Thanks to Hart and the New York Times.
(Aside – In response to the line about Canada’s participation in the challenge by the WTO against the EU over its right to set standards related to its food supply: Maybe I will write the WTO to tell them that the position of the Canadian Government is not that of its citizens! Societies are not ruled by economics (trade agreements). Cultural, ethical, environmental, and social considerations trump. The global ECONOMIC model has been tested and shown to be a miserable failure. (On the other hand, the global COMMUNITY model is very successful.) Citizens have moved beyond the economic globalization that the Canadian Government and transnational corporate interests are still trying to jam down our throats. That Canada continues to be a part of the WTO challenge is an international embarrassment. The WTO should be embarrassed by the challenge, too.
The EU Commissioners support GMOs, some individual member states oppose them. Note the use of fear as a tool to bring about compliance, used by those who hold power: “… further delays would weaken our position at the WTO,” EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.” )
/Sandra
=================================================
EU ministers uphold sovereign right to ban GMOs
By Jeremy Smith | June 24, 2005
LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) – EU environment ministers dealt a blow on Friday to efforts to get more GMO crops grown in Europe as they agreed to uphold eight national bans on genetically modified maize and rapeseed types.
The vote was a sharp rebuff for the European Union’s executive Commission, which had wanted the ministers to endorse an order to lift the bans within 20 days. EU law provides for national GMO bans if the government can justify the prohibition.
It also played into the hands of the United States, Canada and Argentina, whose suit against the European Union at the World Trade Organization alleges that EU biotech policy harms trade and is not founded on science.
The EU’s 1998-2004 biotech ban, they say, was illegal.
The WTO is now expected to issue its initial ruling on the GMO case in early October, postponed from August, officials say.
“A very large majority, 22 member states, rejected proposals to lift these national bans. We were able to give a clear message to the European Commission,” Luxembourg Environment Minister Lucien Lux told a news conference.
It was the EU’s first agreement on GMO policy since 1998, when the bloc began its unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO foods and crops — lifted last year by a legal default.
Between 1997 and 2000, Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Luxembourg banned specific GMOs on their territory, focusing on three maize and two rapeseed types approved shortly before the start of the EU moratorium.
For the Commission, the votes were a setback, especially in its WTO defense, but it was still “business as usual.”
The EU executive now has several options, including returning to the ministers with the same proposals for lifting the bans, though at a later date, or changing them radically.
“The EU is under considerable pressure at the WTO, and not only due to the lack of action (on national GMO bans) in previous years. And further delays would weaken our position at the WTO,” EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said.
“This does not call our regulatory framework into question…(which) is the strictest in the world. We are going to apply the existing framework and we are obliged to do so.”
Ironically, on the same day that the EU’s Official Journal issued an authorization for a GMO rapeseed, made by Monsanto, it was forced to revoke it due to a bureaucratic error.
The authorization, for GT73 rapeseed made by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto, will probably be issued in a few weeks.
GREENS ECSTATIC, INDUSTRY ANGRY
Spain was the only country to uphold all eight bans, despite the fact that its farmers grow one of the maize types, the Bt-176 strain made by Swiss biotech giant Syngenta .
Spain is one of the few countries that grows GMO crops extensively in Europe, where much of the public view them as “Frankenstein” foods despite industry assurances they are safe.
Green groups were ecstatic that the EU had finally agreed to slap down not just one of the national bans, but all eight.
“The European Commission asked for more guidance from the member states and they got it,” said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth Europe.
“Countries today have demanded the sovereign right to ban genetically modified crops if there are questions over their safety,” he said in a statement.
Apart from the Bt-176 strain, the other maize types were MON 810, made by Monsanto, and Bayer’s T25 maize. There are also two rapeseed types, both made by Bayer.
But Europe’s biotech industry was incensed by the decisions. “Today’s vote is another failure of member states to play by the rules that they themselves established. The EU’s approval process for safe GMOs is arguably the strictest in the world and these bans are not scientifically justifiable,” said Simon Barber at European biotech industry association
EuropaBio.
GMO DEADLOCK ELSEWHERE
Even though the EU has now lifted its six-year unofficial moratorium on approving new GMO products, national governments have consistently clashed over biotech policy.
The EU’s member states have now ended meetings in deadlock 14 times in a row on whether to approve new GMO products, usually for use in industrial processing or as animal feed.
The latest occasion was also on Wednesday, when the ministers failed to agree on authorizing another Monsanto maize known as MON 863, modified to resist the corn rootworm insect.
The Commission will now take up the dossier and most likely issue a rubberstamp authorization in the next few months, officials say. This process kicks in when EU ministers fail to agree after three months on whether to authorize a GMO or not.
Monsanto’s requested use was for processing into animal feed, not for growing or for consumption as human food.
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company