2008 articles

NOTE: Interesting comments from GM-producer nations Brazil and Argentina, totally undermining the reason claimed for the change.

EXTRACT: Diplomatic sources in Brazil and Argentina, which supply almost all the EU's animal feed supplies and soya for processed food, also question the apocalyptic scenario.

"We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy," said a Brazilian source.
---
---
Fresh fight looms over Europe GM crops
By Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Financial Times, June 24 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fe227c42-4209-11dd-a5e8-0000779fd2ac.html

Europe is poised for a fresh battle over genetically modified crops as its top regulator moves to relax a zero-tolerance policy on unauthorised GM imports.

Androulla Vassiliou, European Union health commissioner, is set to recommend lifting the threshold for GM "contamination" in response to pressure from farmers and the food industry, which claim they are spending millions of pounds finding alternatives.

Environmental campaigners, however, say warnings that the EU could be unable to find supplies are scaremongering. Diplomatic sources in Brazil and Argentina, which supply almost all the EU's animal feed supplies and soya for processed food, also question the apocalyptic scenario.

"We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy," said a Brazilian source.

Ms Vassiliou is likely to propose lifting the threshold from zero to 0.1 per cent. That would cover most of the recent contamination cases, such as the LL601 incident in 2006 when genetically modified rice came into the EU from the US and had to be withdrawn from the market, costing companies involved millions of euros.

The change would not require new legislation and the subsequent support of a qualified majority of EU ministers and the European parliament. Ms Vassilliou's spokeswoman said that experts from member states, however, would have to agree the policy change.

"We are looking at a technical solution that would not require changing the law," said Ms Vassiliou’s spokeswoman. It is the least radical option called for. The food industry had pushed for 0.9 per cent, in line with the amount of GM allowed in foodstuffs without having to be labelled. The US wants 5 per cent.

EU citizens and their governments are broadly hostile to GM. It can take up to four years to approve a new product even for animal feed imports, the most uncontroversial area. In the US, by contrast, the process takes a few months so there are many more approved crops.

With the EU dependent on imports for 77 per cent of its animal feed, farmers are left paying about 10 per cent more for supplies than rivals, and trade is occasionally disrupted when an unauthorised genetically modified organism is found.

Friends of the Earth has condemned the commissioner's plan.

"If the EU was serious about listening to its citizens, it would not be quietly weakening GMO laws behind closed doors," said Helen Holder, European GM campaigner at the group.

"The EU is falling for the biotech industry’s pro-GM hype. European livestock farmers need real solutions not measures that will simply increase the industry's control and profits."

The EU has approved about 20 GM substances for imports. Brazilian and Argentine sources say the change would be more aimed at cutting costs than ensuring supply.

"There is no crop grown in Brazil that is not allowed in the EU," said one. "We only grow traditional maize. They do not like being reliant on one source. Brazil uses its vast landmass to grow separate GM and non-GM crops. There are separate roads, ports and ships used to avoid contamination."

Argentina grows almost entirely GM soya. Yet the prevalent Round Up Ready variety by the US's Monsanto, is approved in the EU. Brussels is expected to approve Round Up Ready 2, the successor, before Argentina does.