"If BSE has taught us anything, it is surely to be cautious about tampering
with natural processes, however well intentioned, however plausibly the
benefits are packaged." (The 1999 Good Restaurant Guide)
12/17/98 EU: MINISTERS DEBATE EU-WIDE MORATORIUM ON GM CROPS.
By Simon Coss
EU ENVIRONMENT ministers will consider the possibility of introducing a
Union-wide moratorium on the sale of crops and seeds containing genetically
modified organisms when they meet next week. Senior officials say the
issue will be discussed at the request of Environment Commissioner Ritt
Bjerregaard, amid increasing concern over the patchwork of national rules
on GMOs being introduced as the clamour from environmental groups for
action grows.
"The Commissioner has asked for it to be put on the agenda and if the
Commissioner asks for it, it will happen," said Jim Currie, head of the
European Commission's Directorate-General for the environment (DGXI).
It remains unclear, however, whether the EU has the legal authority to introduce
a ban even if it wants to. Many products have already been cleared for sale
by the Union and, on the face of it, the Commission is duty bound to uphold
all EU laws.
The biotechnology industry insists there are no grounds for introducing a
moratorium because rules for approving genetically modified products are
already in place. Any efforts to introduce one are therefore likely to face
an industry-backed legal challenge in the European Court of Justice.
But Currie argues that if member states really want to call 'time out' on
the approval and marketing of GM crops, they will find a way to do so. He
points out that all EU governments are acutely aware of public concerns
about food safety in the wake of the 'mad cow' crisis and believes they are
more likely to err on the side of extreme caution today than they would
have been three years ago.
"To some extent the GMO affair suffers from a backlash and a knock-on
effect from the BSE affair," he said. "At the end of the day, the key
question is a political one."
Bjerregaard's request for the issue to be discussed at next Monday's (21
December) meeting of environment ministers was sparked by a letter from
European Parliament's environment committee chairman, UK Socialist MEP Ken
Collins, to
Commission President Jacques Santer calling for a moratorium. Collins
argues that the Union should introduce a temporary ban on the marketing of
GM products until agreement has been reached on updating the 1990 EU
directive (90/220) which sets out the rules for approving gene-altered
plant varieties.
Supporters of a ban claim their case has been further strengthened by last
week's decision by France's highest constitutional court, the Conseil
d'Etat, to ask the ECJ to rule on whether the French government followed
proper procedures earlier this year when it authorised the sale of three
strains of GM maize produced by Swiss biotechnology firm Novartis.
All three had already been cleared for EU-wide sale by the Council of
Ministers, but in September the Conseil D'Etat withdrew the authorisation
while it considered the case. Announcing its decision last week, the court
said the ban would remain in place until the ECJ delivered its ruling on
the case. Most experts expect this to take at least a year.
Greenpeace France, the environmental group which brought the original complaint
against the approval of the Novartis maize, said the decision demonstrated
the validity of its argument. "This will really take the debate over who is
competent to approve GMO products to the European level," said Greenpeace
France director Bruno Rebelle.
Novartis said the forthcoming ECJ case would examine whether member states
or the EU institutions had ultimate authority to approve the sale of GMOs.
"This is a purely legal argument which has nothing to do with our products
or the quality of our safety assessments," said Willy de Greff, head of
regulatory and government affairs at Novartis Seeds.
(c)1998 The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
All rights reserved.
EUROPEAN VOICE 17/12/1998
12/17/98 EU: BIOTECH RULES HIT GENETICALLY MODIFIED MINEFIELD.
By Simon Coss
Anyone who still does not know that the initials GMO stand for 'genetically
modified organism' must have spent most of last year stranded on that rock
in the middle of the Aegean sea that the Greeks and the Turks are always
getting so worked up about.
This was the year when the debate over just what goes into the food
Europeans eat reached fever pitch. In the rarefied atmosphere of the
Union's big three legislative
institutions - the European Commission, Council of Ministers and European
Parliament - the main arguments centred around plans put forward by
Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard to update the 1990 EU directive
(90/220) which sets out the rules for approving new strains of genetically
modified crops and seeds.
That debate is far from over, with spectacular fireworks likely to erupt
early next year as the Council and Parliament argue over exactly what rules
should emerge from the current talks. While everyone seems to agree that
90/220 in its present form is cumbersome, ineffective and leaves too much
decision-making power in the hands of democratically unaccountable
committees, opinions are divided on what changes need to be made.
EU governments are finding it hard to agree among themselves on how to
strike the right balance between reassuring consumers by drafting tough
monitoring rules and ensuring the Union's emerging biotechnology industry
is not strangled at birth by red tape.
The Parliament's environment committee on the other hand has decided to
cast itself in the role of the consumers' champion and is urging fellow
MEPs to support a set of tough amendments to Bjerregaard's plans which the
Council is likely to find hard to swallow.
But the issue of GM produce also erupted at grass roots level this year,
with many local and national environmental groups forcing governments to
reassess the
question of just how desirable the new crop varieties are.
The arguments against GM produce are many and detailed, but they all boil
down to the same basic concern: that too little is known about the
long-term effects of cultivating and consuming gene-altered crops on the
environment and human health.
European consumer organisation BEUC has argued strongly throughout the year
that shoppers should have the right to choose whether to buy GM produce or
not. It claims the Union's current rules for labelling foods that contain
GMOs are unclear and misleading, and argues that the practice of importing
'mixed' shipments of soya beans - which contain both GM as well as non-GM
varieties - means that, when it comes to processed foods, there are often
no real alternatives to products which could or do contain GMOs. Soya
derivatives are used in much industrial food production.
Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace go
further, arguing that GM-crops should not be produced in the EU at all.
Such arguments - and the considerable public support they appear to have won -
are the reason why Luxembourg and Austria have still not been dragged in front
of the European Court of Justice for the unilateral bans both countries
have imposed on the cultivation and sale of GMO crops, including varieties
which have been cleared under 90/220 for EU-wide sale.
EU governments have had several opportunities over the past 12 months to censure
their Union partners for this obvious breach of single market rules, but
have steadfastly refused to do so. Indeed, far from chastising the two
'renegade' member states, recent developments in several EU countries
suggest that more Union governments are beginning to share the wary
attitudes of Austrians and Luxembourgers.
Over the summer France announced plans to introduce an embargo on the
cultivation of GMO oilseed rape to allow scientists to gather more data on
the long-term effects of the crop on the environment. Greece has a similar
embargo in place and the UK has also said it intends to introduce
restrictions on the production of GM food.
This year also saw EU scientists refuse, for the first time, to clear a GM
product (a gene-altered potato) for cultivation and marketing. As the Union
enters 1999, the heated GMO debate can only get hotter.
(c)1998 The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
All rights reserved.
EUROPEAN VOICE 17/12/1998
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail