News Messages

The European Commission has authorised market placement for the oilseed rapes Ms8, Rf3 as well as their offspring Ms8xRf3. Covering the use of the plants for import, as well as their being processed into animal feed or for industrial purposes, the decision is valid for ten years. It includes measures to be taken by the company which developed the GM oilseed rapes to prevent damage to health or the environment in the event of accidental spillage. The cultivation of these GM oil seed rapes is not allowed in the EU, but processed oil derived from these plants already had been approved in 1999 and 2000 for food use in the EU.

The EU also has withdrawn approval for the marketing of five genetically modified plants. The two maize plants (Bt176, GA21xMON810) and three rapeseed lines (Ms1xRf1, Ms1xRf2, Topas 19/2) will lose marketing authorisation on 18^th April 2007. Approvals had been provided at the end of the 1990s within the legislative framework existing at that time. Since these varieties are no longer in use or of commercial interest to companies, applications for renewal are not expected. The European Commission has requested that Bayer CropScience and Monsanto destroy remaining seeds. Upon confirmation by the Commission, a formal resolution will come into force at the end of April and will allow traces of up to 0.9 percent of these GM plants during the next five years.

French farmers will cultivate significantly more genetically modified plants in 2007. Referring to statements by a spokesperson of the French maize growers' association, AGPM, Reuters reports that between 30,000 and 50,000 hectares of Bt-Maize MON810 will be cultivated in the upcoming season. In the previous year, only 5,000 hectares of GM plants were found on French fields. MON810 is the only GM plant approved in France for commercial cultivation.

Exact data are not available, as the registration of GM cultivation sites is not mandatory - a consequence of the fear that the fields may be destroyed by anti-GMO groups. However, concerning the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, France has issued a new regulation which also includes a national site register. The resolution also declared isolation distances of 50 metres between GM plants and conventional fields a requirement for the cultivation of genetically modified plants.

The Bt-maize MON810 incorporates resistance against the corn borer. By now, 47 different plants are in the EU catalogue of varieties, all of which are derived from MON810.

A pollen barrier of 20 metres of conventional maize is enough to separate GM and conventional maize fields and to keep out-crossings below 0.9 percent. This is the result from a coexistence study published in the most recent issue of Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science.

The research was conducted in 2004. Accompanying the first field scale cultivation of the GM maize MON810 in Germany, a team of scientists tested samples from surrounding conventional maize for GM content at distances of 0 to 60 metres in all four directions. No samples collected at more than ten metres from the GM maize field showed GM levels above the labelling threshold of 0.9 percent.

GM seed producers in Germany already took these results into account as soon as the experiments had been evaluated in 2005.

In a new study funded by Greenpeace, a group of French scientists has raised doubts again about the food safety of the genetically modified maize MON863, which is resistant to the corn root worm and has been approved for cultivation in North America and for food and feed in the EU and several other countries.

The complete data from a rat feeding study, carried out by Monsanto in support of its application for approval to market in the EU, was acquired by Greenpeace. The organisation then commissioned a group of scientists from CRIIGEN (France) to analyse the data. The team of scientists led by Gilles-Eric Séralini have produced a peer-reviewed scientific paper stating that their statistical analysis shows significant levels of liver and kidney damage in some rats fed with MON863 in comparison with rats fed on an equivalent non-GM diet. The CRIIGEN group concludes that additional feeding experiments over a longer period are required for a reliable food safety assessment of this GM variety. In response to this publication, Greenpeace are calling for MON863 to be removed from the market and for a review to be conducted of all other GM crops that have been subjected to similar rat feeding studies.

Last year, experts of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had already discussed this animal feeding study with authorities of several EU member states and other countries. The established scientific view is that the statistical differences in the study are within the normal range of variability found in feeding studies of this type and have no biological or safety significance. EFSA’s scientific experts in the GMO panel will meet on 22nd and 22rd of March to consider and discuss the new study.

In reaction to the publication of the CRIIGEN scientists, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) also stated that the differences found between rats fed with the GM maize and with conventional feeds prove neither negative nor positive effects. “If you look for statistical differences between the differently fed animal groups, you are going to find them”, said a spokesperson of the BVL.

Monsanto announced its intention to examine the report, but the company also stressed that MON863 maize is considered to be safe for human and animal consumption in the opinion of many expert authorities and has full regulatory approval in several countries.

According to a report in the German newspaper Wetzlarer Neue Zeitung, the regional court in Gießen will dismiss a plaint by farmer Gottfried Glöckner from Wölfersheim (Hesse) against the agro-company Syngenta. As part of field trials between 1997 and 2002, Glöckner had grown genetically modified maize from Syngenta and had fed it to his cows. When some of his cows died, Glöckner declared the Bt maize in their feed as the cause. However, follow-up investigations were unable to support this assumption: the death of the cows was considered more likely to be the consequence of mistakes in husbandry.

Glöckner had claimed damages from Syngenta in the amount of 700,000 euros. Since no cogent proof for a connection between the Bt maize in the feed and the deaths of the cows could be presented, the regional court rejected the case.