www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

EU ministers slapped down an attempt on Monday to order Austria to drop its
bans on two genetically modified (GMO) maize types, delivering a second
stinging rebuff to the EU's executive European Commission, December 2006 by
Jeremy Smith.

Between 1997 and 2000, five EU countries banned specific GMOs on their
territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types approved shortly
before the start of the EU's six-year moratorium on new biotech
authorisations.

The Commission's draft order, proposed in response to a World Trade
Organisation (WTO) ruling that attacked the various so-called national GMO
safeguards for breaking international trade rules, was roundly rejected by
EU environment ministers.

Only four countries supported the Commission in its attempt to overturn
Austria's ban: Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic.

Austria has banned two GMO maize types, one in 1997 and the other in 1999.
The first ban was against MON 810 maize made by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto
(MON.N) and the second against T25 maize made by German drugs and chemicals
group Bayer (BAYG.DE).

In June 2005, the Commission also tried to get the bans scrapped. EU
environment ministers rejected the proposals then as well.

Observers say the Commission's latest attempt to overturn the Austrian ban
was meant to demonstrate to the complainants in the WTO case -- Argentina,
Canada and the United States -- that it was taking action to facilitate more
GMO approvals.

But for many years, little has changed in the split of opinion on biotech
policy among the EU's governments, which are consistently unable to secure
the weighted majority that is legally required to vote through a new GMO
approval.

European consumers are well known for their antipathy towards GMO foods but
the biotech industry insists its products are safe and no different to
conventional foods. Europe's hostility to GMO foods is unfounded, it says.

Proplems at WTO?

The problem now for the Commission is to decide what to do next: it may
decide to propose a similar order at a later date, or even the same one, or
just quietly let the matter rest.

Privately, Commission officials say the biggest worry is more pressure from
the three WTO complainants over GMO approvals, or the two manufacturing
companies themselves.

"The Commission will have to consider very carefully the legal and
scientific basis that would underpin any new proposals by us," EU
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.

Austria's Environment Minister Josef Proell was jubilant that the
Commission's order was so comprehensively rejected, as were environment
groups -- who were quick to warn the Commission not to attempt similar
action against other EU countries.

"This is a very strong signal by the Environment Council (of ministers) for
the Commission to reassess its policy," he said.

"The Commission could save itself a lot of humiliation like today if they
would provide for a common (EU legal) basis for coexistence, for example,"
he said, referring to rules for how farmers should separate organic,
traditional and GMO crops.

At present, the EU has only a set of non-binding guidelines for crop
coexistence. EU governments are supposed to draft their own rules and then
submit them for the Commission's approval.

"EU environment ministers should be congratulated for defending the
environment and consumer protection against U.S. trade interests and
commercial pressure," said Martina Holbach, GMO policy adviser at
Greenpeace's European unit.

"It is time the Commission did the same -- it has been served a second slap
in the face today and should drop plans to pursue similar action against
Greece and Hungary unless it wants further humiliation," she said in a
statement.
[today.reuters.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail