GMO COMPASS - Information on genetically modified organisms
  Mar 25, 2017 | 6:51 am
Site Search

Searches all of GMO-Compass in an instant




Stakeholder input wanted: survey on research needs for assessing GMO impacts 

Shaping the Future of GMO Research

Stakeholder with interests in the risk and/or benefit assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) are invited to take part in an online survey.

The aim of this survey is to identify which research needs should be prioritised, thereby contributing to the commissioning of research on the health, environment and economic impacts of GMOs.

The survey will close on 15th July 2015.

More information and access to the online survey

The setting-up of this website was financially supported by the European Union within the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme from 1 January 2005 until 28 February 2007.

The European Commission and other EU agencies are not responsible for the content.
See what’s what.
The GMO Food Database
The GMO Food Database.
You want to know for which food products or plants gene technology plays a role?

Then enter here the name of a plant, foodstuff, ingredient or additive:

Database search
All database entries in overview:
Plants
Foodstuffs
Ingredients and additives
Additives according to E numbers
Enzymes


Please note that the GMO Compass Database currently is being expanded and updated. Please check back for new entries.

Newsletter
Sign up to receive regular updates on GM food quality and safety.
To change or cancel your subscription, please enter your email above.
Contact
Comments, suggestions or questions?
Please contact us at info@gmo-compass.org
Change font size
1 2 3

EU report puts forward isolation distances for GM maize


(29 September 2010) On this week's meeting of the Agricultural Council of the EU, the Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli presented a Best Practice Document for the cultivation of GM maize. The report was drawn up by the European Coexistence Bureau to propose measures that avoid the mixing of GM and conventional maize. According to Dalli, the report is meant to help Member States in developing their own coexistence guidelines – in July the Commission had come forward with a proposal to nationalise the cultivation decision of GM crops. At the meeting several Member States criticised this move, though.

The measures suggested by the Coexistence Bureau relate to the storage of the seeds and, above all, to spatial isolation distances as best ways to limit or avoid co-mingling of maize from different cultivation systems. Even if the Best Practice Document is non-binding, Dalli explained that these measures "are in full accordance with the spirit and aims of the proposal" to devolve the definition of coexistence policies to Member States and to provide them with more flexibility to do so.

In compiling the report the Coexistence Bureau has not only drawn upon numerous scientific trials, studies and models covering different regions in the EU, it has also collaborated with 20 experts that were nominated by interested Member States. This work has resulted in sets of isolation distances that reduce cross-pollination between GM and non-GM maize and ensure compliance with different target levels for the presence of GMOs in conventional maize.

To keep the GMO content in grain maize below the current labelling threshold of 0.9 percent, isolation distances of 15 to 50 meters are sufficient, even under unfavourable wind conditions. For silage maize, where the whole plants are utilised, isolation distances of 0 to 25 metres are enough. Given that currently no thresholds have been defined yet for the admixture of GM material in conventional seeds, the isolation distances for the cultivation of GM maize may need to be larger in future to ensure adherence to the overall legal threshold of 0.9 percent. For instance, for grain maize distances of 20-55 metres would be enough to limit cross-pollination rates to 0.6 percent.

However, the report also states that in specific cases the application of the recommended best practices may be difficult, e.g. in regions with small or narrow fields. In such cases the experts of the Coexistence Bureau see possible solutions e.g. in voluntary agreements between farmers on harvest labelling and the clustering of fields of one production system.

No regulation of coexistence at the national level? 

At the same meeting of the EU's Agricultural Council a majority of Member States objected to the Commission's proposal to nationalise the cultivation decision of GM crops. Among the opposing Member States were Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. They feared clashes with the World Trade Organisation if no consistent rules were followed in the EU. Furthermore they considered the proposal a violation of the single EU market and the EU common agricultural policy. Only Austria supported these plans. Now a working group is to be established to clarify the issue and develop a consensus.

 

See also on GMO Compass:

 

Further information:

 

Messages 2015
April
Messages 2013
September
July
Messages 2012
October
May
Messages 2011
January
September 29, 2010 [nach oben springen]

© 2017 by GMO Compass. All rights reserved. | Imprint | website created by webmotive