Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In EU 'No' to Genetically Modified Food Could Conceal a 'Yes'
BRUSSELS - Genetically modified (GM) foods will be introduced more quickly in Europe as a result of a new proposal, some Brussels officials fear.
Greenpeace noted that José Manuel Barroso, the Commission's president, had tried on four occasions to persuade EU governments to approve new GM foods since his appointment in 2004. (adapted photo from Flickr user Tim & Selena Middleton) Over
the past 12 years, the European Union has effectively observed a
moratorium on the cultivation of new GM crops because of widespread
opposition to biotechnology among both the public and some of the EU's
governments.
In a paper published Jul. 13, the Union's executive, the European Commission, superficially recognised that governments have the right to keep the territories they administer GM-free. But privately officials say that the aim of the initiative is to speed up the approval process for GM foods.
John Dalli, the EU's commissioner for food safety, said that the proposal would not allow individual governments to ban GM foods on health or environmental grounds as central EU bodies are tasked with assessing any risk that such crops may pose. But the governments would be allowed to cite moral or ethical considerations when imposing unilateral bans.
Lawyers advising the organisation Friends of the Earth have found that such grounds would be legally intangible and could easily be challenged by biotechnology companies in courts.
Dalli would not be drawn on that legal opinion, other than to say that it differed with counsel from the Commission's in-house lawyers. "I will let the lawyers fight it out," he told IPS. "I'm not a lawyer."
Asked to provide examples of the ethical questions that might prompt governments to ban GM foods, he said: "It could be the fact that a country is facing a massive aversion to a certain cultivation issue. But I am not going to prophesise what the reasons could be. We would like to leave that to the flexibilities we want to give (national governments)."
Green campaigners accused Dalli of playing deaf to calls to EU governments for a strengthened authorisation procedure. The campaigners argued that the new proposal is at stark variance with a demand made unanimously by the Union's environment ministers in 2008. At that time, the ministers urged that the European Food Safety Authority should assess the long-term impact of GM foods on the many ecosystems found throughout the EU and that the risks of GM crops should be studied by a body independent of the biotechnology industry.
Greenpeace noted that José Manuel Barroso, the Commission's president, had tried on four occasions to persuade EU governments to approve new GM foods since his appointment in 2004. "Now President Barroso is admitting defeat by presenting a compromise deal," said Greenpeace policy analyst Stefanie Hundsdorfer.
"In an attempt to muddle through with his pro-GM agenda, he is offering countries national bans if they turn a blind eye to the health and safety concerns they have about new crops during the EU authorisation process. But individual bans cannot replace a scientifically sound EU-level safety procedure."
The new proposal follows an effort made by the Commission earlier this year to revive the approval process. In March the Commission chose a potato known as Amflora as the first new GM crop to be cultivated in the EU in well over a decade. Despite that decision, three EU governments -- Hungary, Austria and Luxembourg -- announced that they had forbidden the potato.
Three other states -- France, Germany and Greece -- have joined Hungary, Austria and Luxembourg in also prohibiting the cultivation of Mon-810, a maize patented by the world's leading biotech firm Monsanto. And Poland has legislation on its statute books proscribing the sale of GM seeds.
In the short-term, the Commission is hoping that around 10 new GM crops will be planted in Europe. Four of them -- all varieties of maize -- have been authorised by the EFSA, in some cases for more than five years.
Biotechnology firms claimed they were unhappy with the new proposal. Carel de Marchie Sarvaas, a representative of the trade association EuropaBio, said the paper appeared to give governments "carte blanche to ban safe and approved GM crops in any country or region regardless of the needs or wishes of their farmers."
EuropaBio has, however, been having a series of meetings with the Commission on how to end the logjam in the approvals process. The meetings, which also involve officials from EFSA in Parma, Italy, were initiated after EuropaBio wrote to Barroso in 2006, warning that the antipathy of some EU governments to GM foods could "greatly diminish" the industry's chances of proving its theory that such foods are socially beneficial.
Friends of the Earth appealed to EU governments to reject the new proposal. It says that the proposal will not prevent organic and other non-GM crops from being "contaminated". Traces of GM crops can easily be carried by the wind into fields that had until then been GM-free, according to environmentalists.
"While the European Commission is seemingly offering countries the right to implement national bans, in reality the proposal aims to do the opposite: opening Europe's fields to GM crops," said Mute Schimpf from Friends of the Earth. "The Commission continues to fail to protect Europe's food and feed from contamination by GM crops."

7 Comments so far
Show AllThe EU caving in on the GMO issue is just another expression/symptom of the end of nature and subsequently the end of the human race, which actually is one in the same.
Nature is not so easily subdued.
Every new development since time began has been subjected to scare stories about dire consequences, this is just one of the last. If the Europeans want to continue to spread poisons and spray the whole country for insects and diseases, that is up to them. However, anyone that has used GMO crops or observed the great benefits derived with more productive yields, less fuel used in treating problems, and a safer environment, is likely well convinced they are an improvement over the ordinary seeds.
The benefits of GMO are theoretical at best and once nobody is looking, the corporate CEOs can easily push to lower the quality of those crops and rake in the profits while damaging the environment and people's health. Mother Nature would never do such a thing.
And I wonder, Kernelz, just which company planted this discussion topic?
I have never seen an independent farmer talk about the benefits of giving up their rights to what they grow and who they buy it from. It doesn't matter how good or bad the seeds are it is the strings attached and the legal problems down the line with companies like Monsanto that are the real problem. When a farmer can be taken to court and lose everything they own because the wind blew there is a huge problem. If we went back to getting foods from locally grown sources instead of letting factory farms control 90 percent of the food market we wouldn't be worrying about these issues of GMO's and pesticides. There used to be enough farms and farmers in a region to supply and meet all of the food needs. Now food is shipped halfway across the world to reach the dinner table. And most of it is grown by corporations that use slave labor in countries that have no laws protecting the consumer.
Monsanto and the American government are a disgrace to America and the world. How much did it cost Monsanto to manipulate the laws in America through our corrupted government for
their profit? There isn't any difference between the BP spill and the dirty deeds of Monsanto and the American government. They should all be put on trial for conspiracy against the American people. They were allowed to go unchecked by the Republican corporate fascist who deregulated government oversight for the benefit of the, "big people". Then they get the money and run. Shame on them and shame on US for allowing it.