ISIS Report 11/01/05
Europe Holding Firm Against GMOs
A strict German law to protect GM-free agriculture followed by
majority votes against lifting bans on GM food and feed. Mae-Wan Ho and
Rhea Gala
Sources
for this report are available in the ISIS members site.
Full details here
Germany passes first anti-GM Law
German Agriculture Minister Renate Kunäst hailed as a major victory
a new highly restrictive genetically modified (GM) crops law passed by the
German Parliament on 26 November 2004. The new law requires GM crop growers to
publicly register the exact location of fields, and holds those planting GM
crops liable for economic damages to neighbouring non-GM fields even if
planting instructions and other regulations were followed.
Ms Kunäst praised the new law as a success for consumer protection
and for farmers who want to cultivate GM-free. "Germany is one of the first EU
countries to create a legal framework for the protection of GM-free
agriculture," she said. Germany was in a hurry after the EU Commission
cancelled Europe’s de facto moratorium on GMOs, she added, and
urgently needed regulations to protect GM-free agriculture against
contamination.
The new law introduces the principle that GM farmers and GM operators
are financially liable for economic damage caused if their crops contaminate
non-GM products. It takes a proactive stance against GMOs, and protects organic
farms and non-GM conventional farms against insidious dominance of GMOs. It
also protects ecologically sensitive zones against transgenic contamination. It
lays down rules for good professional practice such as minimum separation
distances, documentation, and use of GMO fertilizers. And companies are bound
by law to inform growers about compliance with the demands of good professional
practice by means of an instruction leaflet; and are liable for incorrect
product information.
Reaction to the new law is mixed. Dr Felix Prinz zu Löwenstein,
chairman of the Federation of the Organic Food Industry (BÖLW), is happy
with the result. "We think it is especially important that the liability for
damage caused by cross-breeding and mixing are clearly assigned to the genetic
engineering users". He also suggested that the new law would act as a signal
for other European countries.
In contrast, the German Farmers Association (DBV) criticized the
decision of the parliament, a DBV press report advised all farmers not to
cultivate GMOs because co-existence is not achievable.
Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth (FoE), Europe, said "This law is
good news for hundreds of millions of Europeans who do not wish to participate
in the biggest biological experiment of our time, and who want to eat food that
is GM-free. This law should now be the benchmark for similar legislation in
other EU member states".
The law received a predictably negative response from the bioscience
community, where German researchers and industry said that liability for
economic damage will create a financial risk that some German universities,
research organizations and companies will not take.
Mark Stitt, managing director of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular
Plant Physiology said "I think the law, as it now stands, will have a
detrimental effect on innovation in Germany…Firms will be leaving
Germany". He said that the law goes far beyond EU GM law that allows non-GM
plants to be contaminated with up to 0.9 percent of pollen from neighbouring GM
plants.
However, in Germany, "bio" (organic) products must contain less than 0.1
percent of GM contamination to retain the bio stamp.
Jens A Katzek, CEO of BIO Mitteldeutschland GmbH, which promotes the
biotech industry in central Germany said that his own state, Saxony-Anhalt, has
already announced that it will challenge the new law in the federal court.
The law also contains loopholes that need improvement; and, most
importantly, hardly covers damage to the environment caused by GM crops. The
protection offered to ecologically sensitive zones only covers ‘Nature
2000’ areas that are only 2.5 percent of the area of Germany.
FoE is also concerned that the European Commission might overrule the
German law by taking Germany to the European Court of Justice. In a leaked
document (available from FoE) dated June 2004, the Commission has already
hinted at this. But the EC suffered a setback in trying to force European
countries to lift their bans on GMOs.
European countries voted by large majority against lifting bans on
GMOs
On 30 November 1004, EU environmental experts voted by a large majority
against proposals to overturn the bans on genetically modified (GM) crops in
five countries; the group also failed to reach a majority decision on clearing
a GM crop ingredient for the European food chain.
The group rejected proposals from the European Commission calling for
five European countries – Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg
– to repeal their bans on specific GMOs within 20 days.
The bans, introduced between 1997 and 2000, involved three maize and two
rapeseed varieties approved before the EU began its unofficial biotech ban in
1998 that ended earlier this year.
Every single one of the Commission's proposals failed to get the
required qualified majority of 232 votes out of 321.
The results, representing a majority against GM, were as follows:
On lifting the bans on Syngenta’s Bt176 maize in Germany, Austria
and Luxembourg: in favour, 54 votes; against, 221 votes; abstained, 46
votes
On lifting the ban on Bayer’s T25 maize in Austria; in favour, 54
votes; against, 221 votes; abstained, 46 votes
On lifting the ban on Monsanto’s MON810 maize in Austria: in
favour, 73 votes; against, 178 votes; abstained, 70 votes
On lifting the ban on Bayer’s oilseed rape Topas 19/2 in France and
Greece: in favour, 54 votes; against, 178 votes; abstained, 89 votes
On lifting the ban on Bayer’s oilseed rape MS1xRf1 in France: in
favour, 54 votes; against, 178 votes; abstained: 89 votes
The Commission’s proposals are seen as a direct result of the trade
dispute in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) started last year by the United
States, Argentina and Canada. The three countries claim that Europe’s
precautionary stance on GM food, including the national bans, are a barrier to
free trade and harm their farmers. The WTO has set up a three-person panel
currently meeting in secret to decide the case, with the final verdict expected
next year.
The Commission’s proposals will now go to a Council of Ministers
meeting in the new year. If no decision is taken after three months, as is
likely, the Commission can adopt it under a legal loophole.
Despite tough new European rules enforced in April to track and label
GMOs, food makers are opting to skip GM ingredients in Europe because they know
the European consumer will refuse to buy GM food products.
At the same meeting, the environmental experts failed, again, to allow
Monsanto’s genetically modified maize MON 863 for import and processing
into the EU. MON 863 was cleared earlier this year by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA); but two months ago member states failed to give it the green
light.
On 20 December, EU environment ministers blocked the approval of
Monsanto’s GM oilseed rape GT73 with a vote of 135 against, 78 for, and
108 abstentions. Member State experts had already failed to reach agreement on
this in June 2004, and the opposition vote appeared to have grown since.
The United Kingdom was among the abstentions. Its official advisors on
GM foods and feeds were "not satisfied with the explanation that Monsanto has
provided for the observed increased liver weight in rats fed GT73" and are not
convinced by EFSA’s assurance that GT 73 "is as safe as conventional
oilseed rape for humans and animals, and in the context of the proposed uses,
for the environment."
Sources
Bite Back! Sign the citizens’ objection online at
http://www.bite-back.org
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex
"Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development, Monsanto GM
ingredient rejected" Food Navigator.com Europe 30.11.04
http://foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?id=56438&n=dh335&c=ioycgujovowudvq
Europe votes to keep GM crops bans
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4674
http://www.genet-info.org
http://www.foeeurope.org
EU ministers block Monsanto’s GM oilseed rape. FoE Press Release 20
December 2004
http://www.gmwatch.org
| 
