1507

5 December 2008

Christoph Then & Antje Lorch. Study for Hiltrud Breyer (MEP) Bündnis 90/Die Grnen. December 2008.

An assessment of statements and decisions by the EU Commission shows that the EU Commission repeatedly points to the independence of the EFSA instead of taking up the responsibility to assess and control the work of the EFSA. So far the Commission usually hides behind the EFSA opinions and in practice even leaves the power to take decisions to the EFSA even though this is in contradiction to the EU regulation. In other cases however, like the cultivation of Bt11, 1507 maize and Amflora, at least some parts of the EU Commission disagree with the EFSA opinion.

5 December 2008

Christoph Then & Antje Lorch, 2008. Studie im Auftrag von Hiltrud Breyer, MEP, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen.

Die Auswertung von Stellungnahmen und Entscheidungen der EU-Kommission führt vor Augen, dass die EU-Kommission sich mit Verweis auf die Unabhängigkeit der EFSA ihrer Aufgabe entzogen hat, klare Vorgaben für deren Arbeit zu machen, die EFSA-Angaben zu prüfen und zu kontrollieren. Sie hat sich bisher hinter den Gutachten der EFSA versteckt und im Endeffekt Entscheidungsgewalt auf die EU-Lebensmitelbehörde verlagert, obwohl dies laut entsprechenden EU-Vorschriften nicht möglich ist. In einigen Fälle jedoch, z.B. bei den Zulassungsanträgen zum Anbau von Bt11, 1507-Mais und Amflora, widerspricht zumindest ein Teil der EU-Kommission den Gutachten der EFSA.

10 November 2008

For the third time now the EFSA has given a positive opinion on the two maize events Bt11 and 1507.
In November 2007, Environmental Commissioner Dimas had proposed that an approval for cultivation for these Bt-maize events should not be given. In May 2008 the Commission send the two notifications back to the EFSA with the explicit question to review eleven scientific studies that had come out since the EFSA gave its last opinion. Now on 29 October 2008, the EFSA once more gave an opinion - and once more it is positive.
How can it be that over years now the Competent Authorities of several memberstates as well as the DG Environment sees risks in the cultivation of these Bt maize - but the EFSA simply maintains their position that everything is fine? Do the members of the GMO Panel have such a completely different view on what makes a risk?

8 May 2008

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.

29 October 2007

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]

23 September 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?

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system