|
|
Introduction
On 14 March 2007, all Irish and European MEPs would have voted on the controversial EU Biotech Resolution 2006/2059(INI) during a Plenary session of the European Parliament.
But there was so much opposition that the resolution was withdrawn on 12 March, to give more time for it to be re-drafted or abandoned (see press release).
This draft resolution, entitled Agriculture and Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe, was tabled by by Finnish MEP Kyosti Virrankoski on 6 November 2006.
Published in advance of the mid-term review of the EU Biotech Strategy scheduled for April 2007, the proposed resolution is replete with biotech industry bias and misinformation. It seeks to downgrade the status of the Precautionary Principle in EU law, to discredit the scientific evidence that GM crops do not perform as expected, to bolster the myth that GM crops will end world hunger, and to support giant agri-biotech corporations which want to seize control of European agricultural seeds through GMO crop patents.
On 29 November 2006, MEPs from political parties across the EU submitted 190 amendments to the draft text, amidst EU-wide calls for the Resolution to be withdrawn. These included numerous excellent amendments co-signed by Kathy Sinnott MEP which were not included in the final text.
But Mairead McGuinness MEP (Fine Gael candidate for the 2007 Irish General Election) submitted amendments to promote the release of dangerous GM pharmaceutical and industrial crops, and to weaken regulatory barriers to GM crops in Europe! Many of these are now in the final text.
On 7 December 2006, Irish MEPs Liam Aylward, Marian Harkin and Kathy Sinnott strongly criticised the resolution in a GM-free Ireland press release.
On 5 January 2007 the Irish Times reported that MEPs try to curb plan to promote GM crops.
|
|
What you can do:
Please contact your local MEP and request him or her to withdraw the resolution at the European Parliament plenary vote on 14 March 2007. You can quickly find your MEP's contact details at www.europarl.ie/meps/index.html.
Express your outrage to Mairead McGuinness MEP for her pro-GMO amendments, saying you will vote against her in the forthcoming General Election unless she votes to withdraw the resolution at the plenary session of the EU Parliament on 14 March. She can be reached in Ireland on (041) 685 4633, in Brussels on + 32 2 284 5214, or at mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu
Thank Kathy Sinnot MEP for the numerous positive amendments she submitted, even though none were included in the final text. She can be reached in Ireland on (021) 488 8793, in Brussels on + 32 2 284 5692, or at kathy.sinnott@europarl.europa.eu.
Congratulate Liam Aylward MEP for his plan to reject the resolution. He can be reached in Ireland on (056) 7768703 and (01) 607 2291, in Brussels on + 32 2 284 5782, or at liam.aylward@europarl.europa.eu
Also congratulate Marian Harkin MEP for her plan to reject the resolution. She can be reached in Ireland on (071) 914 5888 and (01) 607 2291, or at marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu
Time is of the essence
Please take action in the coming days to build up momentum before 14 March.
|
|
|
|
On 18 January 2007, GM free Ireland co-signed a letter by major European NGOs recommending which amendments for the Agri Commitee MEPs to support and reject. The letter, along with a concise briefing on the issue, calls for all MEPs to withdraw the resolution when it comes before the European Parliament in February 2007, and rejected many of the amendments proposed by Mairead McGuinness.
On 19 January, at a meeting with GM-free Ireland and representatives from Glenisk Ltd and the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association, Mairead McGuinness failed to offer any explanation for her pro GMO amendments, despite being asked to do so three times.
On 24 January, the amended text was voted on by MEP members of the EU Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, including Irish MEPs Liam Aylward (Fianna Fáil) who wants to conserve Ireland's current GMO-free status, and Mairead McGuinness (Fine Gael) who seems determined to destroy it and who proposed an amendment in favour of GMO pharmaceutical and industrial crops which are the most dangerous of all!
15 MEPs voted against the report, 6 abstained, and 22 voted in favour (total 43 MEPs voting). This means that the
resolution was adopted but the Agri Comm vote was split 50/50 on
the resolution. It could have been worse, given the pro-GM make up of the Agri Committee.
The final text of the resolution:
A provisional final text included numerous improvements, some weaker language, as well as many more negative amendents including a strengthening of GMO crop patents. See provisional text with details of amendments approved and rejected.
Friends of the Earth Europe provided a detailed preliminary analysis of the final provisional text which you can find below, along with an integrated list of all the above mentioned related documents for download.
On 26 February, the final draft text was sent out by the European Parliament secretariat following the first vote in the Agriculture Committee. Amendments could still be made provided their tabling was supported by 36 or 37 MEPs up to the evening of 6 March.
On 6 March Friends of the Earth Europe announced that is working with the European Greens and Socialists to table additional amendments with wording that would be acceptable by the majority of MEPs. The main aim of Friends of the Earth Europe, the GM-free Ireland Network and other NGOs is to push for a total rejection of the Biotech Resolution, but if this does not succeed we will have at least weakened the text and if many MEPs vote against it we can show that the European Parliament remains split on the issue.
What happens next:
Please lobby your MEP to vote the withdraw the resolution. See box above right for details.
All MEPs will vote on the final text at a Plenary session of the European Parliament on 14 March 2007.
Preliminary analysis of the final text by Friends of the Earth Europe:
What has got better:
|
| • | reference now included to FAO plant genetic resources and farmers' rights;
|
| • | reference to importance of genetic variability;
|
| • | EU objectives of social cohesion and respect for the environment have
been added to the Lisbon Agenda competitiveness goal;
|
| • | the lack of mechanisms and analytical tools for contamination by
unapproved GMOs is now mentioned;
|
| • | progress under EU biotech strategy of ag biotech is "not tangible" (we
can use this to argue that food biotech is a waste of time and should be
dropped);
|
| • | support given to organic and conventional farming, and what people
want to buy needs to be taken into account;
|
| • | importance of seed varieties is acknowledged along with in situ and on
farm seed use;
|
| • | role of precautionnary principle is clarified as important part of
legislative process;
|
| • | WTO ruling on GMOs is acknowledged to have no clear winner and the EU
GMO approvals process is justified;
|
| • | text reasserts that GM field trial proceedures need to be transparent
and allow full public access;
|
| • | text on liability now only calls for clarification on how this should
happen, the text on how it should not stand in the way of biotech
inventions has been deleted. It also calls for liability to be based on
the "originator principle" (does this mean the producer ie corporation?);
|
| • | research and dev of biotech is still called for but the need to
address other agricultural models is now added and the need for a
comparative study of the socio econimic benefits of all types of EU farming;
|
| • | the EP, Council and Commission working group that Virrankoski wants
set up to establish a strategy for ag biotech now needs to publicise its
membership and its work programmes. Less good, another amendment was
adopted calling for all stakeholder participation which can be problematic.
|
|
Weaker language:
|
| • | reference now included to FAO plant genetic ressources and farmers' rights;
|
| • | reference to importance of genetic variability;
|
| • | EU objectives of social cohesion and respect for the environment have
been added to the Lisbon Agenda competitiveness goal;
|
| • | the lack of mechanisms and analytical tools for contamination by
unapproved GMOs is now mentioned;
|
| • | progress under EU biotech strategy of ag biotech is "not tangible" (we
can use this to argue that food biotech is a waste of time and should be
dropped);
|
| • | support given to organic and conventional farming, and what people
want to buy needs to be taken into account;
|
| • | importance of seed varieties is acknowledged along with in situ and on
farm seed use;
|
| • | role of precautionnary principle is clarified as important part of
legislative process;
|
| • | WTO ruling on GMOs is acknowledged to have no clear winner and the EU
GMO approvals process is justified;
|
| • | text reasserts that GM field trial proceedures need to be transparent
and allow full public access;
|
| • | text on liability now only calls for clarification on how this should
happen, the text on how it should not stand in the way of biotech
inventions has been deleted. It also calls for liability to be based on
the "originator principle" (does this mean the producer ie corporation?);
|
| • | research and dev of biotech is still called for but the need to
address other agricultural models is now added and the need for a
comparative study of the socio econimic benefits of all types of EU farming;
|
| • | the EP, Council and Commission working group that Virrankoski wants
set up to establish a strategy for ag biotech now needs to publicise its
membership and its work programmes. Less good, another amendment was
adopted calling for all stakeholder participation which can be problematic;
|
|
What is still bad, in some cases worse:
|
| • | the report is very much in favour of new GMOs / applications:
biofuels, pharma crops, functional foods etc etc;
|
| • | on biofuels, there are now a number of new articles which should be
rejected given the complexity and problems of biofuels (non-GM as well as
GM);
|
| • | concept of biotech seems often linked to sustainable farming
or sustainable development;
|
| • | text stating that GMO approvals process in the EU is slow,
bureaucratic and anticompetitive has stayed in. Amendments saying that
the EU legislation is a model for the world were rejected;
|
| • | along with the text saying just how much GMOs are grown in the world,
they have now added how little is grown in the EU which they mean as a
danger for competitiveness;
|
| • | amendments saying that farmers have a right to GMOs and to benefit
from them have been adopted;
|
| • | it calls for more CAP funding to be chanelled to biotech which would
include "farmer education" projects to tell them just how great GMOs are
(!!!);
|
| • | public opinion will change once there are GMOs with consumer benefits;
|
| • | a small amendment got in that says how the EU does not produce enough
soya to meet with its demand (so implicity there is a need for GM soya?);
|
| • | non food applications of biotech are good for the EU which is no
longer competitive in terms of food production (a CAP reform with a
major focus on biofuels and biotech?!!?
|
| • | resolution now calls on the commission to come up with seeds
thresholds for GMOs (Commissioner Dimas agrees with low thresholds but
does not have the support of others in the Commission so the more
pressure on him the greater risk that we end up with another bad
proposal on the table);
|
| • | a strengthening of ag biotech intellectual property rights (GMO crop patents) is called for.
|
Related documents (in ascending order by date):
|
| • |
The original draft text of the resolution:
6 November 2006 (13-page 240kb PDF file).
|
| • |
Agricultural biotechnology: yield, competitiveness, jobs and environmental impact: Input to Resolution 2006/2059(INI):
November 2006: briefing published by COAG (Spanish Farmers' Organisation), CPE (European Farmers Network), EEB (European Environmental Bureau), Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, IFOAM EU Group (Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), and Save our Seeds Network (5-page 340 kb PDF file).
|
| • |
190 amendments submitted by MEPs:
29 November 2006 (57-page 292kb PDF file).
|
| • |
Irish MEPs move to prevent GMO invasion:
7 December 2006: GM-free Ireland press release, (132kb PDF file).
|
| • |
MEPs try to curb plan to promote GM crops:
5 January 2007: Irish Times article, (HTML web page).
|
| • |
Related NGO letter to MEPs with list of amendments to be supported or rejected:
18 January 2006: this letter was co-signed by the GM-free Ireland Network along with COAG (Spanish Farmers' Organisation), CPE (European Farmers Network), EEB (European Environmental Bureau), Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, IFOAM EU Group (Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), and Save our Seeds Network (2-page 52kb PDF file).
|
| • |
Provisional results of 24 January 2007 vote:
24 January 2006: This provisional text (which still needs to be confirmed) details the amendments that were adopted or rejected by the MEP members of European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, with the name of the MEPs who tabled each amendment. All MEPs will vote on the confirmed version of this document in the plenary session of the European Parliament on 14 March (13-page 280kb PDF file).
|
| • | Final draft text
On 26 February, the European Parliament secretariat released the official final draft text following the first vote in the Agriculture Committee. Amendments could still be made provided their tabling was supported by 36 or 37 MEPs up to the evening of 6 March.
|
| • | Additional amendments proposed by Friends of the Earth Europe
On 6 March Friends of the Earth Europe announced that is working with the European Greens and Socialists to table these additional amendments with wording that would be acceptable by the majority of MEPs. The main aim of Friends of the Earth Europe, the GM-free Ireland Network and other NGOs is to push for a total rejection of the Biotech Resolution, but if this does not succeed we will have at least weakened the text and if many MEPs vote against it we can show that the European Parliament remains split on the issue.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
