blog

2 March 2010

On of the first things new EU Commissionair for Health and Consumers John Dalli did today was to authorized BASF's GM potato Amflora.
The EU Commission is only in office since a week, and the responsibility for GM crops was moved from DG Environment to DG Health. Yesterday Dalli talked to members of the EU parliament, but he then nevertheless took a fast decision then.
There are two different authorizations: one for the cultivation of Amflora, and and a second one for feed that - in an unprecedented move to avoid liability for contamination - also allows for food contamination with Amflora of up to 0.9%.
This is something completely different then the 0.9% we currently have that only concerns labelling: If a contamination with an authorized GMOs is less then 0.9% and if this contamination was adventitious and/or technically unavoidable, then the producer does not have to label the product as containing GMOs. Contamination with un-authorized GMOs however is not allowed.
The authorization of Amflora breaks this rule and in principle also opens the door for all kind of contamination with GMOs that are not authorized as food/feed in the EU.
The application had also included authorization as food/feed, and EFSA had already given a positive opinion on it in 2006. However, in it, the risk assessment for health impacts does not make any difference for the consumption of only small amounts of Amflora. This means that there is no scientific basis for restricting safe consumption to 0.9%.
As Jens Karg from Global 2000 describes it quite well: This can only be describe "Kniefall" - as surrendering to the biotech industry.

17 November 2009

A new study by Charles Benbrook shows that farmers in the US from 1996 to 2008 used 144 million kg (318 million pounds) of herbicides more then compared to conventional agriculture.
This is mainly caused by the development of herbicide resistant weeds and due to the fact that herbicide applications in conventional agriculture continuously decreased in the same period.

27 October 2009

It's not often that governments stop GM crops, but it happens - this time it's the South Africa government that rejected the Agriculture Research Council's (ARC's) application to provide Bt potatoes to local farmers, saying it was concerned about its safety and economic effect.
The Bt potato SpuntaG2 produces a Bt toxin against tuber moths and contained the antibiotic resistance nptII, which is also one of the problems raised with the GM potato Amflora. Campaigners had reported earlier that the ARC work was funded by USAID
“This is probably the most significant victory of my career. For a pro-genetically modified government to refuse a commercial application on safety grounds is quite ground breaking,” said the African Centre for Biosafety’s director Mariam Mayet according to an article in South African newspaper.

17 September 2009

One crop, one country, and officially only for one year, 9 years ago - and yet there is contamination. On 8 September 2009, German authorities notified the other EU member states that they had found unathorized GM flax (linseed) in a shipment from Canada via Belgium (RASFF 2009.1171). The flax (FP967/CDC, Triffid) is herbicide-tolerant, but to a different class of herbicides then usually used with GM crops, and it carries an antibiotic resistance gene as marker.

13 May 2009

For the third time the EU Commission handed the Amflora dossier back to the EFSA in 2008. This time not only the GMO panel but also the Biohazard panel are asked about their opinion. And after months EFSA announced that they would need more time to come to a conclusion because two of their experts have a different opinion then the rest.
Somehow that shouldn't really surprise anybody. "Risk assessment" is not a hard science but - as the term says - an assessment without strict tick boxes to decide what's safe or not. And over the years scientists came to different assessment of using the antibiotic marker gene nptII in GM crops in general and in the GM potato Amflora.
BASF considered it safe, so did the EFSA GMO panel, while experts in some EU member states did not. In 2007, EMEA concluded that assumptions of the GMO panel on how the antibiotics in question were used were wrong.
What should surprise however, is that after years of giving scientific opinions, the EFSA has apparently no mechanism to allow for different opinions in its panels.

22 April 2009

Germany's brief ban on the sale of MON810 seed in 2007 over an unsufficient monitoring plan, and the current ban on sale and cultivation has lead to some quite interesting official papers.
The notification from 2007 details a number of issues that should be considered in a monitoring plan, and the new notification from 2009 gives several pages of what the German authorities consider as new scientific evidence that makes it necessary to act according to the Precautionary Principle and evoke the German and EU saufguard clauses.
The paper refers to Bt expostion, ecotoxicological effects on moths and butterflies (lepidoptera), beetles (coleoptera), soil and water organisms, the specific issues of endangered species or species in nature protection areas. The BVL, the competent authority also had to conclude that the cultivation of MON810 was so "marginal" in Germany (on an expected acreage of 2700 ha), that the ban would not be financial problem for Monsanto.
A stark contrast to this paper however is Monsanto's monitoring report for the growing season 2008. It's not only a far cry from the detailed list of issues that the BVL was forced to consider relevant in May 2007, it doesn't even give information of whether any of the data taken from other environmental monitoring projects had any geographical relation to the MON810 fields.

14 April 2009

Today the German minister for Agriculture Aigner announced that she would use the safety clauses in Article 20(3) of the German law on genetic engineering as well as Article 23 of the EU Directive 2001/18 on Deliberate Release to stop the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize MON810.
In a press conference she stated: "The cultivation of MON810 is thereby forbidden." The assessment of the different authorities gave no consistent opinion on environmental effects of MON810.
In the last weeks NGOs like Campact in Germany have been working hard to provide the information and facts needed to support a MON810 ban. One of the studies playing a role was a report about the (financial) damage caused by agro-biotechnolgy that Christoph Then and me wrote for the Federation of the Organic Food Producers (BÖWL).

5 April 2009
ABS, CBD

A number of Civil Society Organizations are currently in Paris at the 7th Meeting of the Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing, to "witness the negotiations and to name - and if necessary to shame - governments who continue to obstruct the negotiations and violate their responsibilities under the CBD. "
As they state in their Call: "Half a generation of postponing the implementation of one of the three objectives of the CBD has served the spread of organized biopiracy. There is no excuse for further delays. The negotiations now are neither about gap analysis, nor about studies, but about political will and countries’ positions."
They have also written up some very useful background papers on Scope and definitions as a key issue for the fate of fair and equitable benefit-sharing and on Suggestions to ensure the enforcement of provider rights.

3 April 2009

Middle of April is the deadline: that's when the maize will be sown in Germany, and according to the public register about 3700 hectare will be sown with the GM maize MON810. And the call to agricultural minister Aigner to stop the cultivation is getting louder and louder, especially after the EU environmental ministers - and among them the German minister Gabriel - confirmed the Austrian and Hungarian ban of MON810 in 2 March 2009.
Campact, an environmental NGO, has been following Aigner around for days now to raise the issue. They also got a petition online, but unfortunately that only works for Germany addresses. After Aigner replied at some stage, asking for help in bringing the scientific evidence about MON810, Campact, BUND and BÖWL published another report why it is possible and necessary to stop its cultivation.
Meanwhile Monsanto has finally submitted its MON810 monitoring report for 2008: 31 pages in English that apparently only summarize already existing reports, but doesn't give any information that has anything to do with the actual fields on which MON810 was grown in 2008.

26 March 2009

MON810 cultivation in the EU is decreasing. Not only big parts of the population, but also an increasing number of regional and national governments declare their opposition. Luxembourg is reported to consider a ban, and in the German parliament a discussion about stopping MON810 cultivation is under way.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system