News Messages

Estimates indicate more cultivation of genetically modified maize in 2007 than in the prior year. Three months before the start of the sowing season in April/May, 3774 hectares of maize plantings have been registered at Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL).

Since many farmers apply for a larger area than is actually used, it is anticipated that only a proportion of registrations will be employed for Bt-maize cultivation. Nonetheless, the 970 hectares from 2006 will be superseded, as well as the number of sites: GM maize will be planted on 224 sites, representing an increase compared with 106 in the last year.

The GM maize plantings are concentrated once again in the Federal States of eastern Germany, spearheaded by Brandenburg with 2162 hectares and followed by Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (746 ha), Saxony (590 ha) and Saxony-Anhalt (230 ha). It appears that farmers have identified Bt-maize as an efficient and economic way to combat the corn borer. The strict liability regulations, introduced by the current German government, will continue to apply in the 2007 season. Field trials are not yet registered, as they may be reported three days before the plantings are undertaken.

The agro biotech company Monsanto is seeking approval for an advanced variety of a GM soy. Tolerant to the herbicide Roundup, and based on a variety that has been cultivated since 1996, the new GM plant MON89788 additionally provides a harvest increase of between 4 and 7 percent.

The application for approval to plant and use the GM soy was submitted to the US authorities, and an environmental safety assessment has been conducted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). It is estimated that Monsanto will obtain approval and, according to the company, the GM plant will be on the market in 2009. The company also has applied to EU authorities for approval of the import and use of the soy as food and animal feed.

In 2006, 68 million hectares of GM soy was cultivated worldwide. The European Union imports approximately 35-40 million tons of soy each year, which is mainly used as animal feeds.

A US-American court has ruled that a genetically modified alfalfa (Luzerne), cultivated since 2006, must be assessed once more in respect to its environmental safety.

The US Department of Agriculture approved the herbicide-resistant RoundupReady-Alfalfa (MON 163-7) in 2005. However, consumers, environmentalists and bio-farmers have initiated lawsuits challenging this approval, and accuse the Department of not sufficiently having researched possible environmental damage resulting from cultivation of GM alfalfa. Risks may include outcrossing with conventional plants or with wild relatives, or the production of herbicide-resistant weeds.

The District Court of Northern California now has ordered a comprehensive re-assessment of the environmental compatibility of MON 163-7. The effect of this judgement upon cultivation and marketing in 2007 remains unclear: used primarily as feed for milk cows and for meat cattle, GM alfalfa was grown in the USA on an area of almost 80,000 hectares in 2006.

The EU commission has failed with its attempt to lift Hungary’s ban on genetically modified maize MON810. The insect-resistant maize was created by the US company Monsanto, and was approved in the European Union in 1998. Its safety was reconfirmed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2006, which concluded that there is no scientific evidence to raise doubt about the safety of MON810. Consequently, the European Commission brought forward a proposal to terminate Hungary’s ban, but failed to gain the required majority in the EU council of environment ministers. 14 ministers voted in favour of the order, with five against and six abstentions – not enough for a consensus agreement under the weighted voting system of the EU.

In a similar decision by the ministers in December, it was conceded not to compel Austria to drop its ban on two GMO maize types, including MON810. EU regulations permit national bans only if these can be justified by scientifically proven safety concerns. However, countries such as Hungary and Austria insist on their national bans, even though EFSA has assured the safety of MON810 on a scientific basis. In the view of the German biotech association, DIB, the failure to lift those bans is damaging to the trust of the biotech industry on EU-approval processes in general, and also undermines EFSA’s scientific competence and authority. “Reliability and feasibility of legal procedures are put into question by politics”, explained the DIB in a statement.

Based on regulations existing at the time, the genetically modified MON810 maize was approved in 1998. This year, the seed producer Monsanto must re-apply for approval, a process which will be undertaken under current law, and will require new safety assessments of MON810. It appears that several countries prefer to wait for the outcome of the approval process before deciding on the legitimacy of national bans.

Geoffrey Arinaitwe, a Ugandan scientist based in Belgium, has developed a genetically modified banana resistant to pests and diseases and has applied to the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) to import it to Uganda. If approved, the GM bananas will be grown in glasshouse trials at the Kawanda Research Institute (Kari).

Banana productions world-wide have been threatened by the increasing prevalence of bacterial wilt and black sigatoka fungal disease. The Ugandan ministry of agriculture estimates that these diseases cost the country up to one billion euros per year.

In a statement, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation pointed out that the only banana varieties affected are those which dominate the imports in Europe and North America, and that African farmers grow many varieties naturally resistant to the diseases. In contrast, the Ugandan ministry of agriculture favours genetic engineering, as EU and US consumer acceptance for the African varieties with different size, colour or taste is low.

From a safety point of view, bananas scarcely could be better suited to genetic modification, says banana pathologist Mike Rutherford of the non-profit agricultural consultants, CAB Bioscience, in Egham, UK. Inserted genes are from other bananas and, as the plants do not breed, their genes will not escape into the environment through seeds or pollen.

However, commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants is currently impossible in Uganda, due to the lack of applicable legislation. John Arimpa, vice chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources, stated: "We in parliament will do everything possible to ensure that the biotechnology policy is approved and biosafety bill enacted into law."

A scientist's opinion, spoken freely

In August 2006, US authorities informed the EU of long-grain rice shipments contaminated with unauthorised GM rice, which sparked a new debate on the proper handling of GM crops. The imports contained Bayer’s GM rice LL601, which appeared to have been spread by field trials. Initially, the EU was unable to test these imports, because no event-specific detection method for LL601 or for many other existing events was currently available. "Without a legal provision, companies have only very rarely provided information, biological or genetic material or detection methods," says Holst-Jensen, Norwegian expert for GMO detection and researcher in the European Co-Extra project (www.coextra.eu).

Researchers are faced with the general problem that testing methods only can be developed for GMOs for which the developer has supplied certain genetic information. This information is required only once the developer seeks market approval. LL601 was not intended for marketing and, consequentially, no such information had been supplied. "An international system for storing and accessing information on genetic constructs and events may be the ideal solution to help developing appropriate detection methods", commented Holst-Jensen. Referring to the possibility for companies to patent specific DNA sequences, as well as to the fact that crude sequences are already disseminated, the scientist added, "I don’t see why companies need or should be permitted to keep DNA sequence information confidential."

Holst-Jensen argues that politicians easily could make GMO tests and monitoring more powerful by establishing an international, obligatory register of GMO sequences and of testing material. If supplying reference material for detection were legally required at all developmental stages of GMOs, standard testing procedures would detect their presence with high reliability and would contribute to the improvement of confidence for all stakeholders. In addition, such a system may facilitate dialogue concerning the safety of genetic constructs, because much more information would pass through one central node.

Holst-Jensen also commented on the intention of US authorities to allow certain amounts of unauthorised GM plants to enter the food and feed chain. He pointed out that testing for unapproved GMOs would then become very expensive, and that zero tolerance of such GMOs in Europe never could be fully implemented: every single grain would have to be tested and, as Holst-Jensen puts it, "There wouldn’t be anything left for consumption."

Since traders need legally reliable test results, the standardisation of testing criteria is the ultimate arena in which Holst-Jensen sees the need for action. If ship loads are made larger and labelling thresholds lower, the likelihood increases that the initial test may indicate no need for labelling – however, a second test by another stakeholder may identify a GMO content slightly exceeding the threshold. Holst-Jensen suggests a solution: "If standardised criteria are followed, and nothing is found, then everything is OK – even if the product is later shown to have some of the GMO in it."

In the interview, Holst-Jensen also explained the latest strategies to improve the detection of GMOs, such as multiplex screening tools and other new methods which will be developed within the Co-Extra project. The scientist also described a promising approach based on bioinformatics, which may detect even completely unknown GMOs. He expects to present the proof of concept over the course of the Co-Extra project.

On February 5^th, the environmental organisation Greenpeace presented to the EU Commissioner for Health, Markos Kyprianou, a petition signed by one million EU citizens. They demand the mandatory labelling of milk, meat, eggs and other food products derived from animals fed with genetically modified organisms.

The current EU legislation requires labelling only for food and feed containing or consisting of more than 0.9 percent GMOs or GM ingredients. This includes foods such as GM oils, for which the GM origin cannot be proved by biochemical analyses.

"This petition is a call for the EU to stop letting GMOs in through the back door of Europe and onto our plates through a loophole in the law," said Marco Contiero of Greenpeace European Unit. At a news conference, Kyprianou said, "Clearly, the number of signatures on this petition shows the strength of public feeling on the issue of GMOs in animal feed. The commission always tries to listen to citizens and I want to reassure people that we shall look again at this issue."

Greenpeace also points to the currently stalled draft of the EU Constitution. In Article I-47(4), it states: "not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission […] to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution."