|
|
 
|
Swiss agree to 5-year GMO farming ban
(Friday, Dec. 2, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. EU eyes WTO case to drive policy forward on GMOs 1. EU eyes WTO case to drive policy forward on GMOs by Jeremy Smith BRUSSELS - Senior EU policymakers are unclear where they stand on
genetically modified (GMO) foods even after years of debate and are looking to a world
trade ruling that may dictate where to move next, diplomats say. ) While the European Union restarted approvals of GMO products in 2004 after a
break of almost six years, the end of the bloc's unofficial biotech ban did
not come with the blessing of all its 25 governments -- which repeatedly fail
to agree on GMO policy. ) Since 1998, EU member states have not found enough of a voting majority to
agree any new GMO approvals. And since the moratorium ended, the European
Commission, the bloc's executive arm, has rubberstamped five new authorisations
on their behalf. ) The limbo is reflected at the Commission itself, which says it is following
EU law by issuing new approvals -- but where nobody in the top echelons seems
to be driving policy forward. ) The "leadership vacuum" on GMOs shows few signs of being filled until the
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on a suit filed against the EU by
Argentina, Canada and the United States. ) Fearing a new trade war, the Commission is keen to show the three
complainants that Europe is ready to push GMO applications through the EU system,
diplomats say. The WTO is due to issue its ruling, already delayed several times,
in early January. ) "The WTO outcome will clarify things and inject some reality into the GMO
debate, which at the moment is dominated by the idea that the EU can do
whatever it likes," one said. "The ruling is the only thing that can bring any kind
of political movement." ) Europe's shoppers are known for their wariness towards GMO products, often
dubbed as "Frankenstein foods", with opposition polled at slightly over 70
percent: a stark constrast with the United States, where they are far more
widely accepted. ) SITTING ON THE FENCE) Six European Commissioners are pivotal for the direction of GMO policy in
Brussels, and represent the environment, trade, agriculture, research, industry
and food safety portfolios. ) Probably the most pro-biotech is Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen,
who said in a speech in September: "the Commission, public authorities,
academia and industry together, should try to present the usefulness of GMOs to the
public".) On green biotech, "public attitudes as well as member states' positions
hamper the development in this area," he said. ) Verheugen may get some backing to push for a firmer line on accelerating GMO
approvals from Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson if the WTO attacks EU
biotech policy, officials say. ) But the others seem to be sitting more on the fence. Food Safety
Commissioner Markos Kyprianou, for example, would like to see an end to the deadlock in
GMO votes, where EU states debate whether to authorise a particular product. ) Not completely convinced about the benefits of GMOs, Kyprianou does not want
EU farming to be dominated by biotech to the same extent as in the United
States, insiders say. ) Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, one of the more GMO-wary
commissioners, has refrained from putting "live" GMOs for cultivation up for debate and
looks in no hurry to do so. ) Dimas will participate in a GMO policy debate with EU environment ministers
on Friday but little concrete is expected to come of it until after the WTO
makes its ruling. ) And for Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, the main issue to be
resolved is coexistence: EU jargon for how farmers should separate
traditional, organic and biotech crops. ) Fischer Boel has often said she may consider a legal framework, maybe in
2006, for how EU governments should regulate coexistence on national
territories, instead of the current non-binding guidelines. Now, her rhetoric seems to
have faded. ) "There seems to be a lack of urgency among some of the Commissioners to
address some of the problems," said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at lobby group
Friends of the Earth Europe. ) "They (Commission) ... know they're not going to get support from the
majority of member states so they're just playing a long game now," he said. ) Apart from the WTO case, another factor that may force the EU to take a
firmer stance on biotechnology - either for or against - will be the Commission's
reviews of some of the EU's plethora of GMO laws, due sometime next year. ) "The Commission will be under quite a lot of pressure to publish its review
of the existing regulatory regime by the summer," the diplomat said. ) "The pressure is building all the time for a serious debate and there's a
limit as to how long they (Commission) can resist the pressure," he said.
"There's a serious debate on GMOs coming and that should kick off sometime in the
middle of next year." ) 2. Swiss agree to 5-year GMO farming ban Reuters, Sun Nov 27, 2005 ZURICH (Reuters) - Switzerland voted in favor of a five-year ban on the
use of genetically modified plants and animals in farming on Sunday,
putting in place some of the toughest measures in Europe. ) Results of the referendum, compiled by Swiss television SF DRS, showed
that 55 percent of voters had accepted the proposal to place a five-year
moratorium on GMO crops and the import of genetically modified animals. ) A majority of Switzerland's 26 cantons had also accepted the ban, SF DRS
said. ) Officials are expected to confirm the national result later on Sunday.
Final results take months to be published. ) The measures will force the Swiss government to put in place some of the
toughest legislations on GMOs in Europe. ) In the 25-nation European Union that surrounds Switzerland, restrictions
apply to specific crops only and are temporary in nature, rather than the
blanket ban proposed by Swiss ecologists and consumer groups. ) The proposal is supported by Swiss farmers, many of whom are considering
moving into the booming organic farming business in response to moves to
cut traditional agricultural subsidies. ) Under the country's legislative system, the Swiss electorate is regularly
asked to vote on major decisions. ) However, while the vote has a symbolic meaning, a ban will mean very
little change from current practice, said those who opposed the motion.
[because it was already so difficult to grow GMOs] ) 3. Austria to launch EU-wide GMO debate after Swiss referendum By Lucia Kubosova EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Austria is planning to hold a pan-European debate
about genetically-modified (GM) farming, following strong Swiss support for a
five-year ban on gene technology in a referendum on Sunday (27 November). ) Vienna will take over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in January and
aims to host a conference about GM crops on 4-5 April, the country's
agriculture minister Josef Proell has announced. ) Austria is one of the staunchest opponents of GM technology in the EU and is
sticking to its own ban on modified plants within its territory. ) Along with Italy, Austrian authorities indicated they view the Swiss vote as
strong proof of the European public's opposition to GM farming. ) Although Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, the result of the
referendum will "make people think," Italian agriculture minister Gianni Alemanno
commented. ) Swiss citizens supported a five-year moratorium on the farming of
genetically modified plants and animals, paving the way for introduction of the
strictest restrictions yet in Europe. ) Over 55 percent of voters backed the moratorium, with a majority supporting
the move in all 26 of the country's regions or "cantons." ) The decision forces the Swiss government to impose a full moratorium on the
cultivation of GM crops and the import of animals whose genes have been
modified in the laboratory, despite officials' pro-GM feeling. ) But the new law will not forbid import of genetically modified food or ban
research into GMOs (genetically-modified organisms). ) EU battle) Swiss campaigners say they co-operated with groups from the EU and expect
the Swiss result to generate strong popular backing for similar moves across
the EU. ) But the biotechnology sector fears that a Europe-wide anti-GMO trend could
stifle research. ) The European Commission declined to comment on the result of the Swiss vote
on Monday, but confirmed it would study its implications for future trade
relations with the Alpine federation. ) The EU executive last year lifted a six-year moratorium on the sale of GM
foods. ) Some of the bloc's member states, like Spain, the UK and the Netherlands
argue that Europe has sufficient safeguards in place and should move ahead on GM
farming. ) But several other countries insist new tests must be carried out before
allowing widespread farming of GM crops. ) Spain is currently the only EU country with large areas given over to GM
crops. ) 4. Centre [ie central government] admits failure of Bt cotton in 2 States Gargi Parsai NEW DELHI: The Government on Friday conceded the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh
and Rajasthan. ) Subsequently, permission for sale of the Monsanto-Mahyco varieties of MECH
seeds had not been renewed for Andhra Pradesh this kharif. ) The Centre has asked the cotton-growing State Governments to take action
against producers, suppliers and vendors of spurious Bt cotton seeds that have
failed to germinate or are non-Bt cotton seeds being sold in the name of
transgenic seeds at exorbitant prices. ) It has also asked States to monitor the performance of Bt cotton by
constituting State level and district level coordination committees. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar told the Rajya Sabha that the Andhra
Pradesh Government had reported large-scale complaints against Bt cotton seeds
that had failed in Warangal district and other parts of the State during kharif
2004 causing losses to farmers. ) The State Government had sought compensation amounting to Rs. 3.84 crores
from Monsanto-Mahyco. The company had appealed before the State-level
Memorandum of Understanding Committee and the High Court. ) The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has not renewed permission
for cultivation of three Mahyco cotton hybrids, including Bt MECH-12, Bt
MECH-162, Bt MECH-184 for Andhra Pradesh. ) The State Government has imposed a ban on sale of Bt cotton hybrids of the
company during kharif 2005. In Rajasthan too some Bt cotton had performed
poorly due to inadequate rain, a long dry spell and high temperature during the
crop's growth period, the Minister said. ) The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur has been notified
as referral laboratory for detecting the presence or absence of Bt gene in
the cotton seeds. The Department of Seed Certification in Tamil Nadu has also established a
laboratory for similar purpose in Coimbatore. ) The State Governments have been advised to constitute special flying squads
to prevent sale of illegal Bt.cotton seeds and undertake massive campaigns to
educate farmers on the subject. ) 5. GM crop failure a warning, says US adviser http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1519962.htm A former agricultural adviser to US presidents says the failure of a genetically modified
field pea trial should act as a warning for future GM crop testing. The 10-year CSIRO trial was abandoned when tests found the peas were making mice
seriously ill. Dr Charles Benbrook, who advised presidents Carter, Bush senior, Reagan and Clinton says
the field pea trial failure shows current GM crop testing is grossly inadequate. "I don't believe that this new study proves that all genetically engineered food is
posing a great threat to people but it certainly confirms the need to go back and look at
the major food crops," he said. He has called for changes to the Gene Technology Act, which is currently under review, to
tighten GM crop regulation and increase scientific scrutiny of potential commercial
varieties. But the Grains Council's David Ginns says the failed field pea trial was an isolated
case, and the fact health concerns were discovered shows current monitoring is adequate. "It picked up a problem early and the project was terminated on the basis that there were
concerns raised in the trial." | |
