We accept the idea that progress moves faster and faster and that Made in Italy must keep up with it by investing in research and development. Even more so when it comes to Made in Italy agri-food , an area that more than any other must be approached with balanced mentalities and detached from ideologies .
If on the one hand it is right and necessary to protect typical national products , on the other we must not close ourselves to innovation nor must we prevent the market from freely deciding which products to reward and which not.
Always sponsor of research
It is therefore no coincidence that the magazine has always been in favor of GMOs and if in more recent times it has embraced the cause of genome editing techniques , two development possibilities for our local agriculture and animal husbandry which instead are boycotted a priori only and exclusively for ideological reasons justified by the "precautionary principle", a term with which the doubt of danger is instilled in Italian citizens.
The idea that our traditional products can coexist with GMO products or with those derived from genome editing techniques is in fact rejected at all levels, from our living room environmentalists to politics, up to the trade unions of the sector, all realities which however in recent times Europe has seen its opposition to insect flours defeated, now present in Italian supermarkets on clearly recognizable shelves.
They are products that have nothing to do with Italian culinary traditions and least of all with local productions and therefore consumers will decide the success or failure of these flours .
The same thing would not be bad if it also happened for the so-called "synthetic meats" , products obtained from stem cell cultures taken from farm animals. The process foresees that the cells are subsequently multiplied in bioreactors to give rise to a product which in terms of texture and flavor should replicate animal muscle tissue. Assuming that "synthetic meats" are not harmful to health and the environment, certifications that only science should give, however , there would be nothing wrong if they too could end up in supermarkets clearly labeled so as to allow consumers to choose between a real cut of meat or a laboratory substitute.
The same one that shouldn't be called "meat" just like vegetable burgers shouldn't be called "hamburger". At the moment, however, it is impossible for this to happen because, even before the "synthetic meats" have been cleared through customs in terms of health, the current Government has banned their sale, unleashing the enthusiasm of a sector chain unable to reflect on its own future and of the Unions, with Coldiretti in the lead.
No one wanted to reflect on the fact that in a context of general attack on intensive farming , synthetic meats could be more environmentally sustainable than natural ones, above all with a view to population growth without forgetting that the production of synthetic meats would contribute to decreasing the Italian import of the sector.
Synthetic meats, from the Government retrograde and obtuse mentality
Finally, the Government 's position shows a retrograde vision of the concept of innovation , seen as a danger rather than an opportunity. Blocking progress for Legg can certainly help some players in the agri-food sector in the short term, but in the long run it makes technologies that increase productivity and therefore profits inaccessible to the sector. An example in this sense was the decision of the European Union to ban GMO production with the result that now farmers are forced to buy GMO feed produced by foreign multinationals.
Without forgetting that the evolution of cell cultures in the livestock sector could also favor conventional breeders themselves , as well demonstrated by some innovations in the field already in progress. In fact, the improvement techniques for bovine reproduction belong to the world of veterinary biotechnology and no one can predict what applications this knowledge could have, for example, in treating some typical diseases of farm animals.
Further criticism of the Bill presented by the Government on 28 March is the fact that it anticipated a decision that is up to the European Union with the latter having one of its fundamental pillars in the free movement of goods and people between the Member States. Therefore, if the Union were in favor of the production and sale of "synthetic meats", the Government could not avoid marketing them and not even prevent any companies from producing them.
However, the latter is a risk that Pase is not running at the moment because in the light of the current situation it will be increasingly difficult to find entrepreneurs willing to invest in the future of Italian agri-food. And this, after all, is the worst return to which obscurantist political choices give rise when they are advanced to please a few without realizing that many are harmed instead.
