Bt maize

In the beginning everything was simple. Bt maize was supposed to be just on the field, and nothing else would be affected: No organism that wasn't on the field, no organisms that would prey on maize pests. But over the years things became more complicated and now it's common knowledge that parts of the Bt plants make it off the field themselves, that predators can be affected indirectly in the food web. And still the question whether the field crop maize could also water organisms seems to be one step too far for most risk assessments.

Bt crops were developed about 15 years ago, and there still is no method to properly assess the toxin content of plant material.

Rosi-Marshal et al. (2007) just published a long overdue study about whether Bt plant residues got into headwaters during or after cultivation, and whether the Bt-toxin would have adverse effects on water insects like caddies flies, close relatives to butterflies. In both cases the answer was yes. This laboratory study gives enough indication to at least include water insects in the monitoring of Bt crops.

For the first time the EU Environmental Commissioner Dimas proposed to reject applications for the cultivation of GMOs. The crops in question are the two Bt maize events Bt11 (Syngenta) and 1507 maize (Pioneer HiBred/Dow).
The proposal is apparently based on clear scientific evidence proving that the cultivation of these two GM crops has the potential to cause environmental harm. Nevertheless both crops had gotten a positive opinion from the EFSA in 2005. [Bt11, 1507]

After years of arguments the German government finally decided on changes on a number of regulations for GM crops. What's hailed as an improvement in fact makes matters worse and some of the pressing issues have still not been tackled. What made it to the main TV news was that GM maize now should be planted 150 m away from conventional maize, or 300 m from organic maize. Or less if the GM farmer makes an agreement with his neighbours. It doesn't take much imagination to picture the pressure that can mount in a village if one farmer wants to grow GM maize... But it also means that their neighbours will have to label any kind of GM contamination, even below 0.9% because agreeing to a lesser safety distance clearly could technically been avoided.

Only less than two months after Greenpeace had detected illegal contamination of maize pellets in the harbour of Rotterdam, the EU commission tried to solve the problem by approving the maize Herculex RW (59122) as feed and food. The Standing Committee however did not agree with that on Monday.
In April, illegal contamination was detected in US maize in the harbours of Rotterdam and Dubin: maize feed was contaminated with the GM maize Herculex RW (DAS-59122) that is not approved in the EU. Contamination with this maize is therefore forbidden - no matter how big that contamination is.

In the growing season 2006, Greenpeace sampled leaves from commercially cultivated MON810 in Germany and Spain and found that Bt contents were very variable and often very low, but also that even 10 years into the cultivation of Bt crops, there is no standardised method to determine Bt contents. The results are published in this report.

GM plants are often put forward as a chance for developing countries to combat hunger. However, the evaluation of GM plants grown in developing countries or developed for them show that they fail to reach this goal. The examples of virus-resistant sweet-potatoes, pro-vitamin A rice and Bt maize show that these GM crops are an inappropriate approach to solve the issues that cause hunger and poverty. GM crops are a technology and supply-driven approach to development cooperation, instead of an demand-driven approach, and their introduction is often against the outspoken wishes of developing countries.

Some more details on recent findings on the EFSA opinions about the MON863 hybrids MON863xMON810, MON863xNK603 and MON863xMON810xNK603 (EFSA 2005):

Once again no qualified majorities could be found to approve the import of GM crops. However, under EU regulation it is not important whether enough countries are in favour of it, but whether enough countries are against it. Is the EU ministers’ impasse once again favouring the biotech companies?