EU countries can ban GM food?

[Timber Loftis]

EU countries can ban GM food if there is a health risk, legal advisor opines
Date Posted: 3/14/2003

LUXEMBOURG - AP World News via NewsEdge Corporation : In an opinion delivered to the European Court of Justice Thursday, the EU Advocate General said EU governments can ban genetically modified foodstuffs if there are ''detailed grounds'' these pose a threat to public health or the environment.

The advocate general's view is not binding on the EU high court but is followed in 80 percent of its rulings and may well be a setback to biotech companies that have been waiting for years to get the EU to lift its moratorium on the marketing of genetically modified foods.

The EU high court will now study the issue that has soured trans-Atlantic trade relations in detail. No date for a judgment has been set.

Advocate General Siegbert Alber said Italy was entitled in August, 2000, to ban foodstuffs _ notably flour made from genetically modified maize _ by Monsanto Europe S.A, and two other companies, Syngenta AG and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

EU governments may impose a ban if they have ''detailed grounds'' to believe the modified foods threaten public health or the environment, said Alber.

Italy said the genetically modified flour could pose dangers to health and the environment. The companies appealed that and an Italian court sent the case to EU high court for guidance.

The Italian ban was imposed though British and French food safety officials had declared them to be ''substantially equivalent'' to the traditional varieties.

Alber said ''novel foods may be placed on the market ... even then they contain traces of transgenic protein, provided they are absolutely safe in terms of health.''

However, he added, EU government may ''adopt protective measures when there are detailed grounds for considering that the use of the food at issue endangers human health or the environment.''

Under EU rules, European governments must approve genetically modified seeds and foods before they can be imported and used by farmers and food processors.

In the past four years, European Union countries have maintained a moratorium on such imports.

The U.S. administration is considering bringing suit at the World Trade Organization against the EU, estimating the European moratorium costs American producers $200 million a year in lost corn export revenues alone.

Although EU governments ban genetically modified foods, the EU executive Commission is fighting to end the moratorium.

The biotech industry played down the significance of Alber's opinion.

Europabio, an industry group, said it believed Italy would repeal its ban and must still present evidence showing why it ban the genetically modified foodstuffs.

``Italy didn't present truly new evidence,'' said Simon Barber of Europabio. ``We're confident these kinds of bans only will be upheld when real evidence comes to light.''

<< Copyright ©2003 The Associated Press >>

Copyright notice

This is a news service of NewsEdge Corporation ©2003. This content is for your personal use only, subject to Terms and Conditions. No redistribution allowed
Go Back

[Earthdog]

I say let the guys who modify the food eat the food. When they die from old age, we might start thinking its safe. If they DONT die from old age we might be able to narrow it down to what killed them.

Personally, I wouldnt be interested in eating it if I knew what I was being offered. Chances are Ive already eaten some of it and not known it.

[Azred]

Oh for heaven's sakes! Don't they have anything better about which to worry? Genetically modified food is no different than food grown naturally, except for the fact that maybe it contains more protien or vitamin content than the natural food. What's wrong with that?

[Bardan the Slayer]

What's wrong with it is that scientists know alot, but not everything. Most of our fears over here are based on cross-contamination. You plant a GM crop in one place, pollen from those crops finds it's way to a natural crop, and bingo - you are introducing the GM genes into the natural crop.

If it was just ripeners and added vitamins, nobody would care, but the truth is, we don't know enough about the genetic code to know for certain that the changes we've introduced will have no side-effects. Now, side-effects are nothing new, but this is a one-way street. If GM crops are planted, and they cross-pollinate with natural crops, and then it turns out there's a flaw, a mistake been made that causes something unforseen and undesireable to occur, what then? Once you've introduced it into the food chain, how do you get it out again?

We're not luddites over here. We're not anti-GM for some ephemeral reason - we simply want more concrete proof of it's safety, in terms of long term studies, withjout having it pushed down our throats *now* only to find out 20 years from now that we've been adversly affected.

The USA is willing to go with it - fine! I couldn't care less. Actually, I hope it works out, then we'll partake and we will all benefit. Until the safety issue has been addressed, however, most people here will be unconvinced, and so will the governments.

[Masklinn]

I wanted to post something, but it would be just a copy-paste (with a poorer english) of Bardan's post.

(See, UK and France can agree sometimes)

[wellard]

What annoys me on a personal level is being a vegetarian for the last fifteen years because of the crap they put into meat as well as the way some animals are treated, I have made do with Soya replacements. Now this last year or so I am faced with the dilemma of the Soya I eat being genetically modified. Unmodified Soya and other products are becoming harder to find and with my failing health it really is starting to become a toss of the coin weather to give in or not. [img]graemlins/eating.gif[/img]

[Epona]

Genetically modified crops are mostly about patenting of plants. It is not possible to patent a naturally reproduced plant, but insert one small piece if DNA into it and it is legally possible for someone to 'own' the patent on that plant. Even if you've taken out a piece of DNA and inserted it back into the same plant.

Now there's a lot of money to be made out of this. If a big multinational 'owns' a plant, it becomes illegal for a farmer to use seeds from last years crop to grow the next years (because it breaches the patent laws of ownership), which is how most farming in the world, especially developing countries, works. The farmer must buy seeds every year from the company. Most genetic modification is also about sales of pesticides and fertilisers. If a company has a patented seed that they have modified so it will 'work' with certain pesticides and fertilisers, and be damaged by others, they can force farmers to buy their products as well! This is good for very few people - the people who own the patents on seeds.

Another issue is the environmental one. In areas where GM crops have been tested in Britain, insect and bird populations have been quite badly impacted upon already. There are a lot of regulations about the distance required between GM crops and non-modified crops, but it has been discovered that cross-pollination between crops occurs even at some distance. We are in danger of severely damaging insect (including pollinator) populations. Anyone who thinks that this doesn't matter is obviously ignorant of the importance of pollinating and other types of insect on the whole ecology. For anyone who still thinks this is unimportant - well imagine living in a wasteland. It is important.

And about eating the stuff - surely the point here is that consumers should have the freedom to chose what they eat. Here in the UK we have quite good regulations about labelling of food products, but this is not the case everywhere. If contamination of non-modified crops is occurring (and it has been proven to be the case over wide areas) then no amount of labelling in the world will allow a consumer to make an informed choice. I do not want to eat GM products.

As far as health concerns go, we don't yet know the impact on long-term health. Feeding certain GM foods to rats under lab conditions has shown to induce bowel and intestine damage including haemorraging. For those who say that genetic modification has always taken place in the form of selective breeding and hybridisation, yes they are right up to a point. But there is a vast difference between cross-pollinating two varieties of wheat to try to get a bigger crop, and taking genes from a fish to put them in a tomato. Even mixing different varieties to improve crops and selective breeding of animals is not without problems, even though it is more 'natural'. For example, wheat as we know it is not 'natural' - it is the product of thousands of years of selective production and cross-pollination. This results in high yields - but also has a high gluten content, which many people have an intolerance to. Natural spelt, einkorn, or emmer wheat causes health problems for very few people, yet large numbers of people are intolerant to modern wheat (if you feel bloated after eating a slice of bread you could have a slight intolerance to modern wheats - in some people it can be more serious).

I do not have a problem with science, and I do not have a problem with science being used to improve our world. I do however have a problem with being used as a guinea pig without my agreement for a largely untested scheme that is primarily about making huge profits for multinational corporations.

[ 03-18-2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Epona ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: Oh for heaven's sakes! Don't they have anything better about which to worry? Genetically modified food is no different than food grown naturally, except for the fact that maybe it contains more protien or vitamin content than the natural food. What's wrong with that?

Need I mention the US Federal Circuit Court case involving ConAgra and the problems with StarLink corn. Or did you not notice that in 2000-2001 80% of yellow corn was pulled from the shelves in the US? Taco Bell put signs up apologizing for the white corn shells, saying they could not obtain yellow corn. A GM-corn that was for animal feed was allowed to have a low toxicity chemical engineered into it, the EPA blindly thinking only animals would eat the corn. The EPA was stupid for two reasons: (1) cross-breeding of corn, and (2) corn-handling practices (you cannot avoid commingling corn in shipping.) Several people got very sick. Farmers brought the lawsuit against ConAgra for contaminating their crops in N.C. (cross-breeding) and thereby ruining the value. They won. GM foods have some negative health and economic impacts.

But, let's assume it is the same. I can choose to avoid sugar if I like - that's on the label. It's my right to know what's in the products I buy. But, the government doesn't even allowed GM information to be put on the label. This is simply one instance of a strong industry owning the governmental regulators.

Bardan Says: We're not luddites over here. We're not anti-GM for some ephemeral reason - we simply want more concrete proof of it's safety, in terms of long term studies, withjout having it pushed down our throats *now* only to find out 20 years from now that we've been adversly affected.

The fact that some one wants to take precaution until we know for sure is their right. I argue this way of approaching things is best. But, I'm a lawyer, and we a cautious by nature. However, when you argue this stuff must be good because *they* say so, just make sure you are aware of 2 things: (1) *they* have 1 goal - to sell the stuff, and (2) you are also making this decision for your children, and they may live with the consequences of your action.

Wellard states: What annoys me on a personal level is being a vegetarian for the last fifteen years because of the crap they put into meat as well as the way some animals are treated, I have made do with Soya replacements. Now this last year or so I am faced with the dilemma of the Soya I eat being genetically modified. Unmodified Soya and other products are becoming harder to find and with my failing health it really is starting to become a toss of the coin weather to give in or not.

Good'day, fellow veggie. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] In the US, GM soy has been around for about 8 years. The only way to avoid it is to look for an organic label that does not certify GM food as "organic." It differs from brand to brand, so research them online. My favorite fake meat brand for taste is Morningstar Farms (Kellog's fastest-growing division 4 years running), but I don't think it is GM-free. I can ask my wife about what she buys and give you better info.

Epona's point about the right to choose is well-taken. Epona's point about the damages seen in testing is well-taken. Epona's point about the big business of patenting is well-taken, too. On that point, I'll note that when Monstanto patented BT soy and BT corn they took advantage of the fact they had more expertise than the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO). They wrote their patents so broadly that they arguably own the patent on any possible genetic modification of the corn plant or the soy plant.

[ 03-18-2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[B_part]

My two cents worth:

Talking about GM food as a general category is a nonsense: a GM food is different from its parental species because of one or more proteins which are expressed by the transgenes. So, every single product is different, and its hazards to health must be assessed separately by evaluating the hazards to health of the extra proteins it expresses. Let's say you want to make apples orange (it's just an example): you take the gene(s) encoding B-carotenoids from carrots and transfect them into apples. If you work properly (and, believe me, it's not that easy) chances are the apples will be orange. Would such a GM be safe? It depends on the safety of B-carotenoids, which is debated (they may lead to vitamin A excess), but that's the only factor in the equation. It doesn't matter where the gene comes from (unless it comes from a virus), what matters is the protein it encodes.

Danger for environment: GM crops are usually more resistant than endogenous species to environmental stress - that's what they are designed for. So they have an evolutionary advantage and might undermine the biological equilibrium of the areas where they grow. The magnitude of this effect hasn't yet been determined, and I strongly think it once again depends on what single GM you are talking about.

``Italy didn't present truly new evidence,'' said Simon Barber of Europabio. ``We're confident these kinds of bans only will be upheld when real evidence comes to light.''

It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of mass reaction: food is something which is deeply rooted in our culture. Science tryng to modify it in ways unheard of and unknown to the vast majority of the people creates a sense of danger which isn't based on rational calculation but on emotional factors. Masses fear GMs,politicians are voted by the masses =>in all of Europe, and mostly in Italy for the reasons stated above, politicians are zealots of largely exagerated precautional measures against GMs. Throw in a bit of antiamericanism and anticapitalism (which are the main soul of the no global movement, at least here in Italy), and you will understand why this ban will not be upheld so easily, particularly after the facts from Iraq which have thrown gasoline on the fire of a growing anti USA propaganda.

[ 03-19-2003, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]