Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 December 2007 | Nature 450, 928-929 (2007) | doi:10.1038/450928a
News
Showdown for Europe
The European Union is set to make a landmark decision on genetically modified crops, as Alison Abbott and Quirin Schiermeier report.
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.
Late 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.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
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