Self-interested researchers have been lobbying against the tough legislation the public want. theyeven argue that revealing where GM crops are being grown "jeopardizes the future of the major branches of innovation in Germany."

Donald J. Johnston of the OECD unwittingly went to the heart of things when he said, "with modern biotechnology the world has discovered a vast new field which is full of potential for creative activity and, for the scientific community at least, patentable and profitable innovations."
http://ngin.tripod.com/fav.htm

Or as former Texas AW University entomologist John Benedict put it, "The universities are cheering us on, telling us to get closer to industry, encouraging us to consult with big business. The bottom line is to improve the corporate bottom line. It's the way we move up, get strokes.... All of these companies have a piece of me. I'm getting checks waved at me from Monsanto and American Cyanamid and Dow, and it's hard to balance the public interest with the private interest."
http://ngin.tripod.com/fav.htm

The public interest has gone out of the window.
---

Angry GM stalemate in Germany
Political parties and legislative bodies seem unable to resolve their dispute over GM crops
By Grit Kienzlen
The Scientist, September 23, 2004
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040923/02/

Germany's two national legislative bodies were at loggerheads over genetically modified (GM) plant legislation yesterday (September 22) after an arbitration panel that is supposed to conciliate between the Parliament and Bundesrat failed to reach a consensus.

On July 9, the representatives of Germany's 16 provinces in the Bundesrat - dominated by the Christian Democrat party - defeated a bill that had been approved by the Parliament (Bundestag), where Social Democrat (SPD) and Green parties hold the majority.

The arbitration panel is supposed to mediate between Bundestag and Bundesrat, but "the talks there are still extremely emotionally charged," Wolf-Dieter Glatzel, who represents the SPD faction in the panel, told The Scientist. Each party accuses the other of irrationality, as they struggle to draft a law that will allow commercial use of plant biotechnology while being acceptable to opponents of the technology.

Originally, the federal government was supposed to implement EU guidelines for releasing GM plants by 2002, but the law proposed by the minister of consumer protection, Renate Künast, a member of the Green party, was fiercely criticized by all major research organizations, who called it a "law of gene technology prevention."

There are two major points at issue, both concerning liability in case crops sown by conventional or organic farmers and contaminated by the neighboring fields of GM farmers.

While the EU guidelines recognize a contamination only when it exceeds a threshold level of 0.9%, the draft of the German law also acknowledges economic damage to an organic farmer if the contamination exceeds a threshold that he or she has arranged individually with his customers.

Secondly, the law currently allows for all neighboring GM farmers to be held liable for the damage collectively, even if they have personally followed all rules of good agricultural practice. The German Farmers Association therefore discourages its members from planting GM crops because of incalculable economic risks.

An alliance of German research organizations, including the Max Planck Society, the Fraunhofer Society, the German Research Foundation, and the Conference of University Rectors, sent an open letter to the arbitration panel last week. The letter said that the bill would prevent experiments with GM plants, making internationally competitive research impossible.

In addition to criticizing the liability rules, the research bodies were unhappy that cultivation areas for GM plants would have to be disclosed in a public registry, as experimental fields have been destroyed regularly by environmental activists in the past. The bill, the alliance writes, therefore "jeopardizes the future of the major branches of innovation in Germany."

The European Commission has also criticized the German bill in a detailed statement from July 26 for undermining EU regulations. If the bill is enacted without major changes, a legal procedure at the European Court may be foreseeable.

The arbitration panel will meet again for further consultation by the end of October, but members of the political opposition, such as Christel Happach-Kasan from the Liberal party (FDP), don't believe that the governing parties will try to find a compromise. "Fundamental opposition to green biotechnology is popular, but not enforceable in the EU any more," she said. The likely outcome will be that decisions will be left to the courts, she said.

Links for this article
N. Stafford, "Law may stifle German science," The Scientist, June 28, 2004.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040628/02/
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!pro d!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32001L0018&model=guichett

N. Stafford, "German GM wheat trials continue," The Scientist, April 13, 2004.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040413/03/

Go to a Print friendly Page

Email this Article to a Friend

Back to the Archive