Use your BACK button to return to article index.
OPEN LETTER
Rt Hon Peter
Mandelson PC
Trade Commissioner
European Commission 3rd November
2005
Dear Mr Mandelson
Complaint re: Commission Approvals for
GM Crops and Foods
We wrote to you on two separate matters on 3rd
October, and received no acknowledgement or reply from you. We wrote again on
18th October -- and still received no acknowledgement or reply. We are aware
that your code of practice requires you to reply to letters within 15 working
days.
A month has now passed, and far from heeding any of the points made
in our communications you and your colleagues in the Commission have today
cynically issued yet another authorisation -- for GM maize line 1507. Do you pay
any attention to the points raised by concerned members of the public and NGOs
on the matter of GM authorisations? Do you indeed read any of the
communications which you receive? We know that you are a busy man, but we are
busy too, and we have every right to expect at least a minimal level of courtesy
from you, as one of the Commissioners charged with looking after our
interests.
We are staggered yet again by the extraordinary approval which
you have given today to GM maize line 1507, in the face of widespread criticism
from member states and from groups like FoE Europe of the inadequate and indeed
complacent advice offered to you by the GMO Panel of EFSA. We remind you, not
for the first time, that you are not bound to accept EFSA advice. The
shortcomings of the EFSA position on maize 1507 are mentioned briefly here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/pending/FOEE%20comments%20-1507%20maize.pdf
(FoE Comments on 1507 maize)
Today's decision is yet another confirmation
that the Commission has abandoned the precautionary principle and has also
abandoned any consideration of scientific opinions coming from truly independent
sources (You will be aware that almost all of the science considered by the GMO
Panel comes from the GM multinationals who are seeking authorizations; by
definition this science is not objective, and at the very least it is selective
and self-serving.) Until the EFSA is reformed and forced to operate in a manner
which more truly safeguards the interests of consumers, the Commission should
give NO further consents for GMOs.
We are now going to the complaints
procedure in view of the fact that you are apparently not interested in
addressing the points which we make.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian
john
GM Free
Cymru
-------------------------------------------------------
18
October 2005
Dear Mr Mandelson
We sent this letter, and another
one asking specific questions, on 3rd October. These letters refer to matters of
great importance to EU consumers. We have received no acknowledgements that you
have received the letters, let alone considered replies, although more than two
weeks have now passed.
We will appreciate it if you will give these
matters your attention and respond in the near future.
Yours
sincerely
Dr Brian John
GM Free
Cymru
=============================
Rt Hon Peter Mandelson
PC
Trade Commissioner
European Commission 3rd October 2005
Dear Mr
Mandelson
Commission Approvals for GM Crops and Foods
We are
writing to you, as our UK Commissioner, to express our grave concern at the
manner in which the Commission is now issuing approvals for GM crops and
feedstuffs which have never been proved to be environmentally safe or harmless
to human beings and animals (1). We believe that your actions in "releasing"
these GM varieties into the environment and food chain are unlawful according to
the terms of Directive 2002/18/EC. You may or may not be aware that your
approvals are based largely upon an acceptance by EFSA of the scientifically
nonsensical concept of "substantial equivalence". That body should be thoroughly
ashamed of itself, and so should the Commission (2) (3).
We remind you
that these authorizations -- for GT73 oilseed rape, MON863 maize, and NK603
maize-- have been issued by you and your fellow Commissioners following failures
to agree among the representatives of the EU member states. In such
circumstances, and in recognition of considerable doubt in the minds of national
representatives about the safety of these GM varieties, the Commission should by
law have invoke the precautionary principle, as required by Directive
2001/18/EC. Approvals should not have been issued. The Commission should have
continued to withhold consent until the removal of all reasonable doubt with
respect to each of these varieties, following submission of hard evidence by the
applicants and consideration of other evidence (for example from the UK
farm-scale trials). This action would have been entirely lawful. We further
remind you that (in spite of what you may pretend) there is no requirement
placed upon you to accept the recommendations of the discredited GMO panel of
EFSA (4)
Instead of following your own law, you have now cynically issued
three authorizations which are clearly against the wishes of the great majority
of EU consumers and which are designed (not to put too fine a point on it) to
keep the Americans happy. Your consents have been issued on the basis of
political convenience rather than upon environmental / safety grounds, and for
this reason we accuse you of abandoning your duty of care to European consumers.
Further, it is utterly dishonest and indeed shameful of the Commission to argue
within the WTO case that between 1996 and 2001 it was developing a regulatory
system on the basis that there was significant scientific uncertainty related to
the health and environmental consequences of GM crops (5), and to pretend that
that uncertainty has now somehow been removed. On the contrary, there is now
accumulating evidence (from the British FSE programme and from the MON863 rat
feeding dossier, for example) that GM crops and foods are significantly
different from non-GM crops and foods and that they have negative environmental
and health impacts. If you are unaware of this and other scientific evidence, we
will be happy to provide it.
On the matter of your personal
responsibilities, can we remind you that during recent weeks, with respect to
the "textile mountain" of Chinese fabrics / clothes held up at the ports, you
said more than once in the media that your prime concern as a Commissioner is to
act "in the interests of the European consumer". Hollow words, Mr Mandelson. In
the case of GM crops and foods there are NO benefits to the consumer in the way
of lower prices, better nutrition, better shelf life or better taste, and
millions of EU consumers have told you over and again that they want nothing to
do with GM (6). And yet you and your fellow Commissioners ride roughshod over
the wishes of those whom you claim to protect, in a grubby and despicable
attempt to ingratiate yourselves with the biotechnology multinationals and the
US Administration.
We therefore ask you for an assurance that you will
personally oppose any further requests for GM approvals that might come through
your colleague Stavros Dimas, on the basis that such consents would be illegal
and against the interests of EU consumers.
We are copying this letter to
your colleague Markos Kyprianou since he is directly concerned with consumer
protection and health.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Brian
John
GM Free Cymru
cc Commissioner Markos
Kyprianou
---------------------------
(1) GM FOOD AND THE DEMISE
OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, Steven M. Druker, Executive Director
Alliance
for Bio-Integrity (A US-Based
NGO)
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3640
"Someday, regulation
of GM foods in Europe and America may be aligned with the principles of sound
science and the dictates of the law. Until then, it will remain the case
that for these novel products, through the brazen fraud of the US government and
the craven complicity of the European Commission, the precautionary principle
has not only been dishonoured, but essentially destroyed."
(2) The EC
statements relating to the three recent approvals imply that there are "no
reports of any adverse effects on health or the environment," and that the
authorizations are "backed by science". These statements are disingenuous and
dishonest, since there is considerable evidence (about which EFSA is in denial)
demonstrating health and environmental damage associated with MON863, GT73 and
NK603. If you want chapter and verse, we will provide you with full referenced
material on this.
(3) On the Royal Soc web site, Prof Janet Bainbridge
(Jan 2001) says: "The presumption of safety of novel GM plants on the basis of
substantial equivalence lacks scientific credibility, given modern expectations
of standards of evidence. Robust regulatory principles should be developed which
give more confidence to the public. Independent scientific capacity should be
developed to provide rigorous testing and assessment of novel GM plants." This
is true today as it was in 2001, and the EFSA still bases its so-called
"scientific assessments" of GM crops and foods on the presumption of substantial
equivalence.
(4) The GMO Panel of EFSA has been heavily criticized in the
last year for "facilitating GMO authorizations" rather than working to protect
the safety of the EU environment and public health. It is packed with GM
industry placements, and it has lost the respect of almost all the NGOs who have
an interest in GM matters. See the
following:
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4669
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5270
(5)
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
(6)
David Byrne: "Irrational Fears or Legitimate Concerns" - Risk Perception in
Perspective"(03/593) :
"Despite repeated scientific assurance about the
safety of consuming
genetically modified food products, public attitudes
towards GM foods show
few if any signs of a thaw." He might have added that
the so-called scientific assurance has come from sources which the consumers do
not trust, and which use bad science.