GMO UPDATE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EU AND US

Commission approves another GM maize variety for food use

The EU on 26 October approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready Maize NK-603 for human consumption and placing on the market. The maize variety, which is tolerant to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate ("Roundup"), is the second genetically modified (GM) product authorised for food use in the EU since the de facto moratorium on GMO approvals effectively ended in May (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 28 May 2004). The decision by the European Commission to put the maize on the market, though not to cultivate it domestically, follows a decision in July to allow the variety to be imported for animal feed (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 23 July 2004) and in August to allow it to be imported and processed.

The EU authorisation met with hostility across the continent's consumer and environmental groups. Geert Ritsema, GMO campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said, "despite scientific disagreements over its safety and huge public rejection the Commission decided instead to put the interests of corporate America before the safety of Europeans". Monsanto, on the other hand, applauded the EU decision, saying that it was an "indication that the EU is willing to look at products through the regulatory process they have instituted".

Critics say that the authorisation of NK-603, along with the May 2004 authorisation of Syngenta's Bt-11 Maize variety, was motivated by pressure to accept GMOs from the US, Canada and Argentina who have brought a case against the EU's (no longer existing) de facto moratorium on GMO approvals to the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 25 August 2003). The case has been delayed several times, including for the establishment of a scientific panel (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 September 2004). While the panel was expected to deliver its ruling by March 2005, it is now expected to announce another extension soon.

US states, counties move to regulate GMOs

On 2 November three counties in California voted in a referendum to ban the growing of genetically engineered food and animals, with Marin County, north of San Francisco, voting in favour of the ban and San Luis Obispo and Butte counties voted against it, with the Humboldt measure failing owing to questions about the legality of the language. Marin becomes the third county in the US to ban biotech crops, joining California's Mendocino and Trinity counties, which enacted bans earlier this year. Lora O'Connor, coordinator of the ban campaign in Marin County, said, "this is the beginning of a movement that's going to be spreading across California and the country. Once people realise that they have a choice, they're choosing no."

Moreover, the US state of Vermont put into effect a new law, known as Act 97, on 1 October requiring the labelling of all genetically engineered seeds sold in Vermont. Dave Zuckerman, P-Burlington, the law's original lead sponsor, said his goal was to make certain that "consumers have the information they want to make decisions for themselves". However, Monsanto Corp. and Dow AgroSciences, two major biotech companies that sell genetically engineered seeds in Vermont, indicated publicly that they did not intend to use the words "genetically engineered" on their seed labels next year. In the last three years some 36 US states have passed 73 laws regulating or promoting agricultural biotechnology. Most of the new laws create tax breaks for new biotechnology companies, but California last year passed a law outlawing the cultivation of genetically altered fish in coastal waters under the state's jurisdiction and Maine passed legislation in 2003 making it a civil offence to falsely label commercial feed as not having genetically modified components.

German Chancellor campaigns for GMOs

On 29 October German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for more open-mindedness towards the use of genetic engineering, saying that "extreme reluctance to implement genetic engineering" was "leading to a situation that weakens our market position and does not promote German innovation". He said that Germans had a "too restrictive stance" owing to the outlook of environmental movements, traditional technology scepticism and Christian motivations. At the same time, the lower house of the German Parliament debated a bill governing the release of GMOs as well as the co-existence of conventional agriculture with transgenic plants. The bill was adopted in the lower house on 30 October and will now move to the upper house. Negotiations in the lower house included contentious discussions on co-existence and liability for cross-contamination of conventional crops by GMOs. The bill originally stated that if traits from GM plants owned by one farmer were to contaminate the field of another farmer, this would be defined as "damage" and the first farmer, who owned the GM crop, would be liable for all damages, regardless of accidental contamination. In order to resolve the debate the government announced that they would start negotiations with the insurance industry in order to reach a solution that will provide researchers and farmers with a payable insurance coverage against damage claims.

"Modified crops issue divides voters," USA TODAY, 3 November 2004; "Labels will be required on GMO seeds," TIMES ARGUS, 1 November 2004; "In three years, 36 states pass laws regulating or aiding biotechnology," THE OREGONIAN, 12 September 2004; " Genetically modified NK603 maize authorised for both food and feed," EU, 26 October 2004; "German Chancellor campaigns for genetic engineering," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29 October 2004; "Tentative agreement reached on German bill," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29 September 2004.