EC admits to doubts about the safety of GM crops and foods
Press Notice 2nd March 2005
Environmental and consumer groups concerned about the safety of GM crops and foods have been amazed by revelations over the past few days (1) that the EC now has major concerns about the safety and environmental hazards associated with GM crops and foods. These concerns have been kept under wraps thus far while the Commission has actively promoted the merits of GM technology.
The revelations have come as a result of determined work by FoE Europe in following the twists and turns of the WTO case brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina against the EU. FoE says that the Commission is admitting to significant and legitimate scientific concerns about the safety of GM foods and crops. The environment campaign group accuses the EC of putting the health of the public and the environment at risk from its inconsistent policy by forcing new GM products onto the European market despite these concerns. It has also taken a complaint to the European Ombudsman relating to the refusal of the EC to allow public access to its "Second Submission" made to the Dispute Panel in August 2004. This Submission has now been considered by scientists and politicians at the final meeting of the Panel in Geneva on 21st and 22nd February 2005.
It is now known that in its Second Submission (1) the European Commission
admits that:
* The science on GMOs is constantly evolving and that "new risk considerations
sometimes arise spontaneously and change the scope of the risk assessment"
* Concerns about antibiotic resistant genes and secondary effects on beneficial
insects are "legitimate scientific concerns"
* Member states should be able to determine their own level of protection
Commenting on the new revelations, GM Free Cymru spokesman Dr Brian John said: "We can now see that the EC attitude to GM is shot through with hypocrisy and disregard for the health and safety of the people of Europe. The first signs of doubt concerning the human and environmental risks associated with GMOs came with the First Submission to the WTO Dispute Panel (2), but we now know that by August 2004 -- more than six months ago -- those doubts had become firmed up into real concerns, expressed in writing. But in spite of this the EC has continued to push GM crops and foods onto a reluctant European public. For example, in October 2004 the Commission approved the import of Monsanto NK603 maize despite the fact that EU members failed to reach a qualified (or even simple) majority as to its safety. And in November 2004 the Commission tried to force various member states to lift their "de facto bans" on GM crop plantings. In the event, the member states flexed their muscles and failed to support the Commission proposals. To call the Commission's actions hypocritical and two-faced would be to put it mildly. It would be more appropriate to say that it has been criminally negligent."
ENDS
Contact:
Brian John
GM Free Cymru
Tel 01239 - 820470
==============================
Notes:
(1) GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
EXPOSED - EUROPE'S INCONSISTENT APPROACH TO GMOS
Leaked documents reveal EU arguments at the WTO
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_16_Feb_GMO_trade_war.htm
(2) ".....In its First Submission to the WTO panel the Commission
argued in detail
(against the US) that there are still unanswered questions with regard
to the human
and environmental risks associated with GMOs. For example, the EC
highlighted that "The state of scientific knowledge and understanding on the assessment
of toxicity is
limited and subject to considerable debate" (para 42 page 15), and that "specific Bt
toxins are thought to have adverse effects on non target organisms,
namely insects
which are not pest of crops, birds, or microflora/microfauna"
(paragraph 53 p.19).
It is therefore of considerable public importance to know what the
Commission is
saying in its Second Submission. It is clear that the Commission is
seeking to promote
public acceptance of new GM foods whilst at the same time seeking to
argue behind
closed doors that our knowledge and understanding about the safety of
these products
is limited." (From the case brought to the European Ombudsman by
FoE
against the EC, 16th February 2005)