 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 March 2005. Press Release from European Environment Bureau (EBB)
Environment ministers called upon
to reject mandate to European Commission on GMOs.
The European Environmental Bureau, the largest federation of environmental citizens organisations in Europe, has called upon EU Environmental Ministers to refuse a negotiation mandate to the Commission on GMOs and public participation.
This Thursday, the EU Environmental Council is to decide on how the EU will act in the final phase of negotiations on amending the Aarhus Convention so that it would include European citizens' rights to public participation in decision-making on GMOs. This would include decisions on deliberate releases of GMOs in agriculture, placing GMO products on the market, and contained use of GMOs. The Aarhus Convention gives citizens the right to access information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters 19 Member States and the European Community have already ratified this Convention and the six remaining Member States are in the process of doing so. However, the current Convention does not include the right to public participation in GMO matters. To remove this exemption, negotations were launched in 2002.
John Hontelez, Secretary General of the EEB comments, "The negotiation process has been very hard, as the EU Member States were divided and had decided they wanted to come to agreement amongst themselves before involving the other Parties of the Convention. As a result, 14 Parties that are outside the EU, most of them clearly demanding an international arrangement that they could use at home, were left in the cold."
According to the EEB, France and the Commission are the hardliners in current negotiations, fighting any Aarhus Convention interference with their internal and global GMO politics. Apparently, in the end, they have succeeded in convincing or at least accepting a majority of Member States. Sources say that only Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece and Italy are likely to oppose the Commissionís mandate, too few members to block it...
Read the full text.
|
|
|
15 December 2004. Press Release from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Food Supply Vulnerable to Contamination by Drugs and Plastics from Gene-Altered Crops.
UCS Calls for Ban on Food Crops Genetically Engineered to Produce Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Chemicals
WASHINGTON, D.C. - For more than a decade, corn, soybeans, and other food crops genetically engineered to produce drugs, vaccines, and industrial chemicals have been grown on American farms. But a new report by six agricultural experts now warns that the food supply is vulnerable to contamination by these "pharmaceutical crops" unless substantial changes are made in the ways and places such crops are grown and managed.
Based on the experts' findings, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately ban the field production of corn, soybeans, and other food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. UCS recommends that the USDA spearhead a major campaign to encourage and fund safer alternatives like non-food crops or growing pharmaceutical food crops indoors.
"Nobody wants drugs in their cornflakes," said Dr. Margaret Mellon, Director of the Food and Environment Program at UCS. "Consumers who discover that they have unwittingly ingested drugs in their cereal and taco shells are likely to direct their ire and their lawsuits against the companies that sold them the food."
UCS convened the panel of experts to determine whether it is possible to produce pharmaceuticals in familiar food crops like corn or soybean (the two plants most often used for pharmaceutical production) without contaminating human food or animal feed. The panel acting independently of UCS analyzed the current system for growing food- and feed-grade corn and soybeans and identified many points where drugs and plastics could pass to the food supply if pharmaceutical crops were grown under the same system. After evaluating various approaches to blocking contamination at those points, the panel concluded that the current corn and soybean production system cannot be used for pharmaceutical corn and soybean in the United States while ensuring virtually no contamination of the food and feed system.
"It is sobering that drugs and industrial chemicals could have so many routes to the food supply," said Dr. David Andow, editor of the technical report and a professor in the Department of Entomology at the University of Minnesota. "Pollen can be carried to fields with food crops by the wind or insects, seeds lodged in the crevices of harvesting equipment could come loose while harvesting food, and plants can come up as volunteers in the middle of a food crop. To protect the food supply, each potential route has to be blocked."
The expert panel said it is theoretically possible for the government to create a new system that would allow corn or soybean to be safely used as pharmaceutical crops. Establishing that system, however, especially if it permits pharmaceutical crop production to continue within traditional food-crop regions, would require new management systems, new oversight, and new uses of some equipment and technologies all built from the ground up. The expert panel strongly encouraged development of this new system.
UCS doubts the USDA could establish, monitor, and ensure the successful operation of a new system of this magnitude. Over the past few years, the federal government has put together a piecemeal system, which, while moving in the right direction, is not enough to protect the food supply. The better way to reap the benefits of pharmaceutical crops is to stop the use of food crops now and begin to explore other production methods, like non-food crops or plant cell cultures.
"Consumers and food companies alike will not accept a system that allows drugs to seep into the food supply-even at very low levels," said Dr. Jane Rissler, Deputy Director of UCS's Food and Environment Program. "But alternatives will not emerge overnight. That's why the USDA must embark immediately on a major campaign to encourage and fund alternatives to the outdoor use of food and feed crops in pharmaceutical and industrial crop production."
The technical report was written by scientists at Iowa Sate University, University of Central Florida, University of California at Davis, University of Illinois, and University of Minnesota, and an agricultural management expert based in Hudson, Iowa. An introduction to the technical report and UCS conclusions and recommendations were written by Drs. Mellon and Rissler. The technical report and UCS conclusions and recommendations are being released today as one document, A Growing Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops.
A Growing Concern can be found on the web at www.ucsusa.org. Formed in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, UCS is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.
|
|
|
7 December 2004. Peer-reviewed scientific paper debunks myth that GM crops are thoroughly tested, regulated and proven safe.
In a peer-reviewed scientific paper called Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods authors Dr. David Schubert (cell biologist and medical researcher at California's Salk Institute) and William Freese (research analyst with Friends of the Earth U.S.) base their meticulously documented, 25-page paper on nearly 100 sources, including little-known U.S. regulatory documents and unpublished studies by biotech companies. This paper reveals fundamental flaws in how biotech companies test and the U.S. government regulates GM crops. The paper thus raises serious questions about whether GM foods, which have been on the market since 1994, are in fact safe, as claimed by the biotech industry and U.S. regulators. Press release. The full paper was published on 23 November 2004 in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, volume 21, available from Intercept Limited, P.O. box 716, Andover, Hants SP10 1YG, UK; tel + 44 (0) 1264 334 748, fax + 44 (0) 1264 334 058; e-mail: intercept@andover.co.uk; web: www.intercept.co.uk/gb/index.html.
|
|
|
7 December 2004. Will Bertie give us a GMO time bomb for Christmas?
Dáil urged to block new GMO animal feed
The GM-free Ireland Network has issued an urgent warning to the Government to block the release of a new type of GMO animal feed due for a EU Council of Ministers vote in Brussels on 20 December.
At a joint briefing of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Development on 24 November 2004, the GM-free Ireland Network, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association and Friends of the Earth Ireland asked the Government to vote against the placing on the market of the first living genetically modified (GM) animal feed (Monsanto's patented GT73 oilseed rape seeds), because these GMO seeds would inevitably contaminate all Irish farmers, create an epidemic of Roundup-resistant Superweeds, increase the use of weedkillers, and threaten consumer health.
Monsanto's GT73 is different and far more dangerous than other GM animal feeds because it is a living GMO seed which sprouts easily and grows rapidly. If Ireland and/or the UK supports the Council of Ministers effort to allow it on the market this Christmas, millions of GMO seeds could soon be shipped here, unloaded in harbours, and transported by rail and road to animal feed processing centres around the country. The inevitable spillage along the way would thus result in the de facto release of GM oilseed rape crops without the required government authorisation or the consent of the affected farmers and consumers.
Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, whom Monsanto sued for a million dollars after its GM oilseed rape contaminated his farm, said: "Farmers in Ireland should look at GM crops very closely. Don't allow it in, because once you do there is no calling it back. I guarantee you if you introduce it today and I come back four or five years from now, it will be all over your country!"
Speaking on behalf of the 20,000-plus members of the GM-free Ireland Network, Michael O'Callaghan said "Ireland's GM policy is a national security issue because GMOs released into the environment can never be recalled. Any decision to allow the environmental release of patented GMOs on this island would (a) rob farmers of the right to plant their own seeds, (b) have irreversible impacts on farming income, food exports, biodiversity, food safety, public health, and consumer choice, and (c) compromise Ireland's famous image as Europe's clean green food island. Government sovereignty derives from the duty to protect its citizens. The time has come for this Government to stop placing the vested interests of biotech corporations and the US government above our national security. Future generations will hold you accountable."
Michael O'Callaghan said he hopes the IFA and the ICMSA will join the other farming groups in calling for the Government to vote NO on the proposal to legalise Monsanto's GT73 oilseed rape at the Council of Ministers meeting scheduled for 20 December 2004.
For details see Press release and Oireachtas briefing (876k PDF file).
|
|
|
29 November 2004. Ireland fails to vote on EC proposal to repeal GM crop bans
Under pressure from the World Trade Organisation, the European Commission requested the EU Member States 2001/18 Regulatory Committee to vote on 29 November 2004 on a proposal to repeal eight national GMO bans or restrictions put in place by Austria, France, Greece, Germany and Luxembourg to protect their citizens from the health and environmental risks of GM crops. (See details below.)
These restrictions were introduced under the safeguard clause (Article 16) of the old deliberate release Directive 90/220/EEC. They form the core of the WTO GM trade dispute initiated by the USA, Canada and Argentina against the EU in 2003. If the WTO and the Commission get their way, these countries will be forced to lift their bans and allow more risky GM products into their markets against the wishes of their citizens. (This vote did not apply to various other GM foods banned in Italy using the Safeguard Clause of EC regulation 258/97 on food.) The table below shows how each country voted.
Ireland abstained from voting, thus contributing to the lack of a qualified majority to reject the Commission's proposal to repeal the bans. See results of vote.
As a result, it is almost certain that the Commission will ask the EU Council of Ministers (Environment) to vote. If the Council of Ministers also fails to support or reject the proposal, the door will be open for the Commission to start lengthy legal proceedings against the various Member States. Whether the new Commission will start its term with such an unpopular move, and risk facing an even bigger backlash against GM foods, remains to be seen.
|
|
|
22 November 2004. IUCN calls to end release of GMOs
Members of IUCN - World Conservation Union (the world's largest conservation organization) today called for a halt to the release of genetically modified organisms. Meeting in Bangkok, 4,000 delegates from 1,000 organizations at the IUCN World Conservation Congress debated whether the IUCN should encourage a moratorium on genetically modified organisms, or help establish a sound body of knowledge on their environmental risks and impacts. At the Members Business Assembly today, delegates from both the government and the NGO sectors approved a moratorium by a wide margin. The resolution was adopted with 84 votes of State Members in favour of it, 48 against and 12 not taking a position. Amongst the NGO Members, 219 voted in favour of the resolution, 22 against and 59 abstained. Each State Member has three votes, NGO Members have one.]
Press release and full text of resolution
|
|
|
6 November 2004. Brussels says "no member state can prohibit GM crops"
GM-free Ireland is flabbergasted by the Irish Independent article of 6 November which states:
|
|
IRELAND will not be able to ban growing genetically modified (GM) crops within its boundaries, the EU Commission has warned.
Macra na Feirme President Thomas Honner said it had been made clear to them in Brussels that no member state could ban GM crops and as certain crops had now been approved for use, they could be grown anywhere in the EU.
EU Commission official Gijs Berends, with responsibility for GM foods, made it clear that member states could not decide to prohibit the growing of commission-approved products.
"The only set of circumstances in which the Irish government could block the growing of GM products was if Ireland uncovered new scientific evidence questioning the products' safety and even this would be temporary until the Commission examined any such evidence," said Mr Honner.
A Department of Agriculture spokesman said they expected guidelines for GM crops being prepared by an inter-departmental agency would be ready soon.
|
To our knowledge, no existing EU law either specifically allows or prohibits the setting up of GM-free zones. We therefore expect that Gijst Berend's claim will cause uproar across Europe, where regional governments and local authorities have already declared thousands of GMO free zones in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. These include 13 entire regions such as Wales, Tuscany, Piedmonte, Upper Austria and the whole of Greece, which are currently lobbying for a European legal framework for coexistence between traditional and transgenic crops, as well as the legal recognition of GMO-free zones and regions in Europe (see below).
What you can do: please join the GM-free Ireland Network (free of charge) now to support our work to keep Ireland GM-free, and call Michael O'Callaghan on (0404) 43 885 for information on further action.
|
|
|
4 November 2004. EU Commission asked to vote against national GMO bans
EU Commission Pushes to end National Safeguard Measures
Acting under the pressure from the WTO, the European Commission intends to ask all EU Member States to vote against the eight national GMO bans or restrictions that Austria, France, Greece, Germany and Luxembourg put in place over the past seven years to protect their citizens from the health and environmental risks of GM crops. [See heading under 29 November 2004 above for outcome, and results of vote.]
The restrictions were all introduced under the safeguard clause (Article 16) of the old deliberate release Directive 90/220/EEC.
They are the centrepiece of the WTO GM trade dispute initiated against the EU by the USA, Canada and Argentina last year.
Official sources warn that the Commission proposals to end the restrictions will be put to the 2001/18 Regulatory Committee vote on the 29th November, although this could possibly get postponed to a later date. If the European Commission gets its way, these five countries will have to lift their bans and allow more risky GM products into their countries. A pro-biotech decision would also send a signal worldwide to other countries not to ban GM crops.
If the Member States fail to reach a qualified majority in voting to either support or reject the Commission's proposal, it is almost certain that the Commission will ask the EU Council of Ministers (Environment) to vote. If the Council also fails to support or reject the proposal, the door is open for the Commission to start lengthy legal proceedings against the various Member States. Whether the new Commission will start its term with such an unpopular move, and risk facing an even bigger backlash against GM foods, remains to be seen.
The following list shows the bans that have been implemented by countries using the GM environment regulations under Article 16 of 90/220:
|
|
Name of crop
|
Date of approval
|
Date of invocation of Article 16
|
Country
|
|
Syngenta Bt 176 Maize
|
23/01/1997
|
23/01/1997
|
Austria
|
|
Monsanto MON 810 Maize
|
22/04/1998
|
01/06/1999
|
Austria
|
|
Bayer T25 Maize
|
22/04/1998
|
08/05/ 2000
|
Austria
|
|
Bayer Topas 19/2 Oilseed rape
|
22/04/1998
|
20/11/1998
|
France
|
|
Bayer MS1xRf1 Oilseed rape
|
06/02/1996
|
20/11/1998
|
France
|
|
Syngenta Bt 176 Maize
|
23/01/1997
|
04/04/2000
|
Germany
|
|
Bayer Topas 19/2 Oilseed rape
|
22/04/1998
|
03/11/1998
|
Greece
|
|
Syngenta Bt 176 Maize
|
23/01/1997
|
17/03/1997
|
Luxemburg
|
Other GM foods banned in Italy using the safeguard clause of
regulation 258/97 on food won't be voted on in November.
Stop Ireland from backing down on GM food under WTO presssure:
Please write to Environment Minister Dick Roche today demanding that he vote NO! on the European Commission proposals to end national bans on risky GM food and crops!
Please email him at www.bite-back.org.
|
|
|
4 November 2004. Petition to support French GM-free farmers
GM Free Cymru.
On July 25th 2004, 1,500 activists led by José Bové and members of Confederation Paysanne Europe (CPE), removed a trial crop of GM maize at Levignac, near Toulouse, France.
On 14th August, CPE and 160 farmers and
activists removed another GM maize crop.
On 5th September, 600 farmers and
activists, including women and children were teargassed by gendarmes and
helicopters as they attempted to decontaminate another field in the village
of Solomiac in the Gers region.
Nine campaigners, including José Bové, are due to appear in court on November 8th and yet more people at a later date.
CPE are calling on farmers,
campaigners and food organisations worldwide to send statements of support by
6th November.
If you want to help, please sign the following petition:
|
|
PETITION
"We unite behind the actions of French farmers, including Confederation
Paysanne Europe, in support of the destruction of GM crops this summer to
safeguard our environmental and farming futures "
NAME:
Food/Farming Org (if relevant):
Address / email:
Telephone (optional):
|
To sign on to this statement of support
either copy and email the petition (with your details added) to ger.miles@i12.com
or print it out and post or fax it to:
|
|
Fax: + 44 1348 831244
Gerald Miles,
Caerhys Organic Farm,
Berea, St. David's,
Pembrokeshire, Wales SA62 6DX
UK
|
Thank you!
|
|
|
20 September 2004. Wind carries GM pollen record distances
NewScientist.com news service.
Pollen from a genetically modified grass has blown on the wind and pollinated other grasses up to 21 kilometres away, says a new study. This distance is "much further than previously measured", say the authors, and is thought to be a record for any GM pollen.
The discovery comes as regulators decide whether to allow the planting of the GM creeping bentgrass on golf course putting greens across the US.
Scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) focused on fields that have been growing GM varieties of creeping bentgrass near Madras in central Oregon, US, for two years. The experimental grasses are genetically modified to resist popular herbicides, such as Roundup.
Lidia Watrud and colleagues from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, collected seeds from wild grasses growing tens of kilometres around the experimental plots.
They then grew the seeds in greenhouses and tested the growing grasses for transgenes and resistance to Roundup, which would reveal cross-pollination with the GM bentgrass.
Extensive contamination
Watrud's team found extensive gene contamination within 2 km downwind of the experimental plots. But some pollen went much further. Contaminated grass seeds turned up across 310 square km, with the most distant find 21 km from the source.
Only a handful of studies have ever investigated gene flow from crops - GM or otherwise - at distances greater than a few hundred metres. Studies have found radish and sunflower genes travelling 1 km, marrow (or squash) genes travelling 1.3 km and oil-seed rape (or canola) genes travelling up to 3 km.
But the suspicion is that pollen from many crops could travel hundreds of kilometres on the winds.
"To my knowledge, this is the longest distance reported for GM pollen dispersal," says David Quist, whose research into the genetic spread of GM maize in Mexico caused a row after its publication in Nature in June 2002.
Creeping bentgrass is a favourite of golf course managers, who say it provides a uniquely smooth surface for putting greens. But weeds can interrupt the smoothness, so course managers want a grass that is resistant to the herbicides that kill the weeds.
Wild-land invasion
GM creeping bentgrass has exactly that characteristic and has been tested in Oregon by seed company Scotts, of Marysville, Ohio, which collaborated on the EPA study.
But the findings now threaten to derail a bid from Scotts for government permission to sell the product to golf courses and more widely. Their efforts have been held up by government agencies who fear that the GM putting-green grass could invade the country's wild lands.
Creeping bentgrass grows naturally in many habitats and cross-pollinates with other grasses of the Agrostis genus. "It is one of the first wind-pollinated transgenic crops being developed for commercial use," says Watrud.
Gina Ramos of the Bureau of Land Management says: "Our concern is that if it was to escape onto public land, we wouldn't know how to control it."
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0405154101)
Fred Pearce
|
|
|
14 September 2004. Problems on the farm with GM Roundup Ready maize
A UK Farmers Weekly article by US correspondent Alan Guerbert (republished in full in our 14 September GM news headlines confirms that:
1. US farmers like Roundup Ready (RR) GM crops because they enabled them to have completely weed-free fields (although not any more as will be seen from the article).
2. In order to achieve this they have generally had to spray their fields twice with glyphosate (not once as originally hoped).
3. Roundup resistant volunteer corn (maize) is turning up in fields growing RR soya beans with the result that spraying the RR beans with glyphosate doesn't kill all the weeds anymore - the RR corn volunteers remain (other weeds are also starting to develop resistance to glyphosate in RR systems).
4. It would appear that farmers who are finding RR corn volunteers in their follow-on RR soya crops include those who have never grown RR corn - in other words when they buy and plant conventional corn seed they find that it is contaminated with RR corn.
The high take-up of RR crops in the US has been driven in large part by the obsession that many American farmers and landowners have with wanting to remove every last weed, even when there is no economic benefit from achieving total weed control (irrespective of the weed control system a certain level of weed presence can be tolerated before there is any impact on economic performance).
Now, however, the situation is starting to go full circle with the technology creating a new generation of unwelcome herbicide resistant volunteer weeds.
For more on the general failure of GM crops to provide US farmers with measurable improvements in economic returns despite their widespread uptake see USDA report May 2002 The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops.
|
|
|
8 September 2004 deadline for EC Proposal on GM Seed Contamination
With thanks to Benedikt Härlin, Save Our Seeds www.saveourseeds.org.
This is an urgent update about the European Commission's plans to allow for
unlabelled contamination of conventional and organic seeds with genetically
modified varieties. We count once more on your swift and active support as
there is an immediate threat that seed contamination thresholds will be
established by the Commission on September 8th.
EU-Brussels these days is in transition: A new European Commission has been
named by its new President JosÈ Manuel Durao Barroso, which will take over
on November 1st. Until then the old Commission under President Romano Prodi
is still in power. Some Commissioners will leave, others will take over new
responsibilities. The newly elected European Parliament will hold hearings
to interview the new Commissioners, before it will vote on their approval.
In this situation Margot Wallström, the outgoing Commissioner for
Environment on September 8th will propose to the old Commission a draft
"Commission decision establishing minimum thresholds for adventitious or
technically unavoidable traces of genetically modified seeds in other
products", which sets thresholds for unlabelled GM contamination of seeds at
0,3% for maize and oilseed rape. If adopted, only a 2/3 majority of the
Council of Ministers could stop this proposal from entering into force under
the legal "comitology" procedure chosen by the Commission.
Save our Seeds (www.saveourseeds.org) demands conventional and organic seeds to stay
free of GMOs and any presence of GMOs to be labelled at the practical
detection level (0.1%). This position is supported by hundreds of thousands
European Citizens, by over 300 organisations with more than 25 million
members as well as the European Parliament and many Member States. Only
recently the Danish Minister of Agriculture, Else Mariann Fischer Boel,
introduced her countries demand to establish GMO labelling in seeds at 0.1%
in the Council of Agricultural Ministers. As of November Mrs. Boel will be
the new EU-Commissioner for Agriculture.
Contamination thresholds as proposed by Mrs. Wallström would be an
introduction of GMOs in all seeds and food against the will of consumers and
farmers. It would make non-GM farming most difficult and would massively
increase the costs of farming and of non-GM products. It would also render
control and monitoring of GMO releases into the environment practically
impossible and induce widespread and uncontrolled GM contamination
throughout Europe.
For nearly three years now the Commission could not enact a regulation of GM
seed contamination. Resistance from civil society and objections of the
European Parliament and Member States have prevented such legislation
repeatedly. Now, in their last days, the outgoing Commissioners should not
try to sneak such a fundamental and highly contentious piece of legislation
through the present vacuum of political power in Brussels. It should be up
to the new Commission to present a coherent and well founded proposal, based
on a broad agreement in European society and on sound scientific and
economic assessments of it's implications on the environment, on farmers and
food producers and last not least on the consumers in Europe.
Please act now!
Please send faxes and letters to the key Commissioners responsible,
and especially to their President, Romano Prodi to let the Commissioners
know that society is following their plans and does not approve this attempt
to introduce fundamental and highly contentious legislation in their last
days. We also believe that the European Parliament, which will interview the
new Commissioners over the next weeks before voting on their approval,
should raise this issue of GM seed contamination and the way Mrs. Wallstr–m,
who is a designated Vice-President of the new Commission, handles this.
Despite massive lobby efforts of international agro-business and the US
mission to the EU, a clear majority of European citizens wants pure, non-GM
seeds and must not be ignored.
Please read the details below and write a letter to the EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner David Byrne (he is the only current Commissioner who comes from Ireland and he is a pro-GM hardliner), as well as to your local TD and to the press. This is very urgent. If the Commissioners do decide to contaminate all seeds then the proposal will go to a regulatory committee for members states to vote on (we would need a qualified majority (QMV) to reject it - this is probably unrealistic). If there is no QMV in favour or against then it will go to a Council of Ministers meeting where the same result is likely. If this is the case it will go back to the Commission to approve it. So stopping or delaying it now is vital. Please write as soon as possible and encourage others to do so too.
We trust in your continued support and are confident that together we will
ultimately save our seeds!
Situation:
The old Commission will have the proposal for GM thresholds in Seeds on the
agenda on September 8th as proposed by DG Environment: An 0.3% threshold
both for maize and rape seed will be proposed. No other species will be
included, despite demands of DG Sanco to also include others as set out in
the Annex of the last draft available Still the precedence would be set.
Only voluntary declarations below the thresholds could be allowed by Ireland and other
member states.
Whether the College of Commissioners will actually adopt this proposal
depends on:
|
|
1. |
The level and type of publicity the possible decision will get before the
meeting;
|
|
2. |
Agreement or disagreement of the new Commissioners in charge: if they
speak out against such a solution the old Commission would have a hard
time to still adopt it;
|
|
3. |
The prominence the issue will get in the questions of the Parliament to
the new Commissioners;
|
|
4. |
Eventually some procedural delay tactics and the way the old Presidency
will play the game (with due respect for Prodi's future plans);
|
|
5. |
Ultimately a majority in favour of the proposal, i.e. the level of
disagreement between the Commissioners.
Obviously the level of interest and attention of the old Commissioners is
decreasing. Wallström, the only one to stay in the Commission (Byrne and
Fischler to leave), will have to match her new role as the Vice-President in
charge of the relations with the Parliament. This may be important as the
Seed Directive is a clear case where the Parliament has demanded
participation and the Commission denied it so far (Comitology procedure) and
did not follow the opinion of the Parliament's initiative report.
The main justification for the Commissions last minute attempt is that the
thresholds in seeds for already approved varieties had no legal reference
and are interpreted differently by the member states. Therefore
harmonisation was a practical imperative. This is a peculiar interpretation
of the situation under Directive 2001/18, which clearly states that
thresholds can be established, but does not foresee any thresholds for
seeds at this moment. The obvious conclusion would rather be that as long as
there are no thresholds no GM contamination of seeds is actually legal.
There seems to be still a fair chance to prevent the proposal from being
adopted on September 8th.
What to do until September 8th:
|
|
1. |
The European Parliament should pose hard questions to the new
Commissioners with respect to the Seed thresholds within the present
interrogation-phase (deadline for written questions to the Commissioners is
Sept 3, for their responses Sept 15, hearings in the Committees will then
start September 27). MEPs should be alerted to submit questions to the
Commissioners in charge at present and in the future. Some initial
suggestions below.
|
|
2. |
The whole community of farmers, environmental, consumer, trade union etc.
organisations should intervene once more towards the key Commissioners to
stop them from adopting the proposed thresholds (Some additional lobby
arguments below) before September 8th.
Key targets: Prodi, Dimas, Kyprianou, Boel, Fischler;
|
|
3. |
Fax and phone activities from activists would help, especially from Italy
to Prodi.
|
|
4. |
Press work needs to be done now in the run-up to September 8th. A press conference is planned on the 6th or 7th (contact: Eric Gall). But also individual phone calls to the more knowledgable press would be helpful
(European Voice is preparing a special GM issue).
Apart from the press in Brussels the press in Italy (Prodi), Austria
(Fischler), Denmark (Boel) and in the UK (general reference) would be
especially helpful.
|
|
5. |
Any meetings with Commissioners cabinets, especially accession
Commissioners and most of all Dimas and Kyprianou would be most helpful.
|
|
6. |
Finally ask appropriate national governments (Austria, Lux, Germany, DK)
to submit their reservations, especially legal concerns, about the proposal.
|
Lobby arguments:
In addition to the general arguments against the Seed Directive these
arguments may be useful:
|
|
|
1. |
The present proposal is the minimum common denominator between the
outgoing Commissioners in charge (Wallstr–m, Fischler and Byrne) and largely
the result of multiple disagreements between them. Obviously this is no
solid basis for a comprehensive policy on the issue and especially not an
integrated approach to co-existence and traceability.
|
|
2. |
There are still massive legal concerns about the concept of allowing
uncontrolled and unmonitored deliberate releases through the seed
thresholds.
|
|
3. |
Thresholds for seed contamination must be put in the context of
co-existence and are the Commissions main outstanding contribution to this
issue. There is no defence for such high thresholds in this context and the
economic impacts would be massive, as recently confirmed in a hearing of the
EcoSoc. (documents see www.zs-l.de/coexistence, the evidence of Syngenta there is especially helpful as it actually confirms the feasibility of 0.1%)
|
|
4. |
The old Commission should leave such pivotal decisions to the new
Commissioners and the new Commission should take into account the member
states and Parliaments opinion, the Economic and Social Affairs Committees
pending opinion as well as new research on co-existence to be presented by
the Joint Research Centre in October / November.
|
|
5. |
There is no need to hasten this Directive through before the next
planting period as there will be no substantial planting of GMOs in 2005
anyway, and also because of the recent (August 2004) WTO ruling that it will require scientific advice in making its decision about the GM dispute filed against the EU by the USA, Canada and Argentina (a scientific advisory panel is to be appointed which will delay the process for many months, making it unlikely that a final WTO decision will be made before spring 2005 at the earliest).
|
|
6. |
There is actually a clear legal reference on the acceptable levels of
seed contamination in Directive 2001/18, which is that there are no
thresholds. Industry has complied with these measures over the past couple
of years and should well be able to do so in 2005.
|
Available documents:
Last available proposal of the Commission
www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/com_draft_seeds_04_2004.pdf.
Letters to Wallstr–m / Commission:
General letter for public use
www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/letter_wallstroem_seeds.rtf.
Open letter of 60 farmers organisations letter to Fischler & Prodi:
www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/letter_farmers_16.07.pdf.
Open Letter of EFFAT, European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism
Trade Unions
http://www.saveourseeds.org/downloads/EFFAT_IUF_07_04.pdf.
Ten Arguments for clean Seeds
http://www.saveourseeds.org/Download_Centre/Ten%20arguments%20for%20clean%20".
seeds.rtf
Documentation of the Economic and Social Affairs Committee hearing on
co-existence in Brussels, July
"www.zs-l.de/coexistence.
Overview on the new Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/newcomm_en.htm.
Overview on the old Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/index_en.htm.
More stuff including, official EU documents, national documents, download
centre, SOS-Petition etc.
http://www.saveourseeds.org/en/frame.php?page=sos_documents.
|
|
|
EU Commission rejects Greens' criticism of 'undemocratic' GM authorisations.
Cordis News, 27 July 2004. The EU Commission has rejected concerns expressed by the Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament that the EU's authorisation process for genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) is 'incompatible with the democratic ideals that
the Union seeks to promote.'
Under the current system, known as the comitology procedure, if the Council
fails to reach a qualified majority decision to either approve or reject a GM
authorisation request within three months, it is then left to the Commission
to take a decision.
As in the most recent authorisation cases, concerning two different varieties
of GM maize, the Commission's decision draws heavily on scientific
assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority. In both these
cases EFSA concluded that the GM maize varieties were as safe as conventional
sweetcorn, and the Commission duly approved the authorisations.
According to the Green/EFA Group, the fourth largest political grouping in the
newly elected parliament, only nine out of 25 EU Member States are in favour
of granting marketing licences for new GMOs, and more than 70 per cent of
Europe's citizens are opposed to GM food.
In letters sent to the new President designate of the Commission, JosÈ
Barroso, and President of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, the Greens
argue that: '[T]he Commission has lifted Europe's moratorium on GMOs and has
so far approved each new request to market GMOs in the EU that it has
received.'
'The fact that the Commission can make such decisions in the absence of
Council agreement and without the backing of the Parliament is incompatible
with the democratic ideals promoted by the Union,' the letters continue.
However, a spokesperson for Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner David
Byrne rejected the argument that the comitology procedure is undemocratic,
and told CORDIS News: 'This is not the first time we've heard that argument -
it's not true, simple as that. The legislative process being used is set out
in the Treaty, and was adopted by Parliament and Council in full awareness of
the consequences.'
In their letter to Mr Barroso, the Greens 'plead strongly' with him to revise
the comitology procedures in order to make them more democratic, including a
significant political role for the European Parliament. However, Mr Byrne's
spokesperson said: 'You cannot have every technical decision going through a
two year codecision procedure. The decision making process would grind to a
halt.'
For further information, please visit
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/index_en.htm
|
|
|
EU Commissioner David Byrne in favour of GM seed contamination • 14 July
EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Davd Byrne is doing his utmost to allow up to 0.5% GM contamination of non-GM-labelled agricultural seeds sold in the European Union, despite widespread opposition from environmental organisations and conventional and organic farming groups. These GM seed contamination thresholds are intended to ensure that GM contamination in non-GM food stays below the general 0.9% GM food labelling threshold. But the Commission is planning to adopt proposals allowing up to 0.3% GM varieties in non-GM oilseed rape and maize, and 0.5% for sugar/fodder beet, potatoes and cotton. These high seed contamination thresholds seriously threaten the future of GM-free organic and non-organic food in Europe. In addition, Ireland and the Netherlands are the only EU countries known to support high contamination thresholds. The UK Soil Association has asked the GM-free Ireland Network and other concerned stakeholders to publicise and lobby against the proposed high GM contamiation threshold, by writing to Commissioner David Bryne and to the Irish Government asking them to reject the current proposals in favour of new proposals with a 0.1% threshold. See the related letter sent to the EC by the European Regional Group of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in March 2004, and the Save Our Seeds web site at www.saveourseeds.org. If you want to take action and/or need more information on this issue (including scientific arguments against the high thresholds), please contact GM-free Ireland at this address.
|
|
|
Jeffrey Smith on BBC World Service Saturday 10 and Sunday 11 July
US author Jeffrey Smith will speak on a GM science panel with Michael Meacher, Ian Gibson and John Taylor on BBC World Service at 2.30 pm Sat. 10 July and at 4.30 pm on Sun. 11 July.
|
|
|
Seeds of Deception author Jeffrey Smith on Ireland AM show Wednesday 7 July
US author Jeffrey Smith will speak about the health dangers of GM foods and the efforts by industry and governments to hide those dangers on the Ireland AM TV show at 7.am on TV3 tomorrow morning.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the international biotech bestseller Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Food. He presented his documented evidence to Chefs, regulators, and the press, this past Sunday at Ireland's National Future of Food Forum chaired by Nobel Laureate John Hume at Brook Lodge in Macreddin, Co. Wicklow. According to Smith, scientists were offered bribes or threatened; evidence was stolen; data was withheld or distorted; government scientists who complained were threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or fired, and the United States Food and Drug Administration withheld information from Congress after a GM food supplement killed about a hundred people and caused between five and ten thousand people to fall sick. See press release.
|
|
|
Mary Harney appoints GM lobbyist as Ireland's first Chief Scientific Officer
On 24 June 2004, Tánaiste Mary Harney appointed Dr. Barry McSeeney as Ireland's first Chief Scientific Officer. Dr. McSweeney is about to retire from his post as director general of the European Union Joint Research Centre (JRC) - www.jrc.cec.eu.int. In 2002, Greenpeace accused Dr. McSweeney of trying to suppress the EU Joint Research Centre's own report on coexistence of GM and conventional crops which found that GM varieties will inevitably contaminate conventional and organic crops and cause higher production costs (up to 40% for oilseed rape) for EU farmers (download this report as a (PDF file). Prior to that he was CEO of BioResearch Ireland and Director of Biocon Biochemicals.
This week (June 22-24) McSweeney, the head of Monsanto Africa and other pro-GM people spoke at the BioIreland 2004 - Stepping Stones to Success conference at the University of Coleraine, whose sponsors included Enterprise Ireland, the Irish Bioindustry Association, Science Foundation Ireland, IBEC / CBI Joint Business Council, Queens University Belfast, Invest Northern Ireland, Intertrade Ireland, and the University of Ulster. (Conference brochure: www.bioireland2004.com/brochure.pdf).
|
|
|
John Hume to chair discussion with GM experts on 4 July
Nobel Peace Laureate John Hume will chair the Future of Food forum with internationally renowned geneticist & biophysics professor Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Seeds of Deception author Jeffrey M. Smith on Sunday 4 July. The forum is part of the Day of Food Excellence organised by Euro-Toques Ireland along with a food show and fair on Sunday 4th July at Brook Lodge, Macreddin Village, Co. Wicklow. For bookings please call Euro-Toques on (01) 677 9995 or visit their web site at
www.eurotoquesirl.org.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is the Director of the Institute of Science in Society (www.i-sis.org.uk), co-founder of the International Science Panel on GM, a member of the Roster of Experts for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Scientific Advisor to the Third World Network, visiting Professor of Biophysics at the University of Catania (Sicily), Senior Research Fellow at the Open University, and author of The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World (see our review on the home page of this web site or download here).
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: exposing corporate and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered food (see our review).
Other speakers include Alan Dukes (former Minister for Agriculture and current chairman of Agri-Vision 2015), and Robert Cook (representing the International Society for Ecology and Culture - www.isec.org.uk).
|
|
|
Forging a GM Policy for Ireland conference postponed to mid October
This conference has been rescheduled from the weekend of 19-20 June to mid October 2004.
|
|
|
The first US submission to the WTO dispute panel on GMOs
Background note published by GeneWatch UK:
On 21st April 2004, the USA made its first submission to the WTO's dispute panel in its case challenging Europe over its moratorium on commercial GM food and crop approvals which the European Union introduced in 1998. Canada and Argentina are also bringing the case against Europe. These three countries are the largest producers of GM crops and have the most to lose from restrictions on trade in GM crops, and they are claiming that Europe's approach discriminates against them unfairly. They have made their challenge at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the outcome of the case will not only have impacts on Europe, but also on whether other countries can regulate GM crops and foods as they see fit .
This background note explains and examines the US case. There are two clear messages that emerge from the 118 page document:
* The US has no interest in the wishes of European people to introduce improved rules protecting human health and the environment and to provide choice whether or not to eat GM foods and grow GM crops. As such, it illustrates how the US simply wants to bully countries into accepting the technology on terms favourable to the biotech industry and US farmers.
* Whilst stating that Europe had no scientific justification for its moratorium, the legal argument is not based on the substantive issues surrounding safety and choice, but on whether Europe followed proper procedures. In effect, the US is using technicalities to push its agenda forward.
The challenges for the WTO as it arbitrates in the case are enormous. As an institution already suffering from a lack of credibility, will it bow to the self-interested bullying of the US based on whether correct procedures were followed, or will it recognise that Europe and all other countries should be able to introduce measures to handle GM crops and foods as they feel fit? Will the WTO recognise that these can take time and rightly involve negotiation and respect for the public's views?
Complete details are available on the GeneWatch UK web site at www.genewatch.org/WTO.
|
|
|
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Corporate and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Food
This is a new book by Jeffrey M. Smith, with a foreword by Michael Meacher, published by Green Books in the UK (tel + 44 (0)1 803 863 260, email: sales@greenbooks.co.uk, website: www.greenbooks.co.uk). The Soil Association says: "We believe that it is a really important book as it documents the corruption and manipulation of science behind the approval of GMOs (with, for example, the actual story of Arpad Pusztai and Monsanto's GM BST milk boosting hormone). It also describes in detail the many safety problems of genetic engineering and some dramatic examples of apparent health effects (animal feeding trials, the horrors of the thousands who reacted to the GM supplement L-trytophan, and the many stories of animals avoiding GM feed from around America). I have already read the first 150 pages and, although the themes are familiar, I found much important information that I didn't know and which should modify people's conclusions. It really needs to be read by everyone involved in decision-making."
The book's foreword by former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher states:
This is a brilliant book which combines shrewd dissection of the true
nature of GM technology, a devastating critique of the health and
environmental hazards of GM crops, and scarifying examples of the
manipulation of both science and the media by the biotech industry.
Despite the British Government's GM Nation Debate in mid-2003, the
level of understanding of GM remains alarmingly low in the UK. This
book should be compulsory reading, not only for the general public, but
even more so for the decision-makers who have never been exposed to
systematic analysis of the problems created by GM.
What is so exciting about this book is that it is no dry text of
scientific exegesis-it positively fizzes with the human drama of the
cabals and conspiracies behind the scenes which have littered the
history of Big Biotech in its frantic efforts to get itself accepted.
It is meticulously documented and powerfully written, somewhere between
a documentary and a thriller.
It reveals above all that GM is not some arcane issue about science or
technology-it is ultimately about power. There are no consumer benefits
from GM crops, the alleged benefits to farmers are deeply disputed,
environmental and health testing has never been carried out, non-GM
farmers are being put seriously at risk. So why is GM being pressed at
all? The answer, set out painstakingly and frighteningly in this book,
tells us a great deal about how power is exercised today-funding
political parties and key individuals, networking around
opinion-formers and decision-makers, and fixing strategic job swaps
between the biotech industry and Government. And this is not just
conjecture; plenty of examples are given which illustrate how secretive
and malign these influences are.
The main area of cover-up is undoubtedly the GM effects on health. It
is a staggering fact that there have been virtually no clinical or
biochemical tests of the impacts of eating GM foods on human health.
Jeffrey Smith sets out, like a detective story, the unravelling of the
L-tryptophan fiasco, the StarLink maize allergy mishap, and the
cauliflower mosaic virus promoter hazard, as well as a host of other
health risks, both predicted and unpredictable.
But the kernel of the book is the commercialization of politics and
the politicization of science. For those who still believe the
constitutional fantasy that governments act in accordance with their
manifesto in the general interests of society, this book will come as a
shocker. The exercise of power today is much more hard-nosed and
ruthless, and the power-brokers are not the electorate, but Big
Business. As a case study of this suborning of democratic
accountability, Jeffrey Smith's account is an eye-opener. But most of
all it is a call to arms, not only to prevent the contamination of the
nation's food supply, but even more to tackle the poisoning of the
nation's decision-making system by the undercover wielding of economic
and financial muscle and PR manipulativeness of Big Biotech.
|
|
|
Ethics of Eating symposium on 24 March 2004
The Ethics of Eating is a conference co-organised by the Irish Council for Bioethics and the Royal Irish Academy. Held in Academy House, 19 Dawson Street on 24 March, the issues of obesity, the GM debate and the impact of first world policies on the developing world will be explored. Professor John Bryant of the University of Exeter will look at the notion of public trust and food with his talk entitled
'Food, facts and Frankenstein, the truth is out there - somewhere'. Nuala Ahern, MEP and Dr. Patrick O'Reilly, Director of Monsanto Ireland will then battle out the GM debate. Professor Patrick Wall and Professor Ivan Perry will investigate the global obesity epidemic and place it in the Irish context.
Mr. Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern and a member of the UN Task Force on hunger discusses 'The Ethics, Politics and Policies of World Hunger'. For details visit the RIA web site at www.ria.ie/events/ethics.htm
|
|
|
Eco-Eye covering GM foods at 7.30pm, Wednesday 11 February 2004
This broadcast of RTE's series Eco-Eye, hosted by Duncan Stewart, featured a segment on GM foods. Unfortunately there were 4 speakers in favour of GM and only one against. Professor David McConnell of TCD, Tom McLoughlin of the EPA and Pat O'Mahoney of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland argued in favour of the GM invasion. Dr. Liz Cullen of the Irish Doctors' Environmental Association (IDEA) gave her views on why Ireland should conserve its GM-free status. To encourage Eco-Eye to give more balanced coverage of the issue in future broadcasts, please call their production office on (01) 662 1082.
|
|
|
GM debate on GRIFS-FM radio in Dublin at 2pm on 13 February 2004
GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan will debate David McConnell (a Professor of Genetics at the Smurfit Institute, Trinity College Dublin) on the economic, environmental, health and security benefits of conserving Ireland's GM-free status. Professor McConnell is Ireland's leading advocate of GM technology, and is associated with the Irish Council for Science Technology and Innovation (ICSTI) which stated that GM antibiotic resistant marker genes in crops "are harmless", even though they are in fact so dangerous that they are illegal in the EU. The show airs live at 99.5 on the FM dial.
|
|
|
Forging a GM Policy for Ireland conference, 26 April 2004, Dublin
This conference aims to provide Irish policy makers, companies, and other stakeholders with an overview of the economic, environmental, health and security benefits of conserving Ireland's GM-free status. produced by Global Vision Consulting Ltd in collaboration with the European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering, the GM-free Ireland Network, Irish Organic Trading Ltd, and Sustainable Ireland. For details visit the conference web site at www.global-vision-consulting.com/conferences/GMpolicy.
|
|
|
GM-free Ireland picketed the Dáil at 11.30am on 10 December 2003
Farmers, businesses, and consumers will stage a peaceful citizens's picketed the Government at the entrance to the Dáil on Kildare Street at 11.30am on Wednesday 10 December to ask the Government to (1) nullify its vote in favour of the EU-wide legalisation of GM food at a meeting of the EU Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health on 8 December, (2) support the right of Irish County Councils, National Parks, municipalities, farms and other local areas to declare themselves GM-free, and (3) excersise Ireland's right under the Biosafety Protocol to declare the Republic a GM-free zone. Press contact: Michael O'Callaghan, tel 087 799 4761.
|
|
|
Political update from Friends of the Earth Europe • 26 November 2003
In May 2003 the US, Canada and Argentina have filed a legal
complaint at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), accusing the
European Union (EU) of blocking trade by restricting
genetically modified food and farming (GMOs), thus starting
the latest high-profile trade dispute. After a failed
consultation phase a panel has to be established, and this is
where the process is now. A first round of names for panelists
has been put on the table and rejected by all parties, not the
least because suggested panelists had a biotech business
background. If parties cannot agree on panelists, they will be
chosen by the WTO. Once the panelists have been chosen, they
will agree on a timetable. According to the secretive nature
of the WTO, names of the panelists as well as the agreed
timetable will not be made public. The European Commission
(EC) is already preparing their submission to the WTO panel,
but the whole case has been delayed, also by the shockwaves of
the collapsed Cancun WTO trade talks in September. It is more
than unclear when the panel will make its ruling on the GMO
trade dispute, but some say it won't be on the table before
end of 2004, possibly before the US presidential elections.
Meanwhile, the EC is planning to lift the GMO moratorium, as a
direct consequence of US pressure and in particular the GMO
trade dispute. The EC fear that they will lose the dispute
because of the national safeguard measures some countries have
put in place, including GMO free zones. The EC might soon send
a warning to the member states, demanding not to allow GMO
free zones. If the EC loses the dispute and EU member states
do not lift their restrictive measures on GMOs, the EU will
have to face heavy trade sanctions. The EC is very nervous
about this scenario as this will undermine in general the EU's
precautionary stance on GMOs. In addition, this would set a
bad precedent of WTO rules superseding multilateral
environmental agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on
biodiversity that explicitly allows governments to restrict
GMOs to protect its biodiversity (and is therfore in contrast
to WTO rules). For detailed briefing see:
www.foeeurope.org/biteback/download/trade_war_briefing.pdf
|
|
|
EU may vote to allow first GM imports on 10 or 12 November 2003
The European Union's unofficial five-year ban on most GM products is facing a key challenge with an upcoming test vote on authorising imports of genetically modified sweet corn. A first decision on a type of sweet corn - Bt-11 maize marketed by Swiss agrochemicals maker Syngenta - will probably be taken by representatives of the EU's 15 member states at a committee meeting on November 10 or December 12. If approved, the vote would effectively end Europe's GM moratorium, to the delight of Argentina, Canada and the United States which have taken the EU to the World Trade Organisation for refusing to authorise any new GM strains since 1998. A second GM product, the GA21 field corn made by U.S. agricultural technology company Monsanto, would be put to the committee for a vote in the first half of 2004. EU legislation on GMOs is highly complex, with different rules applying to seeds, food, feed, live GMOs for planting in fields, and GM ingredients in processed foods. Green groups were outraged by the Commission's probable next move, and said the committee's vote would be taken under outdated legislation that did not yet incorporate the EU's recent new rules on traceability and labelling. "The Commission's behaviour is disgraceful," said Adrian Bebb of international lobby group Friends of the Earth. "If the Commission gets its way, there is a big chance that these foods would get to the market unlabelled," he said in a statement. "The Commission is caving in to U.S. pressure and trying to ram through GM foods using outdated laws rather than protecting the interests of the public," he said in a statement. For details, see Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3749714
|
|
|
GM-free Ireland vs. Monsanto on East Coast FM radio • 10.15 am 20 October
GM-free Ireland co-ordinator Michael O'Callaghan was interviewed alongside Monsanto Ireland managing director Patrick O'Reilly on the Declan Meehan show on East Coast FM radio at 10.15 am on Monday 20 October. Tune in to 96.2 on your FM dial and phone 1 890 303 103 during the show to participate in the discussion.
|
|
|
Irish Council for Bioethics GM questionnaire
The Irish Council for Bioethics has established a working group to investigate ethical issues surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the medical, industrial and agricultural arenas, with particular reference to the Irish setting. The working group is chaired by Professor Peter Whittaker from the Institute of Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy at Lancaster University in the UK. The Council is conducting an online survey of public opinion on GM food and crops on its web page at www.bioethics.ie.
|
|
|
GM free zones allowed by European Commission
According to an article by Severin Carrell published in the UK's Independent on Sunday on 12 October 2003, farmers are to be allowed to set up voluntary "GM-free zones" in a major U-turn by the European Commission. EU Agriculture Ministers have already hinted that they could use the new power - which comes into force in November 2003 - because it would help them to head off intensifying public and political opposition to genetically modified crops. A series of damaging official reports on GM technology - including studies by Tony Blair's policy unit and chief scientist - has forced the UK Government to rethink plans to press ahead with GM crops. The pressure on ministers is mounting. More than 30 local councils, as well as the Welsh Assembly and the Lake District National Park Authority, have declared themselves GM-free. And a dozen councils are to ask the European Union to ban GM crops from being planted in their areas. Former UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher said the new EU policy was a "significant shift" and a "considerable advance" in official thinking.
Earlier this year, the Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler, rejected calls for exclusion zones to be set up. But late last month he told EU farming ministers in Brussels that he now favoured setting up voluntary zones. This would allow farmers, businesses and councils in an area to agree to declare themselves "GM-free", but they could also agree to set up "bio zones", where modified crops would be planted.
|
|
|
EC directive to contaminate seeds with GMOs
Save our seeds is an initiative supported by a broad range of organisations and coordinated by the Foundation on Future Farming in Berlin. A petition urging the European Commission to ensure strict purity standards for seeds has been signed already by over 70,000 citizens of the European Community and more than 300 organisations with a membership of over 25 million people in Europe [see www.saveourseeds.org], including IFOAM, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace and CPE.
The European Commission has presented a proposal for a GMO seed directive which would allow for the contamination of conventional seeds with GMOs up to certain thresholds [0.3% for oilseed rape, 0.5% for maize, potato, beet, tomato, chicoree and 0.7% for soya]. The 'Standing Committee on Seeds' is now expected to vote on it in the end of October and if it gets adopted it would actually only need to get the go ahead from the WTO before it would come into force without further consultation. This attempt to contaminate the seeds of the large majority of farmers who do not want to use GMOs is a scandal. It threatens consumers' choice as well as environmental safety and precaution. Very few citizens in Ireland are aware of this project and will most likely be surprised and concerned to hear that this Seed Directive would legalise the growing of billions of GMOs on the fields without farmers even knowing about it.
The case to keep seeds free of genetically modified varieties is neither won nor lost yet. But only the National Governments, who instruct their representatives in the Seed Committee, can now defend the purity of seeds and stop the Commission's proposal. There are roughly 3 weeks left to convince the Ministers in charge [agriculture in the first place] to instruct their representatives in the Standing Committee to reject the proposal and demand strict purity standards instead. The Irish government unfortunately so far takes a position in favour of the Commission proposal.
Time obviously is getting short so please spread the word on this issue, e.g. by putting up information and links on your website and by putting pressure on our politicians. For more background material, action ideas, online forum and country specific info, please visit the Save our Seeds web site at www.saveourseeds.org.
|
|
|
