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.
Please note that the GMO Compass Database currently is being expanded and updated. Please check back for new entries.
|
|
 |
News Messages |
| 25 February 2006 | | EU Releases New Study on GM Plants: Coexistence Possible | The coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops in European agriculture is not expected to pose major problems. This was the main finding of a new report on coexistence by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Keeping harvests from conventional fields below the 0.9 percent threshold for incidental GM content should require little or no changes to currently used agricultural practices. These findings hold true on the condition that GM content in seed is kept below 0.5 percent.
The JRC report describes case studies with maize, sugar beet, and cotton, examining details of both crop and seed production. The studies were carried out using models incorporating data on characteristic European agricultural landscapes, regional weather patterns, and agricultural practices. These calculations enabled a look at coexistence not only between individual fields, but also at a regional level.
Maize was the crop studied in the JRC report with the greatest likelihood of requiring some additional effort to prevent unwanted mixing. Whether or not extra measures are needed depends on factors like prevailing winds and the sizes, shapes, and orientation of affected fields. Measures such as separation distances and buffer zones would be effective ways of managing unwanted mixing between GM and non-GM crops. Regarding seed production, the report found that upholding a 0.5 percent threshold should not pose problems. Sugar beet and cotton seed production would require no changes to current practices, while maize seed production would necessitate only minor adjustments. Keeping to a stricter threshold of 0.3 percent, however, would require additional measures. The EU has yet to put forth legal thresholds for incidental GM content in non-GM seed. |
| 25 February 2006 | | EFSA’s Opinion on GM Starch Potato: No Threat to Health and Environment | On February 25th, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released its opinion on the safety of the transgenic amylopectin starch potato. Based on a comprehensive assessment conducted by EFSA’s GMO Panel, EFSA considers the transgenic potato with optimised starch composition harmless to health and the environment.
Cultivating potatoes for the starch industry has been gaining attention in Europe. Starch is used in a wide range of industrial products including paper, adhesives, and textiles as well as in the food industry. A major hurdle for the starch industry, however, is that starch isolated from conventional potatoes occurs in two forms: amylose and amylopectin. The two forms have different technical properties and therefore must be separated using laborious and costly procedures. The biotechnology company BASF Plant Science used the anti-sense strategy to switch off a gene encoding an enzyme (GBSS) responsible for synthesising amylose in starch grains. The tubers harvested from the resulting transgenic potato plants contain almost exclusively amylopectin starch, which is an advantage for industrial processing.
Although the starch extracted from amylopectin potatoes is optimised for non-food/feed applications, the by-products of starch extraction will be used as animal feed. Also, it cannot be excluded that the GM potato and derived products may enter the food supply chain. Therefore, EFSA was requested to conduct an assessment of the transgenic potato’s potential impact on human and animal health as well as the environment.
EFSA based its opinion on a comprehensive assessment of food, feed, and environmental safety concerns including toxicity, allergenicity, nutritional value, transgene stability, potential for spread in the environment, and ecology. Ninety day toxicity studies on rats fed amylopectin potatoes revealed no adverse health effects. Based on the nature and orientation of the transgenes, no allergenic potential was indicated. Amylopectin potatoes were not found to behave differently in the environment from conventional potatoes. In addition, evidence strongly suggested that horizontal transfer of the nptII antibiotic resistance gene from plants to bacteria would be both unlikely and of no consequence. |
| 07 February 2006 | | WTO: EU’s GMO Policies Violate Trade Agreements | The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favour of the United States, Canada, and Argentina in a battle against the EU’s policies on GMOs. The three countries filed complaints that the EU’s restrictive policies on GMOs have created an unjustified impediment to trade. According to WTO agreements, a country can only block imports if some kind of scientific evidence suggests the product is unsafe. The decision was released on February 7th in an interim document issued to the parties. An elaborated, final report is expected near the end of March.
The European Union lags behind other countries in authorising genetically modified crops, which the United States, Canada, and Argentina claim is driven by politics rather than science. The complaint was directed at the effective moratorium on GMO authorisations in the EU between 1998 and 2004. Although authorisations have since resumed, authorisation proceedings have been slow, and individual Member States such as France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, and Greece have maintained their own bans on importing and marketing certain GMOs. US farmers claim the EU’s unjustified reluctance to import GM crops costs US agriculture $300 million per year. Canadian farmers have watched their rapeseed exports to the EU dwindle from $185 million per year to $1.5 million. The three countries do not consider existing GM crops dangerous and accuse the EU of protectionism.
The EU has always taken a very cautious approach to authorising GMOs. The resumption of GMO authorisations in 2004 corresponded with the adoption of new regulations governing the approval process, labelling, and traceability, which were developed during the “moratorium” years to ensure freedom of choice for consumers. The EU hopes that in the future, major GMO producers like the US opt for a co-operative approach to developing an international legal framework for GMOs, rather than raising hostile complaints to the WTO. The WTO did not object to the EU's extensive labelling requirements, although they received criticism from the complainants. Opponents of GM crops in Europe claim the decision will do little to change the situation with GM crops in Europe, because most retailers and consumers will continue avoiding products containing GMOs.
The WTO’s safety council, composed of independent experts led by Christian Häberli of the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture, was responsible for the decision. Once the full report is released, the EU will have an opportunity to appeal the decision. The ultimate outcome is not expected until the end of 2006. If the WTO stands by its current opinion, the EU will have a fixed period of time to adjust to the demands. If the EU fails to conform, it could face economic sanctions. |
|
|
XML News Feed
| Merge the latest news messages from GMO-Compass in shortened form onto your news reader or web log. | | GMO-Compass news feeds use XML formatting and require RSS 2.0 (really simple syndication). This standard format allows diverse applications to easily exchange and integrate data from the internet. |
|
January 2006
