Court rulings re-ignite debate on GM crops

ECJ rules on two cases involving GM maize, and both sides say decisions work in their favour.

The biotechnology industry and campaigners against genetic modification have each claimed victory after two rulings from the European Court of Justice last week. The cases – which are totally separate – concern a genetically-modified (GM) maize from Monsanto, MON810, that was authorised in the EU in 1998. They have given renewed vigour to the European debate on the merits of genetically-modified crops.

On 6 September, the court backed a claim for compensation by a Bavarian beekeeper whose pollen and honey had been contaminated by the GM maize grown near his hives. The court established that the contamination made his produce legally unsaleable: it ruled that honey and food supplements containing pollen derived from a genetically-modified organism are foodstuffs produced from GMs, and therefore cannot be marketed in the EU without prior authorisation.

Anti-GM campaigners leapt enthusiastically on the ruling, claiming that it blew a hole in the defence embraced until now by the industry – and by the EU – of so-called co-existence arrangements: physical separation of GM and conventional plantations, to avoid cross-contamination.

French Green MEP José Bové said: “This case is proof that co-existence is a fallacy and that GM cultivation does not leave a choice for GM-free products.”

Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe saw the ruling as “exciting and with a very broad impact, opening the way for Europe’s laws on GM crops to be strengthened”. And Greenpeace said: “It confirms that there should be zero tolerance of GM content in food.”

French ban

Two days later, on 8 September, the court judged that a four-year-old French ban on the cultivation of the same GM maize was illegal. Responding to legal challenges from Monsanto, the court said that France had not followed the required procedures to suspend the authorisation – notably, the French authorities had not conducted a risk assessment demonstrating a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.

EuropaBio, the pan-European biotechnology industry group, termed the ruling “a step towards choice in Europe”, citing seed companies and French farmers who claim the right to market and grow GM crops duly authorised at EU level.

Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, EuropaBio’s director of green biotechnology, interpreted the verdict as confirmation that EU member states “cannot ban GM based on myths and hearsay”.

But Jack Hunter at Greenpeace said the court ruling on the French ban was “not a big setback for GM-free agriculture”, since it affects only how member states impose a ban, and not their right to do so. His colleague Stephanie Hundsdorfer suggested that the ruling might even give further impetus to the current discussions on legitimate grounds for national bans.

The European Commission last year proposed clarifications of how member states may choose to impose national bans on GM products that have been authorised at EU level. “Member states will have to set out something legally sound and solid so that they are not pursued by Monsanto,” she said.

Contamination levels

The talks on the Commission’s proposals – which cover not only permissible grounds for banning GM products, but also questions of tolerance levels for GM contamination – are currently stalled in the Council of Ministers, pending examination of the European Parliament’s views. One of the principal sticking points is the refusal so far by member states that are firmly opposed to GM products to entertain granting EU approval to products, in return for the right to ban them nationally.

The discussions on tolerance levels are also likely to be further complicated by the ruling on honey: the consequences of the court’s definitions are that EU imports of honey from major producers – in Argentina, Canada, Brazil and the US – could be banned, because GM crops are widely grown there.

The prospect of challenges to the World Trade Organization has already been raised by diplomats.

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys