"what struck me in this file is the number of anomalies. There are too many elements here where significant variations are observed. I never saw that in another file." - The Director of the French National research body, INRA, on the Monsanto GM maize the EU Commission is pushing member states to accept.
---

Eurocrats accused of "caving in" to US
Eurocrats force vote on modified food

Brussels, Belgium, 17 September 2004 - The European Union's executive Commission has been accused in a letter today (Friday) by an alliance of environmental, farming and civil society organisations [1] of "caving in" to pressure by the United States and the World Trade Organisation to accept genetically modified (GM) foods.

The Commission will on Monday Sept. 20 push European member states to vote on the import of a controversial GM maize made by the US biotech giant Monsanto. This will be the Commission's eighth attempt to get its member states to accept a GM food. Only last week, the Commission approved the commercial growing of 17 varieties of a Monsanto GM maize – making it the first GM seeds commercially available across the whole of Europe.

The United States, Canada and Argentina started proceedings last year in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) over Europe's position on GM foods. Civil society groups [1] have today written to the Commission accusing it of backing down before the case has even finished [2]. They highlight that since the trade dispute started the Commission has forced through 2 GM products without the support of either the public or the member states, and has pressurized countries to drop their national bans on GM foods and crops [3]. The organisations are also critical that the Commission is arguing in the WTO that there is scientific uncertainty over the safety of GM foods at the same time as pushing products domestically in Europe.

European Union (EU) member states have been asked by the Commission to vote on Monday September 20 on the import of Monsanto's GM maize called MON863. This maize has been genetically modified to resist some insects by producing a toxin in the plant. It has been heavily criticised by scientists from a number of countries, in particular France. The French Commission for Genetic Engineering (CGB) was alarmed by the results of a feeding study of MON863 on rats that showed significantly different levels of white blood cells, kidney weights and kidney structure, as well as lower albumin/globulin rates in the rats fed the GM maize. The Director of the French National research body, INRA, stated, "I hear the argument of natural variability, but what struck me in this file is the number of anomalies. There are too many elements here where significant variations are observed. I never saw that in another file." [4]. The confidential minutes of the CGB meeting (in French) are available from Friends of the Earth.

Adrian Bebb, GM campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said:
"The European Commission is caving in to the bullying of the United States. They are forcing more and more genetically modified foods and crops onto the market against a background of scientific disagreements. Their actions are undemocratic and against the will of the European public who have made it consistently clear that they do not want to eat genetically foods. Europe should stand firm against the US pressure and protect its people and environment from this genetically modified experiment."

In May this year campaigners delivered a petition to the WTO signed by more than 100,000 citizens from 90 countries and more than 544 organisations representing 48 million people. The signatories, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and French small farmers' leader Jose Bové, have called on the WTO not to undermine the sovereign right of any country to protect its citizens and the environment from GM foods and crops. [5]

Contact:
Adrian Bebb, GM expert, mobile +49 1609 490 1163
Alexandra Wandel, Trade expert, mobile +49 172 748 39 53

Notes to editors
1. The groups include Friends of the Earth, ATTAC France, ATTAC Hungary, ATTAC Poland, ATTAC Stuttgart. Both ENDS, Netherlands. CIIR, Catholic Institute for International Relations. CPE, European Farmers Coordination. EHNE, Basque Farmers' Union, Spain. Five Years Freeze, UK. GeneWatch UK. Greenpeace, European Unit. Gooden Waar & Co, Netherlands. HIVOS, Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries, the Netherlands. IFOAM, The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. NordBruk, Sweden. OXFAM Solidarité, Belgium. Rete Lilliput, Italy. RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Småbrukare i Sjuhärad, Sweden. Transnational Institute Amsterdam. URFIG, Unité de Recherche, de Formation et d’Information sur la Globalisation. Weed, Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie & Entwicklung e.V. Germany. Wemos, Netherlands. WIDE, Women in Development Europe.
2. The letter can be found at the end of this press release
3. The Commission approved the commercial import of the GM sweet corn Bt11 by Syngenta in May, and the Monsanto GM animal feed NK603 in July. Last week the Commission also approved 17 varieties of Monsanto’s MON810 maize – making it the first GM seeds commercially available across the whole of Europe.
4. Le Monde, 22 April 2004
5. The website of the campaign is  www.bite-back.org. Pictures from the May 2004 action can be found at http://www.foei.org/media/gallery.html

Brussels, 15 September 2004

Open Letter by European Civil Society Groups to President Prodi, Commissioner Lamy, Byrne, Wallstrom, Fischler and Busquin.

We are writing to urge the European Commission to take a stronger and more coherent position on genetically modified (GM) foods and crops both internally in the EU and in the context of the WTO dispute on GMOs.

Like you, we welcome the fact that the WTO case is not being judged purely as a procedural issue and that it has been decided to ask for additional scientific expertise. We see the importance that the EU attaches to a scientific debate at the WTO panel as further affirmation of the ongoing uncertainty about the safety of GMOs. However, we are concerned that this position is not reflected in the Commission’s ongoing support of approvals. In fact, saying one thing at the WTO and doing another in the EU could seriously undermine the strength of the EU’s case at the WTO dispute.

In the interest of winning the WTO dispute, we urge you to bring your internal policies in line with your public position at the WTO.

We are greatly disturbed that since the dispute has started the Commission has started to aggressively push GM products against the will of the public at large and a significant number of member states. In particular, the Commission has:

· Forced through the approval of two GM products (Bt11 sweet-corn and NK603 animal feed) even though member states were divided over their long-term effects and the lack of proper testing carried out by the biotechnology companies concerned. Neither product received a qualified majority.

· Put pressure on those member states that have GMO bans in place urging them to drop such bans. Considering the lack of scientific agreement and the lack of knowledge about the long-term effects of GMOs (not to mention the problems associated in preventing contamination from such products) national Governments must have the right to suspend the marketing in their territory.

Whilst the EU argues about the level of uncertainty in the WTO, consumers, farmers and food companies are exposed against their wishes to more GM imports. This also sends out a dangerous signal to other countries, especially those who are developing their own national legislation on GMOs, that the EU is “backing down” under pressure from the United States before the WTO case is even finished.

In respect of the large number of applications in the pipeline for GM foods, feeds and crops, together with the clear lack of support from member states, the Commissions position is becoming increasingly untenable and undemocratic. It is unacceptable that the Commission takes it upon itself to force through virtually every application. We therefore urge you to suspend your current policy and urgently address the problem of why consumers and member states do not support the introduction of these GM products – in particular the lack of proper long-term safety testing, a real right to choose and strict liability for the developers of such products.

On a more positive note we welcome many of the points made in the case made so far by the EU in the WTO dispute. In particular we welcome your acknowledgement that: "There is a serious question as to whether the WTO is the appropriate international forum for resolving all the GMO issues that the Complainants have raised in these cases. The European Communities can only regret that the Complainants have chosen to start a dispute settlement procedure based on flawed premises, rather than to promote international co-operation as a means to build a sound international framework for addressing the GMO issue." This is an issue that many civil society groups have been saying for a number of years. We would therefore welcome discussions with the Commission on how to further this agenda.

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive