|
German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner defended her ban as being based on "expert opinion". There were reasonable grounds to believe that "MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment". She referred, among other things, to studies upon which Luxemburg had based its recently enacted ban on cultivation. Possible impacts of MON810 maize on certain ladybugs and butterflies had been examined. The studies had previously been dismissed by scientists as being insufficient. In some cases only lab tests with Bt protein, the active agent in MON810, had been carried out. The insects concerned had been fed Bt protein in amounts that were far higher than what would have been encountered under natural conditions.
Other EU countries had already tried to base their cultivation bans on some of the studies which Aigner had used for her decision. Time and again some American study on the impact of MON810 maize on aquatic animal life, such as the caddisfly, would be cited.
Scientists from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also dealt with these studies when reviewing national bans. None of them were scientifically sound enough to justify a ban on cultivation.
Even the German ban would hardly be able to stand up to a review by the EU Commission and EFSA. However, this process takes some time and would come all too late for this cultivation season. Also, there are not enough political majorities in the EU at the moment who can stop national cultivation bans not accepted in scientific circles. A court decision, such as the one Monsanto is considering, would be significantly faster. |