EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
EU Court Says French GM Maize Ban Was Illegal
LUXEMBOURG, - France acted illegally when it imposed a ban on the cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) maize variety developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto in 2008, Europe's highest court ruled on Thursday.
French farmer Jose Bové has been a leader in the fight against Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) maize. The French authorities did have the right to impose a moratorium on the growing of Monsanto's insect-resistant MON810 maize, but based its decision on the wrong EU legislation, the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice said.
To impose such a ban, member states must demonstrate a potentially serious risk to human or animal health or the environment, and notify EU authorities of the need to take emergency measures, it added.
Emergency measures must be based on science and backed by an assessment from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), according to the European Commission.
France imposed its safeguard clause against MON810 maize in February 2008, citing a "serious risk to the environment."
Six other EU countries -- Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg -- have similar safeguard clauses in place.
Having tried and failed to force several EU countries to lift their cultivation bans, last year the Commission proposed letting member states decide themselves whether to grow or ban GM crop cultivation.
A spokesman for EU health and consumer commissioner John Dalli said talks on the proposal would continue, but France would have to abide by the court's ruling.
"It's now up to the French administrative court to decide whether to table a new safeguard clause," the spokesman said.
A spokesman for Monsanto said the ruling confirmed its argument that the French authorities failed to follow the correct procedures when imposing the ban.
"Over the last 15 years, MON810 has proven agronomic, economic and environmental benefits and its safety has been confirmed consistently. French farmers should no longer be denied the choice to use it," he said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show All"To impose such a ban, member states must demonstrate a potentially serious risk to human or animal health or the environment"
This is backwards science. It states that you have to allow the creation of a potential risk, and only then can you demonstrate it. I think the burden should be on the developer and independent scientists to illustrate up front that there is no risk before they proliferate it. Evidently the French have found some potential risk - enough that they have stood up to one of the bullying monsters of agribusiness.
Part of the job of these monetary and trade alliances such as the EU or NAFTA is to get rid of local environmental and labor laws that interfere with the complete freedom of corporations. In this case, they are imposing something that the nation feels is dangerous. That is overstepping. .
Don't mess with the French and their food!
Regardless of one's opinions about GM food, the following passage is incorrect on several counts:
This is backwards science. It states that you have to allow the creation of a potential risk, and only then can you demonstrate it. I think the burden should be on the developer and independent scientists to illustrate up front that there is no risk before they proliferate it.
1. Science isn't in the business of "proving negatives." See 'Burden of Proof.' You cannot make an assertion until there is positive proof. Conversely, what sort of positive proof would be required to assert 'X contains no risk'? It's an impossible standard.
2. On a related note, there is no such thing as "no risk." Risk is a matter of degree. In order to calculate risk, you must state known hazards. Is there a known hazard having your house wired for electricity? Absolutely. How much actual risk of exposure is there? Very little.
3. Actual, known hazards are allowed in the market all the time. Coffee contains carcinogenic compounds. Alcohol can cause stroke and birth defects. Driving, even with a seat belt, causes thousands of deaths annually. Breathing air exposes you to harmful pollutants. And yet GMOs are to be prohibited because of "potential risks," that is, risks that have not been demonstrated?
4. To truly calculate "risk," you also have to take into account the hazards of NOT implementing some program or technology.
GMOs receive virtually no safety testing before being put into the environment. Without such study, it is impossible to know whether and how dangerous a given GMO really is. Without such an assurance of safety, releasing the GMO into the environment is irrational. If the GMO does turn out to be dangerous, by the time we realize it, it will be too late and nearly impossible to fix. Jclientelle's point is well taken.
Yes, of course hazards are allowed in the market - and other hazards are not! The question is always just how hazardous something is, and whether its benefits outweigh the risks it poses. In that regard, GM crops are uncharted territory. Their potential for harm, both to the environment and to human health, is unknown and possibly enormous.
A genetic modification that causes a GM food not to be metabolized quite normally, leading to mutation and cancer or other metabolic abnormalities could easily take decades to manifest. Again, by then it will be too late. The only safe and rational course of action therefore is to test GMOs for decades in controlled studies before releasing them into the environment.
The comment about the risk of not producing GM crops is empty sophistry worthy of a GM crop industry shill. Homo sapiens has survived for its entire history without GM food. The claim that there is risk in not producing GM food, when the benefits and risks of GM food are not even fully understood, is ridiculous.
Dismissing genetic engineering out of hand would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Going full steam ahead with reckless abandon as we are doing now, simply because the desire for profit has trumped scientific caution, may turn out to be shooting ourselves in the head.
GMOs receive virtually no safety testing before being put into the environment. Without such study, it is impossible to know whether and how dangerous a given GMO really is.
mlb, this is just not true.
Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union’s scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/genetically-engineered-crops/
The comment about the risk of not producing GM crops is empty sophistry worthy of a GM crop industry shill.
How can it be industry sophistry when it applies to everything? For those concerned about vaccinations, there are the risks associated with not being vaccinated. In farming, the decision whether or not to spray must take into account the hazards of not spraying, such as mycotoxins.
Impeding a technology with known benefits because of speculative fears about hypothetical risks is unwise.
Hello Monsanto (or other multinational corporate) shill. I've seen this game before. You have all of your anti- precautionary principle talking points ready to go whenever there is any mention of the risks associated with GMOs (or whatever other potential environmental toxicants).
Rather than go into it with you, I would direct those who are seeking pro-human, pro-public health, pro-environmental counter-arguments to MBendzela to go to:
http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html
and then look around for more info ...
Can you respond with anything but "shill?" Have you any idea how tired this response of yours is?
You have Google. You will find I am an English prof. and a farmer in Maine.
OK - you got me. My post was not clear. Of course you cannot prove a negative in the world of theory. It is impossible to prove, for instance, that God does not exist. However in the world of technical science, experimenters can devise many studies to illustrate that the benefits far outweigh the risks (as you say) before an uncontrolled deployment of some product on the world at large. This practice is widely violated when a company becomes starry eyed about a profit. Examples are oil drilling and pharmaceuticals, which go forth despite strong evidence of their side-effects. Unflattering studies, and even real world experiences, are ignored or suppressed.
In the least, there is the social consideration by farmers that sterile seeds put them into the eternal thrall of the seed company.
Hi jclientelle,
Regardless of any quibblng about how you made your comment, you were 100% correct in the spirit in which you posted. I was actually just about to quote the exact statement you did, and say something more or less just as you did.
"Science isn't in the business of "proving negatives." may be a true statement in itself, but everything MBendzela posted was otherwise disingenuous at best, intentionally misleading at worst. He/she makes a list of harmful commodities already on the market as a basis for excusing the introduction of a scientific unknown into a system that is also ultimately not understood. The long-term effects of GMOs, which may as well be a glop of glowing goop from outer-space, are farther-ranging, and less immediately observable than many of the other advances modern technology produces. Similarly, nanotech, once introduced, will be like opening up Pandora's box, and what jumps out may not be able to be put back in, ever. This is not a similar risk to marketing carcinogenic cigarettes, or getting behind the wheel. There is no choice involved for those who will be victimized by this technology.
What MBendzela is doing is not defending science, or scientific methodology... what this poster is doing is standing up for the unethical application of science, in the service of big business. A truly scientific analysis of GMOs would necessitate creating an isolated, and accurate representation of the macro-ecosystem, and vigorously testing over decades the prolonged effects the genetic modifications have on the test organisms (including at some point human volunteers). In the end, true scientists would admit that risk-assessment for GMOs will always be incomplete considering the complexity involved, and that the motivations themselves to attempt to meddle with Earth's fragile and precious balance with this incomplete scientific understanding is nothing less than *the height of hubris, and immorality*.
Thanks Salusa Secundus for your comments about the rest of the post by MB. I would add that some of it is silly, such as the stuff about coffee and breathing.
A truly scientific analysis of GMOs would necessitate creating an isolated, and accurate representation of the macro-ecosystem, and vigorously testing over decades the prolonged effects the genetic modifications have on the test organisms (including at some point human volunteers).
Of course you know this is impossible. This is the kind of nonsense people invoke when it comes to GMOs but nothing else.
re: "Of course you know this is impossible. This is the kind of nonsense people invoke when it comes to GMOs but nothing else. "
Nonsense? Really?
Yes, I do know that it is impossible, and that's why I stated clearly, "In the end, true scientists would admit that risk-assessment for GMOs will always be incomplete considering the complexity involved,"
So, are you a true scientist? Do you admit the above? And if you admit that the long term effects cannot be fully understood or fully tested, do you also admit that the systems which this technology effects are too precious, too intricately and precariously balanced — too fundamental *to all life* which depends on them... to subject them to this technology which carries so many potential, and even now proven, risks?
Btw, are you familiar with the recent rise in allergic responses among the populaces of 'developed nations'? Are you aware of the other technologies and 'inventions' the creators of GMOs are also responsible for? Just think of GMOs as 'Aspartame Agent Orange Organisms'.
Does that boost your confidence about their long-term safety?
SS, once again you have not been able to present a single known hazard of GM corn and the like but instead bring up irrelevancies like allergies, aspartame, and Agent Orange. I do admire the propensity for alliteration, however.
"In the end, true scientists would admit that risk-assessment for GMOs will always be incomplete considering the complexity involved,"
Do you know of any scientists who address this? I suspect that "complete risk assessment" is a will o' the wisp.
As for the "systems" this technology might effect: I am about 50,000 times more worried about the effect that the uncontrolled experiment called "exponential population growth" has on these systems than I am about the genetic modification technologies that are attempting to cope with it.
re: "I am about 50,000 times more worried about [...] exponential population growth [...] than I am about the genetic modification technologies that are attempting to cope with it."
A. Population is a true issue to be dealt with responsibly, and carefully. On that we just may agree. B. If you think GMOs are designed to help to the 'general population', and not simply be another windfall for the 'investor class' who will use it to ENSLAVE the rest of humanity, you are sadly and gravely mistaken. My point is that this technology has nothing 'careful' or 'responsible' about it. Monsatano is interested in the health of ONE THING: Their disgusting bottom line.
TO HELL WITH MONSATANO
Proving once again that massive Corporations, who exist only to make a profit for their shareholders are more powerful and more important than people.
Long past time to shut this carnival of error we call 'Western Technological Civilization' down.
""Over the last 15 years, MON810 has proven agronomic, economic and environmental benefits and its safety has been confirmed consistently. French farmers should no longer be denied the choice to use it," he said."
Is that really true? I think not:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MON810GenomeRearranged.php
"“First, there appears to be both major and minor inconsistencies between the results reported by your Institute and those reported by the French laboratories. Could that be due to methodological problems or to different samples of the same transgenic line being analysed? If the latter is the case, it would suggest that the transgenic lines are not only unstable (see below) but also non-uniform. In other words, they do not pass the DUS [Distinct, Uniform and Stable] test, which I understand, is required by European law [for a commercial variety].
“Second, the new EU Directive 2001/18/EC specifically requires event-specific molecular data documenting genetic stability (Annex IIIB) as a condition for market approval. In view of the finding that practically every transgenic insert has rearranged from that reported in the company’s dossier, it would indicate that the transgenic lines have failed the test of genetic stability, and are no longer the same lines that were risk assessed, and in some cases, placed on the market.
“For either or both those reasons, it would seem illegal, under European law, to grant those transgenic lines commercial approval; and the lines that have been approved should surely now be withdrawn.” "
If we're lucky, this decision will be another catalyst for destroying the EU. The EU is nothing but a corporatist's wet dream. Europeans weren't that crazy about it to start with.
"Woman in the kitchen, man in the palace
Worshiping the performance of the Phallus
Gaming for power till their hearts grow callous
As if a humans just an animal with malice
Limp lanced phallocrat, finger on the trigger
Go ahead and stay small while everything gets bigger
It's a bullies game and I don't want to play
Why don't you think about a better way
We need to put our hearts together
Set up a rhythm in combination
And if we put our hearts together
We get a rhythm that will shake creation"
Bruce Cockburn "We Need to Put Our Hearts Together"
And BTW: Jose Bove, Onward Eh! You da Man!
Monsanto is an entirely evil company. Its existence is a blight on us as Americans. If my community doesn't want a product, no matter what that product is and no matter what our reasons are, why in the hell should that company be able to force their product on us? Do we even pretend to have democracy any longer? The whole WTO "restraint of trade" is not only an attack on democracy but also an attack on common sense and logic. It is now illegal to organize boycotts according to the WTO. So the very thing that helped bring down South Africa would be illegal in today's world. Neoliberalism and capitalism is evil and immoral. If we included ecological costs, if those costs were even quantifiable, into what we buy we'd see what damage we are doing. All we have now are private benefits and costs measured. They privatize the benefits and we all socialize the costs that capitalism ignores. If Monsanto's evil seeds contaminate the world's crops and make it impossible for the plants to reproduce then what? If these horrible plants cross pollinate and destroy crops, then what? The authorities who allow this are the worse of all. They must be sociopaths, otherwise they wouldn't be able to live with the damage they are doing to others. I believe in karma though. Some bad things are awaiting these people.
.
One good breeze through a single plot of Monsanto GM corn could conceivably disseminate enough pollen to slowly infect every other corn crop in the EU. The French are playing with fire.
Does this leave the French government free to re-impose the moratorium under the appropriate EU legislation?If Monsanto were required to demonstrate that there's no...or even minimal...risk of contamination of non-GM crops from theirs, they would surely be unable to do so.
You have to realise that if your crops are pollinated by Monsanto's, it is your fault.