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 |
| 26 January 2007 | | Ten years of labelling in Europe: few products, but a lot of discussion | Ten years after the introduction of labelling requirements in Europe for genetically modified foodstuffs, there is still little evidence of such on an ordinary trip to the supermarket. Factually, the worldwide production area for GM plants has multiplied in the past decade, and the application of GM microorganisms in the production of additives and enzymes also has increased - nonetheless, practically no labelled products are to be found in EU countries. Only in the Netherlands may one see such products self-evidently in shop displays.
On 27 January 1997, the Novel Food Regulation (258/97) was finalised. Under this act, foodstuffs and ingredients made from genetically engineered organisms were defined as “novel food” and became subject to particular obligations in approval and labelling. On 15 May, this regulation came into effect - but was impracticable. With several trailing amendments, the EU Commission attempted to define the legal framework more precisely. In 2004, GM foodstuff then was removed from the Novel Food Regulation and placed under a regulation of its own. A new policy came into effect at this point: whereas labelling previously was bound to proof of the relevant GMO in foodstuff, the new regulation orders labelling even in cases in which an applied GMO no longer is detectable in the final product. Consequently, food authorities have faced increased difficulties when monitoring labelling.
To date, the discussion of labelling remains open. While lawmakers perceive labelling as a neutral consumer information tool, consumers are more likely to perceive such labelling as a warning notice. Correctly labelled foodstuffs are less likely to be bought and, consequently, fearful producers avoid preliminary products and ingredients which are liable for labelling. However, an array of applications of gene technology remains outside the labelling provision: for example, the use of genetically modified fodder plants does not automatically lead to a labelling requirement for the resulting animal products such as meat, milk or eggs.
|
| 19 January 2007 | | GM Plants 2006: Global Cultivation Exceeded 100 Million Hectares | Last year, the agricultural use of genetically modified plants rose once more. The worldwide area of cultivation increased by an additional 12 million to 102 million hectares. According to the ISAAA status report, which is published annually in January, 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries grew GM soy, maize, rapeseed and cotton.
The most significant increase was reported in India, where the area of GM cotton cultivation nearly tripled and amounted to 3.8 million hectares in 2006. Brazil registered a growth of 22 percent in GM soy cultivation totalling 11.5 million hectares. Noticeable increases in the cultivation of GM maize were seen in South Africa and the Philippines. The largest acreage of GM plants is located in the USA, and increased by 4.8 million to 54.6 million hectares.
With a cultivation area of of 58.6 million hectares, soybeans are the most common GM crop (previous year: 54.4 million hectares), followed by maize (25.2; previous year: 21.2), cotton (13.4; previous year: 9.8) and rapeseed (4.8; previous year: 4.6).
The statistics of GM plant cultivation are established annually by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
|
| 03 January 2007 | | Syngenta Seeds to pay $1.5 million penalty for Bt 10 affair | | On December 21st, the US company Syngenta Seeds and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have agreed upon a penalty of 1.5 million US dollars for selling and distributing the unauthorised GM maize event Bt 10. In 2004, the unregistered GM maize event produced by Syngeta Seeds had reached markets in the USA, Europe and South America.
The GM maize event Bt 10 has been genetically modified to produce the Bt protein. Since this protein acts as an insecticide, the whole plant is then considered a pesticide in the USA. Therefore, it requires registration under the US Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Yet, Syngenta Seeds had not sought registration for Bt 10, as the company did not intend to market the GM maize.
When Syngenta Seeds sold and distributed Bt 10 seed in 2004, the company actually believed – due to an internal confusion – to be marketing Bt 11. Even though the US government concluded that there are no human health or environmental concerns with Bt 10 maize, Syngenta Seeds destroyed the affected seed after recognising the mistake.
The Environmental Appeals Board, the final EPA decision maker on enforcement, still has to authorise the 1.5 million dollar settlement. |
| 02 January 2007 | | EU-Council of Ministers: Further toleration of Austria’s bans on genetic engineering | | Austria may continue to maintain their national ban on both genetically modified corn lines MON810 and T25 for the time being. Once again, the EU-Commission failed to achieve a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, in its attempt to implement a joint genetic engineering law. Under reference to another safety evaluation of both GM-corn lines conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU-Commission proposed to oblige Austria to give up their ban on imports and cultivation.
According to the EU-Genetic Engineering Law, national bans on EU-wide authorized products are only allowed when there is reasonable doubt concerning their safety. The safety concerns brought forward by Austria were rejected by the EU-Commission. Only Great-Britain, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and the Netherlands supported the recommendation of the commission. Apparently, the remaining countries had mainly political reasons for refusing to force Austria to give up their bans. In any case, the authorization of both GM-corn lines, which was accorded in 1998, will expire in 2007. In order to continue to be marketed, they would need to be re-authorized according to the new genetic engineering law. This includes a safety evaluation according to altered basic conditions. Should both the GM-corn lines MON810 and T25 be re-authorized according to this basis, the EU-Commission could take legal action against the Austrian bans before the European Court of Justice. |
|
|
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. |
|
December 2006
