home

On Friday, 30 May 2008, when COP9 closed, the German Ministry on Environment issued a press release, summarizing the results. For GM trees it simply stated: "The de-facto moratorium for the use of genetically modified trees will be continues." (Für den Einsatz von gv-Bäumen wird das faktische Moratorium fortgesetzt.) But now, a few days later, the text is changed: "On the topic of GM trees it was decided that without a risk assessment parties to the Convention have the right to renounce the use of GM trees." (Zum Thema Gentechnisch veränderte Bäume wurde beschlossen, dass ohne Risikoanalyse Vertragsstaaten das Recht haben, auf den Einsatz gentechnisch veränderter Bäume zu verzichten.)
The German Minister of Environment is currently president of the COP, so he should know: Is it a de-facto moratorium or not? Or is it one that can't be called like that?

The Fourth Meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety took place on 12-16 May in Bonn, Germany. The Cartagena Protocol sets rules for the international trade with living modified organisms (LMOs). Finalizing a Liability and Redress system was on the agenda for this meeting, after negotiations on this topic had been going on for several years.

On Wednesday, 7 May 2008, the EU Commission refered three GM crops back to the EFSA: the GM starch potato Amflora and the two Bt maize events Bt11 and 1507. Environmental Commissioner Dimas had already announced earlier that he would propose to reject the two Bt maize. Referring the cses back to the EFSA atthis stage might be an historic step, but unfortunately it is not to be expected that the EFSA GMO Panel will now change its mind, so in the long run the issue of GM cultivation willstill need tobe resolved where it belongs: in the political arena.

Finally good news: On Monday, 21 April 2008, a US judge dismissed a case against Steven Kurtz, co-founder of the Critical Art Ensemble (CEA) and Professor of Visual Studies at the University of Buffalo. It's not yet clear whether the prosecution will appeal the dismissal, but it's definitely good news: for Kurtz and all the people around him, as well as for everybody who considers critical art an important way of dealing with issues of technology in general and genetic engineering in particular.

The British premier Gordon Brown wrote a letter to his G8 colleagues, calling for the use of GM crops to be reconsidered for the sake of resolving food shortages, since food prices are steeply rising due to competition for crops as agrofuels. GM crops to comabt hunger? Does this sound familiar? And do we really need more examples to explain that hunger is not a problem of in-efficient crops, but a problem of access to food?