerous other crops (Bellon and Morris, 2002; Desclaux et al., 2008; Smale, 1998). As noted by several authors, this availability of several kind of varieties is necessary for developing the segmented markets requested by farmers,

As noticed by a recent motion of the European parliament, protein rich crop production occupies only 3% of EU-27 arable land and supplies only ca 30% of protein crops consumed

soy.

contracts.

Germany and Austria recently introduced a legislative frame for GMO-free labeling. In these countries the GMO-free threshold complies with the European 0.9% threshold of fortuitous or technically unavoidable presence of GMO. This labeling is applicable to both vegetal produce and animals reared with "GMO-free" feed.

In another hand, several French producers, such as *Poulets de Loué*, or retailers, such as Carrefour, or quality signs producers such as *Comté* cheese, used non-GM (Identity Preserved, at 0.9%) soybean since the beginning of the XXIst century but without the possibility of retrieving profits of their efforts (Milanesi, 2008, 2009). In 2009, the French *Conseil de la Consommation* as well as the *Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies* (HCB) released recommendations for the creation of a GMO-free supply chain at 0.1%, with, in the latter advice, animal labeling according to 2 thresholds: below 0.1% and between 0.1 and 0.9%. Despite the fact that the French decree related to GMO-free labeling is so far not published, several producers and retailers took this opportunity, and the further policy change of the French Repression of Fraud services, to label their animals as being reared with less than 0.9%. If the latest HCB recommendation is followed up by the French government, 2 kinds of GMO-free animal labeling would thus prevail in France: "reared with GMO-free feedstuffs below 0.9%" and "reared with GMO-free feedstuffs below 0.1%". The HCB also requested into its recommendation that the French government should precede the implementation by an *ex ante* socio-economic analysis of the viability of such a GMO-free supply chain at 0.1%. A feasibility study on this request for a *ex ante* socio-economic analysis is currently ongoing.

However, the availability of non-GM (including GMO content below 0.9%, IP, and "GMOfree" at 0.1% or "hard IP") soybean is far from being sustainable. Up to 2008, Brazil was the most important exporter of non-GM and GMO-free soy toward EU with negotiated premiums. But the breeding of new soy GM varieties more appropriate to Brazilian climate induced a new increase of GM surfaces in Brazil, particularly in Matto-Grosso with the largest farms and fields (Fok, 2010). Despite the fact that Parana state dedicated a whole harbor to non-GM soy, this state also moved, toward GM soy, particularly for the most weedy fields and by the farmers the less experienced into weed management. The main source of European non-GM soy could thus disappear unless operators facilitate the maintenance of non-GM cropping.

One of the first issues, for maintaining the interest of non-GM cropping, is the rather low level of premium (ca 1/4th of the final one paid by final buyers) received by the Brazilian farmers. The second is that this non-GMO related premium is not discerned by the buyers, such as cooperatives, from other premiums, all premiums being thus provided into a non transparent package of several premiums*.* The incentive of producing non-GM soy is thus rather low in Brazil despite the fact that the tech fees imposed by the traits' providers may be ca 40% of the seeds prices (Bonny, 2009; Fok, 2010). According to ABRANGE, a Brazilian association of non-GM farmers, Brazil would be however currently providing 53% of non-GM soybean while India and China would be providing 18 and 17%, respectively (Milanesi, 2011). However, these claims are not in line with the observation of the 2009 increase of non-GM soybean in USA, after a decade-long decrease of non-GM soybean areas, due to both more incentive premiums for non-GM beans and increased production costs of GMOs (prices of seeds and herbicide) (Milanesi, 2011).

With premiums, long-term contracts are the second driving force for farmers for maintaining what several authors call market niches (Foster, 2007, 2010). Long-term contracts have thus been established by European producers, such as *Poulets de Loué*, with or

Germany and Austria recently introduced a legislative frame for GMO-free labeling. In these countries the GMO-free threshold complies with the European 0.9% threshold of fortuitous or technically unavoidable presence of GMO. This labeling is applicable to both

In another hand, several French producers, such as *Poulets de Loué*, or retailers, such as Carrefour, or quality signs producers such as *Comté* cheese, used non-GM (Identity Preserved, at 0.9%) soybean since the beginning of the XXIst century but without the possibility of retrieving profits of their efforts (Milanesi, 2008, 2009). In 2009, the French *Conseil de la Consommation* as well as the *Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies* (HCB) released recommendations for the creation of a GMO-free supply chain at 0.1%, with, in the latter advice, animal labeling according to 2 thresholds: below 0.1% and between 0.1 and 0.9%. Despite the fact that the French decree related to GMO-free labeling is so far not published, several producers and retailers took this opportunity, and the further policy change of the French Repression of Fraud services, to label their animals as being reared with less than 0.9%. If the latest HCB recommendation is followed up by the French government, 2 kinds of GMO-free animal labeling would thus prevail in France: "reared with GMO-free feedstuffs below 0.9%" and "reared with GMO-free feedstuffs below 0.1%". The HCB also requested into its recommendation that the French government should precede the implementation by an *ex ante* socio-economic analysis of the viability of such a GMO-free supply chain at 0.1%. A feasibility study on this request for a *ex ante* socio-economic analysis

However, the availability of non-GM (including GMO content below 0.9%, IP, and "GMOfree" at 0.1% or "hard IP") soybean is far from being sustainable. Up to 2008, Brazil was the most important exporter of non-GM and GMO-free soy toward EU with negotiated premiums. But the breeding of new soy GM varieties more appropriate to Brazilian climate induced a new increase of GM surfaces in Brazil, particularly in Matto-Grosso with the largest farms and fields (Fok, 2010). Despite the fact that Parana state dedicated a whole harbor to non-GM soy, this state also moved, toward GM soy, particularly for the most weedy fields and by the farmers the less experienced into weed management. The main source of European non-GM soy could thus disappear unless operators facilitate the

One of the first issues, for maintaining the interest of non-GM cropping, is the rather low level of premium (ca 1/4th of the final one paid by final buyers) received by the Brazilian farmers. The second is that this non-GMO related premium is not discerned by the buyers, such as cooperatives, from other premiums, all premiums being thus provided into a non transparent package of several premiums*.* The incentive of producing non-GM soy is thus rather low in Brazil despite the fact that the tech fees imposed by the traits' providers may be ca 40% of the seeds prices (Bonny, 2009; Fok, 2010). According to ABRANGE, a Brazilian association of non-GM farmers, Brazil would be however currently providing 53% of non-GM soybean while India and China would be providing 18 and 17%, respectively (Milanesi, 2011). However, these claims are not in line with the observation of the 2009 increase of non-GM soybean in USA, after a decade-long decrease of non-GM soybean areas, due to both more incentive premiums for non-GM beans and increased production costs of GMOs

With premiums, long-term contracts are the second driving force for farmers for maintaining what several authors call market niches (Foster, 2007, 2010). Long-term contracts have thus been established by European producers, such as *Poulets de Loué*, with or

vegetal produce and animals reared with "GMO-free" feed.

is currently ongoing.

maintenance of non-GM cropping.

(prices of seeds and herbicide) (Milanesi, 2011).

without the support of the European GMO-Free regions and Brazilian producers such as the Brazilian ABRANGE association. Generally speaking, the European GMO-free regions' network supports their producers into their search for long-term supply of "cheap" non-GM soy.

The premiums ranged from an average of 16 US\$ in 2004 to ca. 70 US\$ in 2009 for US farmers (Foster, 2010; Milanesi, 2011). While it is generally difficult to determine the premiums fluctuations over the year due to the confidentiality of the contracts, the changes observed into the non-GM soybean market of Tokyo show a general trend of a 10% premium over the GM soybean, with of course important peaks up to 40% in 2008 due to both the food crisis and an decrease of US 2007/08 soybean cropped surface in that year (Foster, 2010; Headey, 2011). Compared to the "only" 83% of soybean price increase over 30 years, such premiums could thus be very incentive, particularly when linked to long-term contracts.

The increase of price of compound feed due to this non-GM soy would be of less than 3% (Gryson and Eeckhout, 2011). Since feed cost represents ca. 77% of price of chickens, this would induce a final small increase of some cents per chickens' kilo (Milanesi, 2008, 2009).

Most of the European imports of both GM and non-GM soy are through the main commodities traders namely ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus (Green and Hervé, 2006). However, as these traders advertised they were facing a shortage of non-GM soy, several new SMEs, such as Solteam, are currently developing their own import network to provide European feed producers with non-GM commodities. With the growing surfaces of GM soybean in Brazil, alternative sources of non-GM soy are actively looked for beside longterm contracts and premiums use for sustaining the availability of American non-GM soy.

However, the main forthcoming issue might be the availability of low cost non-GM soybean varieties both in third countries and EU-MS (Milanesi, 2011; Then and Stolze, 2010). As currently observed, the availability of non-GM seeds is decreasing with a few new varieties being commercially released. Accordingly, old non-GM seeds cannot compete with new GM varieties what can explain, together with a lack of support of oilseeds by the European CAP, the dramatic decrease in yields and total production observed in Romania at its entrance in 2007 in the EU-27 (Dinu et al., 2010). Despite the fact that new but small plant breeder and seeds sellers (such as eMerge a Cargill subsidiary) are appearing, their ability to access to soybean germplams is questionable as private sector is focusing on GM varieties and public research is focused on germplasms (Heisey et al., 2005; Heisey et al., 2001; Naeve et al., 2010; Orf, 2004). The availability by the big seeds companies of non-GM soy varieties will highly depend on their forward or backward breeding strategies (Milanesi, 2011).

It may worth noting that while traders such as Cargill are developing such seeds companies which will help them to maintain the non-GM flows towards several importing countries: competing on global commodities trade does not mean, for such companies, excluding higher added value market niches. In the meantime, participatory breeding of non-GM soy varieties is also developing as observed for numerous other crops (Bellon and Morris, 2002; Desclaux et al., 2008; Smale, 1998). As noted by several authors, this availability of several kind of varieties is necessary for developing the segmented markets requested by farmers, retailers and consumers (Elbehri, 2007).

#### **5.3 Soybean cultivation in the EU-27**

As noticed by a recent motion of the European parliament, protein rich crop production occupies only 3% of EU-27 arable land and supplies only ca 30% of protein crops consumed

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 21

weed management issue as the large farms of third countries (Csaki and Lerman, 1997;

Coexistence between GM and non-GM soy would probably not be an issue as soy is mostly autogamous as soon as the European seeds' threshold for non-GM seeds is defined (Roebroeck, 2002). However, case specific monitoring will be an important and costly workload for herbicide tolerant soybean cropping in order to avoid the issues of herbicide resistant weeds observed in the USA and eradication programs paid by companies (Brasher,

As observed by most of the scholars and policy makers, European farming is highly dependent on CAP (Carlier et al., 2010; Cavaillès, 2009). Accordingly, European soybean cropping is currently only driven by global market prices. As finally observed by a recent EC sponsored study, a soybean shortage, such as the last US one in 2007, and thus an increase into soybean prices might induce reallocation of European arable surfaces toward soybean cultivation and probably allow several EU-MS to become self-sufficient. In this way, soybean might be considered as an opportunistic crop by European farmers driven by global soy prices, particularly for its non-GM counterpart. However, the European farmers have to "internalize" soybean cultivation into their agricultural practices and productions particularly in the EU-MS of Western Europe where soybean is not a familiar crop. For instance, farmers of Alsace region in France recently introduced a maize / soybean rotation as a tool to fighting Western corn rootworm. This "internalization" of rotation with soybean into maize culture may be rapid as the French government recently issued a decree making

Several recent changes in the CAP have to be kept in mind. In particular due to substantial reductions of aid in several agricultural sectors, European farmers have a closer look on the impact of the global commodities market on their sales prices with an increased trend toward crops' futures markets. In the meantime, farmers need to have new considerations toward the environment; the reduction into available chemicals for pest fighting, the carbon footprint, the multi-functionality of agriculture, etc. (Commission, 2006; European

It is thus predictable that soybean cropping will differ from East to West among the EU-27, with probably GM crops in the eastern part, which is comparable to the gradient of sensitivity to GMO issues as observed for consumers (Consumerchoice Consortium, 2008).

Two considerations structure the soy importation issue: the first considering feedstuff production with GM soy and the second considering the use of non-GM soybean. Indeed alternative protein-rich crops did not succeed in the previous national or European "protein

As previously said, EU generally takes more time for approving GMO than several third countries, in part due to incomplete dossiers but probably also because of the EU-MS

The import of GM soybean is thus affected by this approval status as reported by numerous reports (ADAS ltd (for DEFRA feed import project), 2008; Aramyan et al., 2009a; Aramyan et al., 2009b; DG AGRI European Commission, 2007; Nowicki et al., 2010; Stein and Rodriguez-

Eurostat. European Commission, 2010; Pouliquen, 2001).

2010; Owen et al., 2010; Owen, 2009; Roberson, 2010).

Commission, 2009d; Kaditi and Swinnen, 2006).

plans" and are less palatable to poultry and young pigs.

unclear economic interest of GM crops (European Commission, 2011).

**5.4.1 The issue of asynchronous approvals** 

**5.4 Alternatives to imported soybean** 

rotation mandatory.

as animal feed (LMC International, 2009a, b; Häusling, 2011). Table 4 provides figures on some EU-MS surfaces of soy cultivation (Eurostat, 2011).

With the *Agenda 2000* CAP reform, aid to European farmers became decoupled, i.e. aid were no longer received for oilseeds production, nor related to yields. There is thus no more European intervention for buying, export subsidizing or other market support available for oilseeds in the EU-27. Moreover, agricultural aid is now rather linked to environment preservation and sustainable agriculture, the second pillar of the new CAP, together with social criteria (Krautgartner et al., 2010b). These drastic changes into the European CAP could lead to drastic changes during the next years in the European cultivations' schemes.


Table 4. Surface (× 1,000 ha) of soybean cultivation in the top 5 EU-MS (Eurostat, 2011).

In the Western part of the EU-27, soy cultivation attempts to satisfy the needs of high added values supplies such as food and meat production under signs-of-quality. However, in spite of several "protein plans", soy is still not considered as an important European crop.

While Western Europe was poorly considering soybean cultivation yet started to import soybean since ca. the second decade of the XXth century, the former USSR developed a soybean breeding institute since the beginning of this last century. As a result of Russian research, several soybean varieties were developed for the former Soviet bloc. An important area of soybean cropping is thus done in the eastern part of Europe, around the southern Danube basin, in particular in Romania, but also in Bulgaria and Hungary. As another example of such Soviet soybean production, and thus of varieties adapted to the European climate, Ukraine and Russia were cropping in 2006 725,000 and 810,100 ha, respectively (Otiman et al., 2008). However, Romania was the only country to extensively grow GM soybean over ca 137,000 ha for feedstuff production but with yield per ha nearly 2/3rd of the ones of USA, Brazil and Argentine. While irrigation is important for increasing the yield, it is also highly probable that the GM varieties were not fully adapted to the European eastern conditions.

Since its entrance in the EU in 2007, Romania stopped cultivating of GM soybean, but started with the MON 810 GM maize (Badea and Pamfil, 2009). Since that time Romanian farmers claim that after a period of self-sufficiency in feed, they had to import again soybean for livestock (Otiman et al., 2008). However, the decrease in soybean cultivation is more probably linked to the absence of European subsidies to soybean cultivation and a return to old, less productive, non-GM soy varieties. Romanian farmers are thus among those pushing to force the European approval of GM soybean cultivation, whose dossier is currently in the European approval pipeline. This may also be explained by the existence, in several Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), of large, corporate, farms up to 20,000 ha, inherited from the reforms after the Soviet bloc implosion, which face the same

<sup>13</sup> Integration into the EU

<sup>14</sup> Integration into the EU

as animal feed (LMC International, 2009a, b; Häusling, 2011). Table 4 provides figures on

With the *Agenda 2000* CAP reform, aid to European farmers became decoupled, i.e. aid were no longer received for oilseeds production, nor related to yields. There is thus no more European intervention for buying, export subsidizing or other market support available for oilseeds in the EU-27. Moreover, agricultural aid is now rather linked to environment preservation and sustainable agriculture, the second pillar of the new CAP, together with social criteria (Krautgartner et al., 2010b). These drastic changes into the European CAP could lead to drastic changes during the next years in the European cultivations' schemes.

2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

Italy 159 134.7 107.8 130.3 177.9 152.3 150.4 152.1 152 233.5 252.6 246.5 Romania 65.2 48.8 49.9 133.213 190.8 143.1 121.3 128.8 71.8 44.8 117. 99.8 France 50.9 43.7 21.8 32.4 45.3 57.4 58.6 80.7 74.8 120.9 77.7 98.2 Austria 34.4 25.3 18.4 20.2 25 21.4 17.9 15.5 14 16.3 15.5 18.5 Hungary 33.5 31.5 29 32.9 35.9 33.6 27.314 30.3 25 20.6 22.2 32.2 Table 4. Surface (× 1,000 ha) of soybean cultivation in the top 5 EU-MS (Eurostat, 2011).

In the Western part of the EU-27, soy cultivation attempts to satisfy the needs of high added values supplies such as food and meat production under signs-of-quality. However, in spite

While Western Europe was poorly considering soybean cultivation yet started to import soybean since ca. the second decade of the XXth century, the former USSR developed a soybean breeding institute since the beginning of this last century. As a result of Russian research, several soybean varieties were developed for the former Soviet bloc. An important area of soybean cropping is thus done in the eastern part of Europe, around the southern Danube basin, in particular in Romania, but also in Bulgaria and Hungary. As another example of such Soviet soybean production, and thus of varieties adapted to the European climate, Ukraine and Russia were cropping in 2006 725,000 and 810,100 ha, respectively (Otiman et al., 2008). However, Romania was the only country to extensively grow GM soybean over ca 137,000 ha for feedstuff production but with yield per ha nearly 2/3rd of the ones of USA, Brazil and Argentine. While irrigation is important for increasing the yield, it is also highly probable that the GM varieties were not fully adapted to the European eastern

Since its entrance in the EU in 2007, Romania stopped cultivating of GM soybean, but started with the MON 810 GM maize (Badea and Pamfil, 2009). Since that time Romanian farmers claim that after a period of self-sufficiency in feed, they had to import again soybean for livestock (Otiman et al., 2008). However, the decrease in soybean cultivation is more probably linked to the absence of European subsidies to soybean cultivation and a return to old, less productive, non-GM soy varieties. Romanian farmers are thus among those pushing to force the European approval of GM soybean cultivation, whose dossier is currently in the European approval pipeline. This may also be explained by the existence, in several Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), of large, corporate, farms up to 20,000 ha, inherited from the reforms after the Soviet bloc implosion, which face the same

of several "protein plans", soy is still not considered as an important European crop.

some EU-MS surfaces of soy cultivation (Eurostat, 2011).

conditions.

13 Integration into the EU 14 Integration into the EU

weed management issue as the large farms of third countries (Csaki and Lerman, 1997; Eurostat. European Commission, 2010; Pouliquen, 2001).

Coexistence between GM and non-GM soy would probably not be an issue as soy is mostly autogamous as soon as the European seeds' threshold for non-GM seeds is defined (Roebroeck, 2002). However, case specific monitoring will be an important and costly workload for herbicide tolerant soybean cropping in order to avoid the issues of herbicide resistant weeds observed in the USA and eradication programs paid by companies (Brasher, 2010; Owen et al., 2010; Owen, 2009; Roberson, 2010).

As observed by most of the scholars and policy makers, European farming is highly dependent on CAP (Carlier et al., 2010; Cavaillès, 2009). Accordingly, European soybean cropping is currently only driven by global market prices. As finally observed by a recent EC sponsored study, a soybean shortage, such as the last US one in 2007, and thus an increase into soybean prices might induce reallocation of European arable surfaces toward soybean cultivation and probably allow several EU-MS to become self-sufficient. In this way, soybean might be considered as an opportunistic crop by European farmers driven by global soy prices, particularly for its non-GM counterpart. However, the European farmers have to "internalize" soybean cultivation into their agricultural practices and productions particularly in the EU-MS of Western Europe where soybean is not a familiar crop. For instance, farmers of Alsace region in France recently introduced a maize / soybean rotation as a tool to fighting Western corn rootworm. This "internalization" of rotation with soybean into maize culture may be rapid as the French government recently issued a decree making rotation mandatory.

Several recent changes in the CAP have to be kept in mind. In particular due to substantial reductions of aid in several agricultural sectors, European farmers have a closer look on the impact of the global commodities market on their sales prices with an increased trend toward crops' futures markets. In the meantime, farmers need to have new considerations toward the environment; the reduction into available chemicals for pest fighting, the carbon footprint, the multi-functionality of agriculture, etc. (Commission, 2006; European Commission, 2009d; Kaditi and Swinnen, 2006).

It is thus predictable that soybean cropping will differ from East to West among the EU-27, with probably GM crops in the eastern part, which is comparable to the gradient of sensitivity to GMO issues as observed for consumers (Consumerchoice Consortium, 2008).

#### **5.4 Alternatives to imported soybean**

Two considerations structure the soy importation issue: the first considering feedstuff production with GM soy and the second considering the use of non-GM soybean. Indeed alternative protein-rich crops did not succeed in the previous national or European "protein plans" and are less palatable to poultry and young pigs.

#### **5.4.1 The issue of asynchronous approvals**

As previously said, EU generally takes more time for approving GMO than several third countries, in part due to incomplete dossiers but probably also because of the EU-MS unclear economic interest of GM crops (European Commission, 2011).

The import of GM soybean is thus affected by this approval status as reported by numerous reports (ADAS ltd (for DEFRA feed import project), 2008; Aramyan et al., 2009a; Aramyan et al., 2009b; DG AGRI European Commission, 2007; Nowicki et al., 2010; Stein and Rodriguez-

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 23

 Short and over-simplified studies, as generally the policy makers need rapid results and the academic community is rather slow to mobilize for participating in such applied work. Thus calls for this type of studies are generally awarded by consultants' cabinets or by the few scientists having already worked on that issue and thus able to "reinvest" their initial work. Work is thus mostly desk-search with several biases, such as a more difficult access to the scientific literature, a large use of "Google" which highlights URL according to a Google ranking algorithm mostly based on the number of external links or sponsorship, thus a way of working which favors industry and lobbies reports and

 Group "consanguinity": such a strong relationship between sponsors, for instance a technical officer in charge of supervising an European study, originating from a European institute, whose recent reports all biased in the same way the effect of EU unapproved GMOs on feed availability. This first type of consanguinity is then reinforced by the tenders who have been chosen after a call for tenders. In most of the instances, the scientists have published reports in the same way, e.g. the dramatic effect of EU unapproved GMOs on feed availability. Reinvesting initial work is clearly not the best way for sound prospective in comparison of a collective and contradictory

 Influence of working environment. Indeed several studies were carried out in an EU country highly depending on feedstuffs ingredients importations, and further reexportations, which may hamper the independence of viewpoint of the scientists and criteria retained for the scenarios. This may also be linked to previous studies funded by the feed industry which may influence the viewpoints and future results. Again, it would be necessary to amplify the panel of viewpoints, e.g. with scientists from countries with different production schemes. By not taking into consideration the socioeconomic context and history of some scientists, the EU is decreasing its chances to find

Taken altogether, these considerations of the studies and modeling context show the limits of the available data and predictions. This militates for more scholar-driven, long-term, multidisciplinary and with people sharing different viewpoints about futures of agriculture into collective expertise using also different modeling and postulates bases. Rapid, biased studies for a very complex matter highly influenced by both uncontrolled events, (such as seasonal incidents, or policy controlled issues, such as the disappearance of fallows in the new CAP, further cultivable areas reallocations and integration of new players), are not the

The users, i.e. policy makers, should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of models used by the technical officers, what is generally not the case in the reports provided to the policy makers or media (van Tongeren et al., 2001). To conclude, the over-simplified models, developed moreover under detrimental contextual influences, have drastic limitations for forecasting trade and supply chains trends but are routinely used and dramatically impact the European policy without sound "scientific" ground-bases. These observations together with other not reported in this paper show that the EC was in fact over the last years

best conditions for forecasting the future of European agriculture needs.

segmented markets which were not taken into these models.

sites.

expertise.

a systemic and long-term solution.

requested by the second pillar of the new CAP (Hermans et al., 2010; Kissinger and Rees, 2010; Konefal and Busch, 2010; van Delden et al., 2010). As outlined by Konefal and Bush, maize and soybean market standardization also introduced a multiplicity of

Cerezo, 2009; Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010b; Stein and Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2009; Tallage, 2010). All these reports concluded there is no alternatives to imported soybeans and meals, and thus recommended establishing a specific Low Level Presence threshold for EU unapproved GMOs to avoid any shortage in soybean which could hamper European livestock competitiveness, a recommendation recently officially taken in consideration by the EC by establishing a LLP threshold for EU unapproved GMOs dedicated to feed.

However, how reliable are these converging predictions? It might be helpful to have some insights on some recent reports on such issues of feed shortage in the EU-27. Are there some biases in those studies which are almost all based on modeling of feed use?

Models are clearly needed for simplifying complex situation and decision taking. In that way, it is thus understandable that models are used for forecasting international trade and soybean use in feedstuff production. However the choice of model or postulates, such as linear regression and "general equilibrium" instead of alternative is not neutral. Besides this essential questioning, common to all modeling issues, we will just examine some contextual questions.


Cerezo, 2009; Stein and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2010b; Stein and Rodríguez-Cerezo, 2009; Tallage, 2010). All these reports concluded there is no alternatives to imported soybeans and meals, and thus recommended establishing a specific Low Level Presence threshold for EU unapproved GMOs to avoid any shortage in soybean which could hamper European livestock competitiveness, a recommendation recently officially taken in consideration by

However, how reliable are these converging predictions? It might be helpful to have some insights on some recent reports on such issues of feed shortage in the EU-27. Are there some

Models are clearly needed for simplifying complex situation and decision taking. In that way, it is thus understandable that models are used for forecasting international trade and soybean use in feedstuff production. However the choice of model or postulates, such as linear regression and "general equilibrium" instead of alternative is not neutral. Besides this essential questioning, common to all modeling issues, we will just examine some contextual

 The first observation we can make is that those studies were carried out with limited funding in short time; thus impeding long studies and collective, contradictory expertise. Another problem is the use of very recently developed models, used by the EC without having been clearly in depth validated, or used out their scope, e.g. to foresee future trends while developed to analyze the past (Harrell, 2001). Some of these models were "validated" by discarding some crops in some parts of the evaluation but taking them into account into other evaluation parts*.* As these crops are used as adjustment variables in substitution strategies for low-price compound feedstuffs production, the validity of such models is highly questionable. The same issue of validating models applies to models attempting to merge ecological and CAP issues. It is finally rather surprising to read in a report about the development of a model, that one of the main goals was to simplify the yearly feeding of the model due to some lack of personal in the corresponding European Commission service. Avoiding complexity

and simplifying the life of European personal does not help make sound policy. The large use of modeling is the expression of a general disinterest of economists for empirical studies and a preference toward modeling. This disinterest of economist scholars or consultants is due to (i) the difficulties to retrieve accurate information from companies and interviews, (ii) the duration necessary for establishing their own databases, together with (iii) a higher ranking in peer-reviewed journals for models, rather than for empirical data. There is thus a fundamental lack of sound, scholarlyestablished empirical data, i.e. not provided only by the companies in charge of feed

 A "business-as-usual" trend, i.e. a relative poorness in investigated scenarios and generally speaking in perspectives and alternatives. All considered scenarios take as read the requests of feed producers, i.e. the need for soybean and more generally proteins imports; just as previously cereals and then meat-and-bone were supposed to supply all needed proteins. This "business-as-usual" trend may in great part be explained by the power of lobbies, some kind of blindness, i.e. lack of prospective. However, it is generally recognized that a mass market is always turning into a market of niches and that EU is among the largest provider of market niches (Anderson, 2006). Such models are thus *inter-alia* not referring to market differentiation, European landscape use, consumers welfare, region competitiveness and ecological issues as

production, before founding policy on models.

the EC by establishing a LLP threshold for EU unapproved GMOs dedicated to feed.

biases in those studies which are almost all based on modeling of feed use?

questions.

requested by the second pillar of the new CAP (Hermans et al., 2010; Kissinger and Rees, 2010; Konefal and Busch, 2010; van Delden et al., 2010). As outlined by Konefal and Bush, maize and soybean market standardization also introduced a multiplicity of segmented markets which were not taken into these models.


Taken altogether, these considerations of the studies and modeling context show the limits of the available data and predictions. This militates for more scholar-driven, long-term, multidisciplinary and with people sharing different viewpoints about futures of agriculture into collective expertise using also different modeling and postulates bases. Rapid, biased studies for a very complex matter highly influenced by both uncontrolled events, (such as seasonal incidents, or policy controlled issues, such as the disappearance of fallows in the new CAP, further cultivable areas reallocations and integration of new players), are not the best conditions for forecasting the future of European agriculture needs.

The users, i.e. policy makers, should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of models used by the technical officers, what is generally not the case in the reports provided to the policy makers or media (van Tongeren et al., 2001). To conclude, the over-simplified models, developed moreover under detrimental contextual influences, have drastic limitations for forecasting trade and supply chains trends but are routinely used and dramatically impact the European policy without sound "scientific" ground-bases. These observations together with other not reported in this paper show that the EC was in fact over the last years

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 25

use of chemicals and social impacts (Carlier et al., 2010). The recent reduced European interest for biofuels production in the EU due to a contrasted carbon footprint, as well as a possible effect on food prices could also free agricultural surfaces for soy opportunistic cultivation. However, studies on soybean use in cow feeding show that soy might have less environment impacting than rapeseed (Lehuger et al., 2009). The new CAP which embraces more environmental considerations may thus face new issues in the balance of

After a ban of about a decade, several lobbyists are pushing the reintroduction of meat-andbone meal, probably the richest protein source. For instance in 2002, 220,000T were estimated equivalent to 503,000 T of soy meal. The European dependence onto imported soy could thus be dramatically decreased if meat-and-bone is safely re-incorporated into feedstuffs. However, the acceptance of European consumers of such a reintroduction is far

CAP Health check in 2008 reduced again aids to cereals opening the opportunity to grow more oilseeds including soybean despite a previous EU support to protein-rich crops such

Surprisingly, in all alternatives to soybean imports even though by NGO or organic farmers, no one proposed cultivation of soybean as protein sources alternatives, at least for conventional livestock (Billon et al., 2009; Confédération paysanne, 2002). However, production of European soybean showed in 2009 a 12.4% increase which demonstrates the opportunism of European farmers in front of high trade prices of the 2008/2009 food crisis (Krautgartner et al., 2010a). Such an alternative of soy cropping instead of imports should be more effectively considered in EU-MS, even though it looks difficult to dedicate ca. 20 Millions of European hectares to soy, the equivalent in surfaces of currently imported soy

The recent entrance of several new EU-MS, with a past of soybean crops and some very large corporate farms, could also accompany this trend of growing more soybean in the EU. Interviewed Spanish representatives agreed that Spain could grow soybean, be these GM or not, as soon as the prices would be of interest. Additionally, the fight against the Western corn rootworm *(Diabrotica virgifera virgifera)* in French maize monocultures was successful when introducing soybean into a newly implemented rotation, a choice of crop made in function of cropping practices and apparatus compatibility. Together with the environmental and economic interest of introducing a leguminous plant into rotations and the more general European request of reducing chemicals in cultivation, the interest of maize monoculture is questionable when we consider that the infected area15 covers most of the Central and Eastern European Countries. Finally, the current trend of increase of petrol and thus of nitrogen

In addition to an increasing part of local, pasture based and on-farm production for both "conventional" and under signs-of-quality meat production, the European soybean dependence might thus drastically decrease at least for bovine animals. Soybean imports would then mostly depend on intensive livestock production such as poultry and probably

Altogether, these several observations show a balanced approach of European farmers toward the global market and an important dependence of EU farmers to CAP. As long as soybean and soy meal prices are low, there is no interest for European farmers to enter the

fertilizer prices also favors reintroduction of leguminous crops into rotation.

15 http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/wcr/images/pdf/2010/EUROPEMap2010.pdf

environmental footprint and might let European prefer importing soy.

from being obvious following the 1990s' mad-cow disease scandal.

as field pea, field bean and lupine.

(see above).

pig.

attempting to "scientifically" legitimate previous political decisions for "smoothing" global trade issues.

### **5.4.2 Perspectives**

In spite of a careful survey of European scientific and grey literature on alternatives to GM soy, almost no one Western EU stakeholder involved into meat production is currently considering soybean cultivation in the EU as a solution. Beside some recommendations to come back to pasturage for cattle, the general trend in compound feedstuff production is a larger incorporation of European non-GM rapeseed meal as it can be seen in the statistics of Fediol as a by-product of European bio-fuel production. Substitution is thus generally retained in national schemes for non-GM soy use. However new Eastern EU-MS have a long tradition of soy cultivation with some very large farms which might, in the 'business-asusual" trend benefit from GM, or non-GM, soy cultivation.

#### **5.4.2.1 Domestic substitution to imported soybean**

Two ways of substitution of imported soybean have to be considered: firstly, the European cultivation of soy, as this protein-rich feed is difficult to substitute in feedstuff of several young animals and, secondly, the replacement of soybean by some other protein-rich crop for adults or some young animals.

As observed in several studies the trend over the last decade to use low-price soybean and soy meal induced a clear disaffection of plant breeding companies for leguminous fodder crops (alfalfa, clover, etc.) and several protein-rich crops (field pea, sweet lupine, etc.) due to their small volumes and a constant decrease of cultivation over the last decade (European Parliament. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2010; LMC International, 2009a, b; Häusling, 2011). Moreover, public research programs on such European substitutes to soybean declined over the 3 last decades. As a example of such general decline, domestic leguminous crops to be incorporated into feed dropped in France from 11% in 1991 toward 2.5% in 2006, despite CAP subsidies of field pea, field bean and lupine (European Commission, 2009c). If some studies are currently ongoing, for instance on the use of lupine and pea for poultry, there is a lack of European research on substituting soybean by domestic protein-rich crops which however present the interest of currently being non-GM (Laudadio et al., 2009; Häusling, 2011).

Several changes in the CAP such as the "20-20-20 in 2020" objectives (reduction of 20% of emissions from 1990, 20% share of energy consumption from renewable sources and 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020) conducted to an increase of rapeseed oil production for bio-fuels and thus of alternative meal, at least for some livestock.

Under the Blair House agreement, oilseeds plantings were limited to an adjusted Maximum Guaranteed Area for producers benefiting from crop specific oilseeds payments. This limited the EU oilseeds production area and penalized overproduction till the 2003 renegotiation of Blair House agreement. Finally, with the *Agenda 2000*, the CAP relies on 2 pillars: the market and income policy (first pillar) and the sustainable development of rural areas (second pillar). Since 2010, the producers are free of the hectare limits set out by Blair House agreement. Additionally, the disappearance of European mandatory fallows is freeing new arable surfaces for, current or new, long-term or opportunistic cultivations.

As the 2003 CAP reform (linked to renegotiation of Blair House agreement) brings greater consideration to environmental integration we may expect several changes, in particular about soybean whose production in Brazil is criticized due to deforestation, an important

attempting to "scientifically" legitimate previous political decisions for "smoothing" global

In spite of a careful survey of European scientific and grey literature on alternatives to GM soy, almost no one Western EU stakeholder involved into meat production is currently considering soybean cultivation in the EU as a solution. Beside some recommendations to come back to pasturage for cattle, the general trend in compound feedstuff production is a larger incorporation of European non-GM rapeseed meal as it can be seen in the statistics of Fediol as a by-product of European bio-fuel production. Substitution is thus generally retained in national schemes for non-GM soy use. However new Eastern EU-MS have a long tradition of soy cultivation with some very large farms which might, in the 'business-as-

Two ways of substitution of imported soybean have to be considered: firstly, the European cultivation of soy, as this protein-rich feed is difficult to substitute in feedstuff of several young animals and, secondly, the replacement of soybean by some other protein-rich crop

As observed in several studies the trend over the last decade to use low-price soybean and soy meal induced a clear disaffection of plant breeding companies for leguminous fodder crops (alfalfa, clover, etc.) and several protein-rich crops (field pea, sweet lupine, etc.) due to their small volumes and a constant decrease of cultivation over the last decade (European Parliament. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 2010; LMC International, 2009a, b; Häusling, 2011). Moreover, public research programs on such European substitutes to soybean declined over the 3 last decades. As a example of such general decline, domestic leguminous crops to be incorporated into feed dropped in France from 11% in 1991 toward 2.5% in 2006, despite CAP subsidies of field pea, field bean and lupine (European Commission, 2009c). If some studies are currently ongoing, for instance on the use of lupine and pea for poultry, there is a lack of European research on substituting soybean by domestic protein-rich crops which however present the interest of currently being non-GM

Several changes in the CAP such as the "20-20-20 in 2020" objectives (reduction of 20% of emissions from 1990, 20% share of energy consumption from renewable sources and 20% improvement in energy efficiency by 2020) conducted to an increase of rapeseed oil

Under the Blair House agreement, oilseeds plantings were limited to an adjusted Maximum Guaranteed Area for producers benefiting from crop specific oilseeds payments. This limited the EU oilseeds production area and penalized overproduction till the 2003 renegotiation of Blair House agreement. Finally, with the *Agenda 2000*, the CAP relies on 2 pillars: the market and income policy (first pillar) and the sustainable development of rural areas (second pillar). Since 2010, the producers are free of the hectare limits set out by Blair House agreement. Additionally, the disappearance of European mandatory fallows is freeing new arable surfaces for, current or new, long-term or opportunistic cultivations. As the 2003 CAP reform (linked to renegotiation of Blair House agreement) brings greater consideration to environmental integration we may expect several changes, in particular about soybean whose production in Brazil is criticized due to deforestation, an important

production for bio-fuels and thus of alternative meal, at least for some livestock.

usual" trend benefit from GM, or non-GM, soy cultivation.

**5.4.2.1 Domestic substitution to imported soybean** 

for adults or some young animals.

(Laudadio et al., 2009; Häusling, 2011).

trade issues.

**5.4.2 Perspectives** 

use of chemicals and social impacts (Carlier et al., 2010). The recent reduced European interest for biofuels production in the EU due to a contrasted carbon footprint, as well as a possible effect on food prices could also free agricultural surfaces for soy opportunistic cultivation. However, studies on soybean use in cow feeding show that soy might have less environment impacting than rapeseed (Lehuger et al., 2009). The new CAP which embraces more environmental considerations may thus face new issues in the balance of environmental footprint and might let European prefer importing soy.

After a ban of about a decade, several lobbyists are pushing the reintroduction of meat-andbone meal, probably the richest protein source. For instance in 2002, 220,000T were estimated equivalent to 503,000 T of soy meal. The European dependence onto imported soy could thus be dramatically decreased if meat-and-bone is safely re-incorporated into feedstuffs. However, the acceptance of European consumers of such a reintroduction is far from being obvious following the 1990s' mad-cow disease scandal.

CAP Health check in 2008 reduced again aids to cereals opening the opportunity to grow more oilseeds including soybean despite a previous EU support to protein-rich crops such as field pea, field bean and lupine.

Surprisingly, in all alternatives to soybean imports even though by NGO or organic farmers, no one proposed cultivation of soybean as protein sources alternatives, at least for conventional livestock (Billon et al., 2009; Confédération paysanne, 2002). However, production of European soybean showed in 2009 a 12.4% increase which demonstrates the opportunism of European farmers in front of high trade prices of the 2008/2009 food crisis (Krautgartner et al., 2010a). Such an alternative of soy cropping instead of imports should be more effectively considered in EU-MS, even though it looks difficult to dedicate ca. 20 Millions of European hectares to soy, the equivalent in surfaces of currently imported soy (see above).

The recent entrance of several new EU-MS, with a past of soybean crops and some very large corporate farms, could also accompany this trend of growing more soybean in the EU. Interviewed Spanish representatives agreed that Spain could grow soybean, be these GM or not, as soon as the prices would be of interest. Additionally, the fight against the Western corn rootworm *(Diabrotica virgifera virgifera)* in French maize monocultures was successful when introducing soybean into a newly implemented rotation, a choice of crop made in function of cropping practices and apparatus compatibility. Together with the environmental and economic interest of introducing a leguminous plant into rotations and the more general European request of reducing chemicals in cultivation, the interest of maize monoculture is questionable when we consider that the infected area15 covers most of the Central and Eastern European Countries. Finally, the current trend of increase of petrol and thus of nitrogen fertilizer prices also favors reintroduction of leguminous crops into rotation.

In addition to an increasing part of local, pasture based and on-farm production for both "conventional" and under signs-of-quality meat production, the European soybean dependence might thus drastically decrease at least for bovine animals. Soybean imports would then mostly depend on intensive livestock production such as poultry and probably pig.

Altogether, these several observations show a balanced approach of European farmers toward the global market and an important dependence of EU farmers to CAP. As long as soybean and soy meal prices are low, there is no interest for European farmers to enter the

<sup>15</sup> http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/wcr/images/pdf/2010/EUROPEMap2010.pdf

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective 27

As the cultivations are rapidly adjusted to the market requests, there is thus not an issue of soybean supply *per se* but an issue of importation of soybean at the lowest prices for intensive livestock production. Such issue of competitiveness of European livestock drove the EC to introduce a "technical solution" to EU unapproved GMOs, i.e. a LLP threshold, for feed, which might impact food supply chains since segregating of food and feed is difficult. At the same time, the need for a larger use of bio-fuels increased the production of oilseed rape in Europe which in counterpart decreased the imports of soybeans. It is currently difficult to determine what would be the future of such by-products of bio-fuels as the European policy bio-fuels appears to be changing due to new calculations of their carbon footprint and the need for "feeding the world". Such trend to develop domestic bio-fuels

After several shortages in the 1970s and 2000s, the current increases in feed and food commodities' prices after the 2007-2008 food crisis militates for an European alimentary sovereignty due in particular to the impact of the increasing living standards of emerging

Environmental, sustainability and social criteria newly incorporated into the European agricultural aids frame will probably push domestic oilseed production, including soybean and jeopardize oilseeds imports. The main driver of European livestock production and soy imports will also depend on the possible extension among EU-MS of the labeling of animals

By the different past histories of Western and Eastern parts of the EU-27, it is also to be expected that the soy cropping strategies, i.e. the choice between GM and non-GM soy cultivation, will differ between the two. The lowest sensitivity of Eastern consumers to GM food and cultivation could facilitate the implementation of GM soy in the Eastern part of the EU, while non-GM soy might develop in the Western part of the EU. Such search for a European "sovereignty" is in line with the development of numerous markets niches, a

Generally speaking, the recent initiative of the EC for establishing a LLP threshold for feed did not take into consideration the change of paradigm i.e. the European move from an "economy of offer" toward an "economy of demand" nor the difficulties to segregate food

As this chapter was in proof reading, EFSA published its final version of PMEM (EFSA GMO Panel, 2011) and the EC published the LLP related regulation (European Commission,

ACRE (2004). ACRE Guidance Note 16. Guidance on best practice in the design of post-

modified crops into the environment (under Directive 2001/18/EC), 21 p. Adams, S. (2011). Dow AgriSciences, MU researcher develop a way to control "superweed".

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2011/0121-dow-agrisciences-muresearcher-develop-a-way-to-control-%E2%80%9Csuperweed%E2%80%9D */* 

market monitoring plans in submissions to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the environment. Guidance for applicants seeking permission to release genetically

will probably impact European soy imports and cultivations.

usual counterpart to a more and more standardized and global trade.

countries and thus of protein-rich feedstuffs.

reared with GMO-free feed.

and feed commodities.

2011).

**8. References** 

**7. Note added in proof** 

Available at:

very competitive commodities market. But all occasions can be taken to improve their niche markets of soy be this GM or non-GM.

#### **5.4.2.2 Alternative sources of non-GM soy**

With the growing trend to label animals reared on non-GM feed, availability of non-GM soy is of a growing interest for livestock producers. With the increased cropping of GM soy in exporting countries, alternative sources of non-GM soy are thus actively looked for by European importers.

Since the 2008 issue of Chinese organic soy meal spiked with melamine, The Peoples' Republic of China is no longer considered as a reliable source of non-GM soy despite recent claims of its interest for this country (Anonymous, 2010; Hansen et al., 2007; Takada, 2010). China is the most important importer of soybean and this expected to continue (Taylor and Koo, 2010). As numerous GM crops are under development in China together with a growing request of soy for livestock production, we may expect this country may rapidly cease to be a putative exporter of non-GM soybean. Indeed, India is currently a new source of non-GM soy for certain European traders and has been identified as such by US surveys (Ash, 2011).

This current relative shortage of non-GM (<0.9%) or GMO-free (<0.1%) soybean could be an opportunity for European soy producers, provided they find more incentives to grow soy. The new CAP trend considering more environmental issues might favor such changes into the European farmers practices. Integrating crops rotations with leguminous crops, for decreasing the use of costly fertilizers and fighting some pests such as the expending Western corn root worm, would be additional causes of such practices' changes with premiums and long-term contracts for non-GM productions,.

Beside a new consideration of soybean into crop rotation in Western EU or an increase of soy surfaces in EU-MS cultivating soy for market niches, the European soy status may also change by the integration in 2007 of Central and Eastern European countries such as Romania with a past and a future wish of soybean cultivation. The move of these countries, some cases having very large corporate farms, toward GM or non-GM soy cultivation will greatly depend on non-GM demand, premiums and long-term contracts as well as the volatility of GM soy commodities' prices.
