Translated by Mark Inglin, Checkbiotech
The Federal Minister for the Interior for Nutrition, Agriculture and
Consumer Protection, Horst Seehofer, considers arguments by the farmers'
union opposing the cultivation of genetically modified plants to be "an
excuse."
In an interview with the weekly newspaper, "Das Parlament" (October
22, 2007 publication), the CSU politician said, "The farmers' union contends
that it cannot recommend genetic engineering because we have not relaxed the
liability law."

In fact, other motives were at issue. The farmers' union should "be
honest enough to say that we don't recommend it because the vast majority of
farmers do not want it." The indirect demand by the union to relax the
liability law would, in Seehofer's view, "have a disadvantageous effect on
farmers" because farmers who do not want to have anything to do with genetic
engineering would have to struggle much harder with the consequences of
mixing conventional plants with genetically modified material. "That is why
I do not understand the argument at all," Seehofer commented.

The criticism of the farmers' union comes from Seehofer's decision not
to relax the liability law for genetic farmers. Consequently, genetic
farmers whose fields wind-pollinate neighboring arable land must be
responsible for any financial damage if neighboring farmers are no longer
able to sell their conventional harvests at the usual price. If no
particular individual can be found to be at cause, then, according to the
principle of "joint and several liability by parties independent of fault,"
all farmers involved with genetically modified plants would have to pay.

In a discussion with "Das Parlament" Seehofer pleaded for the
monitoring of transgenic corn. Routinely monitoring how things are evolving
and obtaining timely information are the only ways to "answer the question
of what kind of long term consequences will arise." In this case, he is
reacting to the fears of environmental groups that the cultivation of
transgenic corn could lead to an insidious decline in the purity of foods.

In an interview for the same edition of "Das Parlament," Seehofer's
official predecessor, Renate Kuenast (Buendis 90/Die Gruenen), took the side
of the farmers' union. In the amendment of the genetic engineering law that
was dismissed with an up-or-down vote, the government wanted to "drastically
dilute" important protective regulations. It would have struck from the law
the fact that the cultivation of genetically modified plants "fundamentally
must not endanger agriculture that is free of genetic engineering." That is
why environmental and consumer groups protested the changes "by rights."

With regard to the labeling of foods as is currently being discussed,
Seehofer is promoting uniform labeling of foods to include the most
important nutritional values "so that the public can gain sound, simple
information about how much sugar, or how much fatty acids and so on are
contained in a food." The so-called go-or-no-go type of labeling that, among
others, is being promoted by Renate Kuenast is "too simple."

In turn, in a discussion with "Das Parlament," Kuenast characterized
Seehofer's decision in favor of voluntary labeling of foods by industry as
"blatantly wrong." Everyone must be able to distinguish between basic
nutrition and candy at first glance, which is what the go-or-no-go type of
labeling achieves, and which must be obligatory. Voluntary measures have
"led to absolutely nothing so far." Such measures have been "judged as
failures," according to Kuenast.


www.checkbiotech.org