A mammoth bureaucratic battle is looming between senior European Commission officials and national governments that could affect the long-term prospects for the cultivation of genetically modified crops on the continent.
Genetically modified maize makes up almost 2% of the crop grown in Europe.C. KNAPTON/SPLLate last month, the European Commission's environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said that he plans to reject applications from Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred International for approval to grow two transgenic strains of maize (corn), on the grounds that the crops could adversely affect the environment.
Dimas's position has been welcomed by environmental groups and attacked by industry lobbyists. And researchers point out that it ignores the recommendation Dimas received from his own scientific advisers.
But the environment commissioner's move is far from the end of the matter. Behind-the-scenes battles are under way inside the commission, where a powerful faction wants Europe to accept genetically modified crops. That would avoid further conflict with the United States, which has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that European reluctance to approve the crops amounts to protectionism.
In particular, the commissioners who are respectively responsible for trade, industry and agriculture — Peter Mandelson, Günter Verheugen and Mariann Fischer Boel — are trying to overturn Dimas's decision.
Observers on both sides of the debate say that, when the dust settles, it is quite possible the European Commission will give the green light to Syngenta's Bt11 maize and Pioneer's 1507 maize, which are genetically engineered to be resistant to both pests and herbicides.
At present, only one transgenic crop can be cultivated in Europe: Monsanto's MON810 insect-resistant maize, which now comprises nearly 2% of maize grown in Europe, most of it in Spain and France (see 'Transgenic maize'). MON810 was approved before 2001, when the European Union (EU) agreed a directive setting out complex rules for the future approval of such crops.
Getting the directive agreed in the first place took several years, and came with the proviso that there would be no approvals for import or cultivation until water-tight mechanisms for tracing the transgene, labelling transgenic seeds and governing the safe 'coexistence' of conventional and transgenic plants were in place. That took until 2004. Even as they voted for the directive, some countries — Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, France, Denmark and Italy — made it clear that they were still reluctanct to allow the crops in, arguing that the directive should have explicitly taken into account public opinion, which they say is firmly opposed to their cultivation.
Under the directive, each candidate strain is assessed for its impact on animal and human health and the environment before a decision is made on whether to approve its cultivation.
If a company wants to grow or market a crop in Europe (as food, feed or a derived product), it must apply through a member state. That country can either perform a scientific risk assessment itself for the commission or pass the application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, which organizes an assessment through a panel of 21 outside scientists. The EFSA delivers a scientific opinion to the commission's health directorate within six months. Five applications for the import of transgenic maize and oil-seed rape have been approved by this route since 2004.
But if the application includes cultivation of the crop, a more extensive environmental risk analysis must be carried out, and this is incorporated into the final scientific opinion delivered to the commission's directorate for the environment.
The commission should make a decision within three months. And this is the point where Bt11 and 1507 maize have got stuck. EFSA scientific reports on both varieties concluded that neither would have “an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment” in the contexts proposed. Both reports were ready by April 2005, and were updated in November 2006.
But it wasn't until last month that a draft decision was circulated inside the European Commission saying that neither crop should be approved for cultivation. It refers to 11 papers published since the EFSA's update that it says cast doubt on the crops' long-term environmental safety.
Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas plans to reject applications to cultivate two transgenic crops.J. THYS/AFP/GETTYThe publications include studies claiming that insecticidal molecules from the plant may persist in water or sediments draining from a cultivated field, and may disturb downstream ecosystems.
The environment commissioner did not ask the EFSA panel for an opinion on these additional papers. Garlich von Essen, secretary-general of the European Seed Association, says that this shows “disdain” for both the EFSA and its advisory system.
Marc Van Montagu, a plant geneticist and president of the European Federation of Biotechnology, says the commission has cherry-picked publications claiming possible dangers, and he questions the quality of the selected papers. Environment-commission officials respond that their risk-management process is supposed to reach beyond the EFSA's findings.
Once the commission's decision has been finalized, it will go to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which comprises scientists and officials from member states.
The standing committee will vote on each proposal using a system — called the qualified majority vote — that reflects the size and population of each member state. If the voting is at odds with the commission's position, the dossiers are passed to the EU Environment Council of environment ministers of each member state, who must also vote on each case. But with populous nations such as Spain and the United Kingdom supporting approval, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joining some of the original dissenters, neither side is likely to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to decide the issue. If that happens, under EU rules the final decision will be thrown back to the commission itself.
On 26 November, the German agriculture minister Horst Seehofer proposed that this tortuous approval process should be abandoned and a regulatory authority be created with full responsibility for analysing the science and drawing conclusions.
“The reservations of the public are not being sufficiently considered,” he said. “Until such an authority is created, there should be a moratorium on granting new approvals”.
Such reservations are exemplified by the continued resistance of some nations to cultivating MON810 maize, which is grown in only six EU countries. Austria actually banned the import of the maize in 1997, and has since resisted strong pressure to lift the ban, which is illegal under the 2001 directive.
ADVERTISEMENT
In October, France's president Nicolas Sarkozy announced a suspension of the cultivation of transgenic maize until new national rules have been worked out. Sarkozy, who has recently laid out plans for far-reaching environmental improvements in France, seems willing to risk a dispute with the commission (and the WTO) over the issue.
Meanwhile, the WTO is putting increasing pressure on the EU, giving it until 11 January to end national moratoriums. The commission says it expects to make its decision on the two maize varieties in January as well, although an exact date has not been set. “This is a real test case,” says Adrian Bebb, a Brussels-based campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “But we fear that Dimas's chances of winning are slim.”
See Editorial, page 921 .
Thank God that Commissioner Dimas has had the courage to signal his intent here, and to indicate that he is less than satisfied with EFSA advice. He does not have to follow that advice, since EFSA is not fit for purpose. On the GM front, it sees its function not as the protection of EU citizens and the environment, but as the facilitation of GM consents. It routinely bases its "advice" on non-peer reviewed dossiers submitted by applicants. These dossiers consist entirely of "advocacy science" which is often highly selective and manipulative, with statistical jiggery-pokery thrown in. It has taken Prof Seralini and his colleagues at CRIIGEN in France to reveal what has been going on. The GM corporations routinely block independent or "inconvenient" research, using a variety of techniques. On MON810, for example, Monsanto immediately stopped providing GM seed to researchers as soon as it was revealed that something unpleasant was being discovered in soil ecosystems. There is systematic corruption in GM science, and at last somebody has had the courage to question EFSA's impartiality and to invoke the precautionary principle. EFSA is driven by commercial expediency and politics rather than science, and until it undergoes root and branch surgery, that situation will not change. Bravo, Dimas!!
There has been a lot of concern about EFSA - both about the assumptions it uses in its assessments of GMOs, and about its failure to insist on accurate declarations of interest from members of its GMO Panel, which is dominated by scientists who have a powerful vested interest in the continuation of the GM enterprise. What I find particularly disturbing is the lack of objectivity in Nature's editorial on this topic. Take, for instance, its use of the term "genetic enhancement" for "genetic engineering" - the implicit non-scientific value judgement could not be plainer. The same goes for statements about "genetic enhancement" being "of significant benefit to societies in rich and poor countries". And how about this for an assumption: "Rigorous science-based risk assessment is likely to favour the cultivation of GM crops"?
Presently there is a push by US corporate interest and the WTO to have Nation states ( Europe Poland and Australia)remove moratorium or bans on bt crops and Genetically Modified foods. I suggest that WTO and free trade agreement is a completely in appropriate social and political method to bring about changes to national laws that act to protect food production, food qualities, and biodiversity in genetic pool and unpredictable consequence in altering genetic codes by introducing fungal and bacterial genes in crop control. Most of the information I have read surrounding genetically modified plant types and the effects of bt crops do not give me any confidence in this technology. I have read in a recept article called GM Soy in Brazil Will Kill the Amazon and Boost Global Warming by 50%* Written by Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero this is a 16 page document that clearly highlights some of the national and social excess that GM food types play out in nations. The consequence both to the environment, ecological systems and local people is frightening and I don’t think the case is over stated. Presently NSW and Victoria are removing the moratorium on GM crops and bt foods this decision is highly radical and the social and environmental impacts along with our trade could be serious injured by these states going with a agricultural product. The GM products has direct human health consequences in to quote again P2in Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero article “ Roundup's active ingredient, caused retarded development of the fetal skeleton in laboratory rats; it also inhibits the synthesis of steroids, and is genotoxic in mammals, fish, and frogsâ€.†Roundup has been found to cause dysfunctional cell division that may be linked to cancers, and children born to users of glyphosate had elevated neurobehavioral defectsâ€. This is some of the data and science surrounding Gm applications and basic life these are very risky substances to placing into a ecologies and our food chain. On reading these statements I have profound concern of the potential health risks to human, and the chain of life connected to make biodiversity. To take the fact that the worms beneath these crops are being killing or transfigured appears to my mind as environmental suicide as these animals act as primary worker in health soils to health root systems. The European rejection of Gm Food is prudent and well balanced against having GM crops and bt food specifically with the potential health consequences and environment inter play in food chains. Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas plans to reject applications GM food production is well founded as it essentially acknowledging the actual known dangers in this technology to human health and environments. Andy Mac
It seems that Europe is not yet suffering enough from its rejection of genetically modified crops. I wonder how long it will be before the U.S., China, and other countries get a competitive advantage that cannot be ignored.
If Dimas' proposal is backed by the Commission it will have serious effects on the competitiveness of European farmers and will unnecessarily hurt European consumers. We are already experiencing globally historic shortages of staple crops like wheat, barley and corn, and the costs of these crops are at record highs. To postpone any new approvals for cultivation will certainly have dramatic consequences - resulting in production that will move out of Europe, and leaving farmers to import biotech crops. Europe's farmers should have the choice to grow these crops, which are already used in 22 countries and have an unbroken safety record reaching back almost twenty years. Scientific organizations and regulatory agencies around the world have declared their confidence in the safety of biotech crops, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London, as well as national academies in China, Brazil, India and Mexico. And, biotech crops offer enormous benefits for the environment - helping farmers produce more and better crops while also protecting biodiversity and natural resources, and preventing the need to convert more land to farming. The Commission’s environment directorate appears to be relying on discredited scientific arguments that ignore the fact that hundreds of millions of people have benefited from this technology around the world. This is not a subject for playing politics. - Denise Dewar, CropLife International