GMOs: Member States to be given full responsibility on cultivation

Scofflaw

More in the long-running EU GMO legal saga:

Today the Commission is proposing to confer to Member States the freedom to allow, restrict or ban the cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on part or all of their territory. While keeping unchanged the EU's science-based GM authorisation system, the adopted package consists of a Communication, a new Recommendation on co-existence of GM crops with conventional and/or organic crops and a draft Regulation proposing a change to the GMO legislation.

The new Recommendation on co-existence allows more flexibility to Member States taking into account their local, regional and national conditions when adopting co-existence measures. The proposed regulation amends Directive 2001/18/EC to allow Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.

The Commissioner added, "Granting genuine freedom on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks also necessitates a change to the current legislation. I stress that, the EU-wide authorisation system, based on solid science, remains fully in place." To conclude: "This means that a very thorough safety assessment and a reinforced monitoring system are priorities in GMO cultivation and are therefore being pursued vigorously. The Commission is committed to follow up actions on them before the end of the year.

As of today, a more flexible approach towards cultivation:

The strict authorisation system already in place, which is based on science, safety and consumer choice, will remain the same.

Legal certainty for the future:

The proposal for revising Directive 2001/18/EC aims to secure legal certainty for Member States when they decide on GMO cultivation on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks. To this end, the Commission proposes to include a new article (26b), which would be applicable to all GMOs that will be authorised for cultivation in the EU, either under Directive 2001/18/EC or under regulation (EC) N°1829/2003. Member States will be able to restrict or prohibit GMO cultivation in part or all of their territory without recourse to the safeguard clause. Their decisions will not need to be authorised by the Commission, but Member States will have to inform other Member States and the Commission one month before the adoption of their measures. The Member States will also have to respect the general principles of the Treaties and the Single Market, and be consistent with the international obligations of the EU.

At the same time, the EU authorisation system, based on scientific assessment of health and environmental risks will be maintained and further improved, thus ensuring the protection of consumers and the functioning of the internal market for GM and non-GM seeds, as well as for GM food and feed.

The legislative proposal will be adopted through co-decision with the European Parliament and the Council.

Background:

At present, EU member states are only able to restrict genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation under strict conditions as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the EU's single market.

Several member states have repeatedly invoked an EU safeguard clause enabling them to suspend the marketing or growth on their territory of GM crops that enjoy EU-wide authorisation, but the European Commission has never substantiated their applications and has always ordered the lifting of national bans.

In addition, the safety assessments performed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have come under criticism over the years (EurActiv 05/12/05 and 10/03/06). The EU executive has tried to introduce practical changes to the EFSA's GMO-approval process and in spring 2008, it mandated the agency to revise its guidance for the long-term environmental risk assessment of GM plants (EurActiv 12/04/06).

The EFSA itself has been trying to improve the openness and transparency of its work. During the French EU Presidency in 2008, EU ministers also called for the long-term environmental risk assessment of GMOs to be improved (EurActiv 05/06/08; EurActiv 09/12/08).

So this looks like a move to allow countries to allow national GMO bans, which the Commission had previously had to overturn - the revised package allows the national bans to happen by putting them on a different legal footing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

danlen

Is the ban Ireland imposed in 2009 still in effect now?

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=2620

copirineo

The minister Brendan Smith voted for the first time in Brussels on Tuesday to allow the marketing of food ingredients and animal feed containing GM products. A lot of people are very angry about the move. Afri held a press conference to highlight the issue ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2COUl4vnP4

MalteseBarry

copirineo wrote: »

The minister Brendan Smith voted for the first time in Brussels on Tuesday to allow the marketing of food ingredients and animal feed containing GM products. A lot of people are very angry about the move. Afri held a press conference to highlight the issue ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2COUl4vnP4

I imagine as a minister no matter what one does, a lot of people will be very angry about it.

Animal feed, and human foodstuffs, pretty much all contain GM products, as man have been genetically modifying animals and other foodstuffs for hundreds of years.

Macha

MalteseBarry wrote: »

I imagine as a minister no matter what one does, a lot of people will be very angry about it.

I think that can be used as a defence for pretty much anything and therefore isn't a valid defence.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Animal feed, and human foodstuffs, pretty much all contain GM products, as man have been genetically modifying animals and other foodstuffs for hundreds of years.

That argument has been put forward repeatedly but there's a difference between selective breeding and splicing genes from other genera.

MalteseBarry

Macha wrote: »

I think that can be used as a defence for pretty much anything and therefore isn't a valid defence.


That argument has been put forward repeatedly but there's a difference between selective breeding and splicing genes from other genera.

Selective breeding is an attempt by man to modify the genes in a plant or animal.

Genetic modification is an attempt by man to modify the genes in a plant or animal.

If your problem is with introducing genes from a different plant species, is your argument a scientific one, or an emotional one?

I know some react to this emotionally and talk of frankenstein foods and the like, and while emotions and fears are valid, they are not an argument against genetic modification. Especially when you see the benefits of such GM foodstuffs as, for example, golden rice.

Macha

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Selective breeding is an attempt by man to modify the genes in a plant or animal.

Genetic modification is an attempt by man to modify the genes in a plant or animal.

If your problem is with introducing genes from a different plant species, is your argument a scientific one, or an emotional one?

I know some react to this emotionally and talk of frankenstein foods and the like, and while emotions and fears are valid, they are not an argument against genetic modification. Especially when you see the benefits of such GM foodstuffs as, for example, golden rice.

No, it is quite a logical response. By the way, the very definition of genetic modification is that it alters the genes of an organism in a way that doesn't happen naturally. So attempts to portray the two as the same thing betray a lack of understand of the processes of genetic engineering.

My problem is not only the introduction of genes from a different plant species, but ideas like the Roundup resistant soybeans of Monsanto or terminator genes, among others. There are wider issues such as intellectual property rights, impacts on biodiversity and herbicide resistances.

I'm long cynical about the promotion of short-term benefits over long-term ones. It rarely works out well in the end. And there are plenty of long-term issues with GM that proponents seem all too willing to gloss over.

MalteseBarry

Macha wrote: »

No, it is quite a logical response. By the way, the very definition of genetic modification is that it alters the genes of an organism in a way that doesn't happen naturally. So attempts to portray the two as the same thing betray a lack of understand of the processes of genetic engineering.

My problem is not only the introduction of genes from a different plant species, but ideas like the Roundup resistant soybeans of Monsanto or terminator genes, among others. There are wider issues such as intellectual property rights, impacts on biodiversity and herbicide resistances.

I'm long cynical about the promotion of short-term benefits over long-term ones. It rarely works out well in the end. And there are plenty of long-term issues with GM that proponents seem all too willing to gloss over.

My argument is that GM is perfectly safe, and can have enormous benefits (like golden rice) for the health and well being of, literally, millions of humans. Thats not any theoritical benefit, but right now right across the world genetically modified golden rice is being eaten by millions of humans and bringing them health and nutritional benefits.

There may well be, as you hint, commercial agruments against GM foods, but thats not an argument that GM is always unsafe or bad for us or our health.

You seem to think that all those people should be denied genetically modified golden rice, and denied the increased nutritional and health benefits which they get as a direct resuly of eating the genetically modified golden rice, and I am not sure why you think that, if indeed you do.

Macha

MalteseBarry wrote: »

My argument is that GM is perfectly safe, and can have enormous benefits (like golden rice) for the health and well being of, literally, millions of humans. Thats not any theoritical benefit, but right now right across the world genetically modified golden rice is being eaten by millions of humans and bringing them health and nutritional benefits.

And let me give you an example of how we are screwing ourselves in the long term. Modern wheat varieties all have short stems since the days of Norman Borlaug in the 1960s. This was done because the shorter the stem, the more energy and resources can go into the production of the ears and because modern fertilizers would cause stems to grow too high. But with a shorter stem, comes shorter roots and now that more places around the world are experiencing drought, people now need wheat with longer roots that can reach water that is located further away from the surface. So now we're seeing more crop failings than would have otherwise happened. And the GM crowd's solution? drought-resistant wheat! More GM, storing up more problems for future generations.

We need to be resilient facing into the challenges of climate change. And resilience means variety and diversity. Over-reliance on genetically modified species is a recipe for disaster. And what are the impacts of these species on wild varieties? How exactly do they impact on the natural processes of selection? I've yet to see a decent answer to those questions.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

There may well be, as you hint, commercial agruments against GM foods, but thats not an argument that GM is always unsafe or bad for us or our health.

You think the livelihoods of small-scale farmers should not be considered? You think the impacts on biodiversity should not be considered? Your single measuring stick seems to be whether GM is bad for us to eat, which, quite frankly, is the very least of GM's problems. You seem to have a very narrow view of what the potential ramifications of GM are.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

You seem to think that all those people should be denied genetically modified golden rice, and denied the increased nutritional and health benefits which they get as a direct resuly of eating the genetically modified golden rice, and I am not sure why you think that, if indeed you do.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with golden rice. I personally don't have a problem with its use. But it's interesting that it is one of the very few GM crops that is free to subsistence farmers. Do you honestly believe that this will be standard practice? Of course not.

Attempts to focus the GM discussion on whether the food is actually good for us or not, ignores the more important issues that have long-term impacts.

Ediit: Oh and look what's come out today: Scientist warns on safety of Monsanto's Roundup:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

MalteseBarry

Macha wrote: »

You think the livelihoods of small-scale farmers should not be considered? You think the impacts on biodiversity should not be considered? Your single measuring stick seems to be whether GM is bad for us to eat, which, quite frankly, is the very least of GM's problems. You seem to have a very narrow view of what the potential ramifications of GM are.

Of course the livlihoods of all farmers should be considered, whether small, medium or large scale. As should the impacts of biodiversity. I'm still waiting for you to argue your case for them, rather than just asking what I think should be considered.

Macha wrote: »

I don't know why you are so obsessed with golden rice. I personally don't have a problem with its use.

I didn't realise I was "obsessed" with golden rice, and your language here is interesting. I'm trying to make an argument, and your response so far is not to make an argument, but to appear to try to attack me with pejorative language.

"

Macha wrote: »

You think t.... You think ...Your single measuring stick seems to be ... You seem to have a very narrow view of what the potential ramifications of GM are..I don't know why you are so obsessed with

It's all very well using pejorative language about me (most of which is innacurate), but wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the arguments?

The reason I mentioned golden rice is that it is a GM crop which has brought real, tanglble and good benefits to literally millions of human beings. Perhaps there are problems with it which I am not aware, biodiversity problems perhaps, or the livlihoods of small farmers. You don't say if there are problems or not with golden rice, but prefer instead to discuss the fact that there might be these sorts of problems.

If one is opposed , in principle, to GM foorstuffs, then one also has to be opposed to golden rice, as it, too, is a GM foodstuff.

I bring in golden rice as an example of GM, to show that not all GM foodstuffs are bad, and to show some are even hugely beneficial to millions of people. IF you are against GM, then you are against all GM or only some GM foodstuffs?

I'm wondering what your argument is against GM in general. And I am wondering what your position and argument is against golden rice in particular. Merely accusing me of various things, and waving the nasty-evil-big-business "Monsanto" card are not arguments against GM.

Macha

MalteseBarry wrote: »

Of course the livlihoods of all farmers should be considered, whether small, medium or large scale. As should the impacts of biodiversity. I'm still waiting for you to argue your case for them, rather than just asking what I think should be considered.

I have already outlined some of the issues above:
-the intellectual property rights very often seriously disadvantage the farmers involved as they are obliged to pay royalties to the GMO company annually, not just for the first round of seed. The terminator gene is an outcome of this sort of mentality. Moreover, due to the nature of crops and how they propagate, neighbouring farmers find GMO pollen in their seeds and are found to be in violation of IP. Monsanto and others go after these farmers ruthlessly and given the imbalance in resources available to fight legal cases, most farmers just give in and pay. Some don't: see Monsanto Canada Vs Schmeiser.
- There are serious questions over the impact on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers. In the short-term, freebies are given away and everyone is happy but what will be the long-term strategy of companies like Monsanto? I'd laugh if anyone tried to convince me they have the interests of farmers at their heart. If a Canadian farmer can barely afford to sue Monsanto, what is a small Indian collective going to be able to do?
- Impacts on organic. If GM is found in the fields of an organic farm, that farm loses its organic status. The very nature of pollination meanst hat GM spreads easily and can be found as far as 50kms away. Setting up an organic farm takes a lot of planning and investment that is usually recouped in the higher premiums asked from consumers. To make that investment and then lose organic status would be a financial disaster.
-Labelling. I'n not particularly concerned about whether GM foods are bad for human health, although as the article I linked to earlier suggests, there are emerging problems. There is also the issue of the transfer of allergens. But regardless, people should have the right to know what they are eating. Monstanto et al. are pushing for no labelling and to me that is completely reprehensible.
-Biodiversity. I talked about this above. Diversity is key for resilience. The interaction between GM crops and non-GM crops is not well understood. Our climate is changing more rapidly than ever before and we will need to maximise biodiversity in order to ensure that we are best equipped to handle future challenges. There are examples of weed cousins of herbicide-resistant crops also becoming herbicide-resistant and creating "super-weeds". Why pays the cost of the clear up? The GMO companies? Hardly.
-Herbicide use. One of the main methods of modifying crops is to make them tolerant to a particular herbicide. This is one of the ways that farmers say GM crops are cheaper, because they cut down on weeding labour and instead focus on heavy application of herbicide. This is resulting in a massive increase in herbicide use and the resulting pollution and associated problems.
-Herbicide Resistance Connected to the above, plants and animals are constantly evolving and many have developed strong resistances to herbicides and pesticides, simply creating a new problem for farmers and scientists to have to consider. It's like an arms race with nature.

Something similar happened with the use of DDT to eradicate malaria. The mosquitos because resistant to DDT and it largely lost its effectiveness but local populations were left to deal with the longer-term negative impacts on their health. History is littered with examples of humans coming in guns blazing with a new technology only to make a bigger mess, hence the precautionary principle.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

I didn't realise I was "obsessed" with golden rice, and your language here is interesting. I'm trying to make an argument, and your response so far is not to make an argument, but to appear to try to attack me with pejorative language.

It's all very well using pejorative language about me (most of which is innacurate), but wouldn't it be more interesting to discuss the arguments?

It's disappointing you choose to pick me up on language and ignore the quite obvious arguments I've made but that's your choice.

MalteseBarry wrote: »

The reason I mentioned golden rice is that it is a GM crop which has brought real, tanglble and good benefits to literally millions of human beings. Perhaps there are problems with it which I am not aware, biodiversity problems perhaps, or the livlihoods of small farmers. You don't say if there are problems or not with golden rice, but prefer instead to discuss the fact that there might be these sorts of problems.

If one is opposed , in principle, to GM foorstuffs, then one also has to be opposed to golden rice, as it, too, is a GM foodstuff.

I know why you chose to talk about golden rice - it's the olden child of the GM movement . Your logic is flawed if you assume that if one is against one GM crop, one must be against all because it fails to consider the various reasons why one is opposed. Similarly, just because one is in favour of one GM crop, it does not necessarily follow that one has to be in favour of all GM crops.

The vast majority of GM crops are not for human consumption but are cash crops - cotton, soy for animal feed etc. The idea that this movement is about helping the poor is simply not supported by the facts. I am in favour of developing GM crops that improve nutritional value and help tackle the issue of world hunger, such as golden rice, but that is not where this GM movement is going. Claims of dramatically increased yields have failed to be supported by the evidence:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

MalteseBarry

Macha wrote: »

It's disappointing you choose to pick me up on language and ignore the quite obvious arguments I've made but that's your choice.

I chose to mention it because thats what you said. If you want to say things and not to be picked up on them, then that seems unusual. Everything I do is my choice, just as everything you do is your choice, and I should have thought that was self evident.

Macha wrote: »

I know why you chose to talk about golden rice - it's the olden child of the GM movement . Your logic is flawed if you assume that if one is against one GM crop, one must be against all because it fails to consider the various reasons why one is opposed. Similarly, just because one is in favour of one GM crop, it does not necessarily follow that one has to be in favour of all GM crops.

Again, you may think you know my motivation, but in fact you are simply wrong. I am not a member of any "GM movement" and just happen to have an interest on the topic. Again you try to smear me by attacking me and avoiding the arguments, which really appears to say more about your arguments than about me.

I agree it doesn't follow that one has to be in favour of all GM crops. However, if one is against GM crops in principle, then it follows that one has to be against all GM crops. Thats why I am unsure about where you stand as you seem to be hinting that golden rice is ok (even if you seem to think we should not be able to have a discussion about it because it is the (sic) "olden child of the GM movement")

Macha wrote: »

The vast majority of GM crops are not for human consumption but are cash crops - cotton, soy for animal feed etc. The idea that this movement is about helping the poor is simply not supported by the facts. I am in favour of developing GM crops that improve nutritional value and help tackle the issue of world hunger, such as golden rice, but that is not where this GM movement is going.

I am unsure that there is a "GM Movement" which might be thought to include collusion and sound quite sinister. There are lots of individuals around the world (and some here in the UK & Ireland even) who are scientists working on genetic modification. They are not part of a "movement" but individuals working to try to understand better and to imrpove plants resistance to drought, pests, disease and so on.

No one is naieve enough to believe that all companies and individuals are about helping the poor, just as even not all the charity sector is not all about helping the poor. Drug companies are also not all about helping the poor, nor are churches or schools or a myriad of other institutions.

The "GM Movement" is not going in only one direction, but in many different directions, and to tar everyone working with all forms of genetic modification with the same brush is simplistic at best.

Macha

Well you've completely ignored the bulk of the points I made in defence of my views on GM and decided to focus mainly on the more irrelevant parts of my post (and insinuate that I don't think a debate should take place - despite my obvious involvement in this debate).

My involvement in this thread is done.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

.

My involvement in this thread is done.

Indeed - you easily won that debate:)

ei.sdraob

Birdnuts wrote: »

Indeed - you easily won that debate:)

There isn't much debate on this forum, its all very one sided.

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There isn't much debate on this forum, its all very one sided.

Well, allow me to save you the trouble of having to come by this way again by issuing you with a permanent vacation from the forum – it appears the multiple infractions, warnings and bans you’ve accumulated here haven’t gotten the message across.

edwinkane

I was not aware of golden rice before. After looking it up, it does seem to have certain benefits for a lot of folks in developing countries. It is estimated 10 million children under the age of five are dying every year, a high proportion of deaths and illness could be avoided through better nutrition. It has been calculated that the lives of 25 percent of those children could be spared by providing them with crops biofortified with provitamin A (beta-carotene) and zinc.