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

EU environment ministers voted against a Commission proposal to lift a ban
imposed by Hungary on MON810 GM maize, which the country claims has harmful
effects on European plants and animals, February 2007.

This is the third time that member states have rejected Commission
attempts to lift national bans on the growing of certain GM crops, despite
assurances from the European Food Safety Authority?s (EFSA) technical
experts that they are safe.

EU ministers also failed to authorise the marketing of a genetically
modified carnation - a sign that getting GM products approved in the EU has
not become much easier since the EU's general moratorium - which effectively
prevented any GMOs from being marketed in the EU for a five-year period -
was lifted in 2003.

Large-scale GMO producers, such as the US, Argentina and Brazil, as well as
large biotech companies including Monsanto, Sygenta and Bayer have been
pushing for the EU to ease its authorisation procedure and let more GM crops
in, resulting in a case at the World Trade Organisation (EurActiv 22/11/06).

Issues:

A key argument put forward by GM producers is that GM technology could be
the key to solving developing countries' hunger problem.
Does Europe have the right to systematically reject GMOs ? even those that
fulfil their own safety requirements?
Is Europe, through its stance on GMOs and strict authorisation procedures,
stifling the development of a technology crucial to boosting food production
and breaking the cycle of malnutrition and starvation in developing
countries?
In a debate organised by think-tank Friends of Europeexternal , green NGOs
rejected this idea.

Positions:

Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard said that the EU should not
dismiss all GMOs automatically, because the technology could help to solve
developing countries' hunger problem.

"In a global world, the EU's actions impact on other countries," she said,
explaining that developing countries' inability to export to the EU
discourages them from investing in and producing GMOs.

She believes that the scepticism in Europe about genetic engineering in
agriculture stems from the fact that few GMOs "have brought unquestionable
benefits to the European table". But she underlined the fact that the EU
must assess each GMO on its own merits, because crops that can resist
diseases and insects can be grown in the third world.

"Like it or not, GMOs are here to stay," she said, adding that the EU has a
special role to play in the debate because it can contribute to ensuring
that GMOs are used in a safe and beneficial way for consumers by, for
example, investing public research in this field.

Per Pindstrup-Andersen, Senior Research Fellow at the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), stressed: "Not a single person has died
or become sick because of GM foods." Nevertheless, he agreed that more
studies should be carried out on allergies, etc? "The EU could have
generated a lot of information on GMOs during the moratorium, but it simply
sat on its hands," he complained.

Although he conceded that Europeans have the right to know about the
benefits and risks, he criticised the EU's dogmatism in refusing all GMOs.

"The debate in Europe is very one-sided," he said, adding: "If millions of
farmers in India and China are willing to break laws to get genetically
engineered food, there must be a reason."

He underlined the importance of understanding the risk-benefit trade-off for
developing countries, saying that for many the question is not "Is genetic
engineering the best solution?" but rather "Is there any other solution?"

For the moment, he said, Europe is standing in the way of developing
countries solving their own problems because of its straight-out rejection
of GMOs. "Developing countries are scared of losing their export market to
Europe if they start cultivating GM crops," he said.

But, he agreed that Europe has an important role to play in encouraging the
development of biosafety regulations, which are often very weak in
developing countries.

Simon Barber, Director of External Relations, EuropaBio, the European
Association for Bioindustries, said that the public had "very limited
knowledge" about GMOs and about agriculture in general. He accused green
groups of spreading unfounded rumours, saying: "After ten years of GM
plants, what negative effects have ever been seen?"

He added: "Many other plant-breeding technologies are just as scary and do
not only produce benefits?To categorically say that the technology should
not be used is not ethical."

Furthermore, he said that imposing a ban on GMOs was not feasible anyway as
"the international trading system simply cannot segregate crops on a 100%
basis".

Fouad Hamdan, director of Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), believes that
it is an exaggeration to say that GMOs can save developing countries,
because there are only four types of GM crops: soy, maize, oilseed rape and
cotton.

The majority of these crops are destined for feeding animals, not people, in
rich countries.

Furthermore, he said, GM crops only benefit large farmers, not small ones
who cannot afford expensive patented seeds. And, as for the environment, he
said that the use of pesticides has actually increased in Europe following
the introduction of GMOs.

He refuted the argument that NGOs were stirring up fear on false pretences,
saying: "I still believe that the benefits of GM food are almost nil?NGOs
are working with independent scientific facts, not with biotech-industry
funded research."

Therefore, he concluded: "The EU can with a lot of confidence tell
developing countries to be cautious too. The organic market is the future.?

But, a South African representative said: "Most Africans don?t have the
luxury of choice of what to eat and what not to eat. If genetic engineering
can bring some relief to this food insecurity, then let it be. And if it is
too risky, then come up with another solution."

[www.euractiv.com]