Articles

Europe urged to stop authorisation of genetically engineered maize for cultivation

Friends of the Earth Europe and Testbiotech

Thursday, 5. March 2015

The European Food Safety Authority has started an investigation into the safety of growing genetically engineered maize in Europe following the publication of the biggest study on maize pollen published to date. Friends of the Earth Europe and Testbiotech have called on the EU to immediately suspend the growing of GM maize and to stop all future approvals. The European Commission, under pressure from the biotech industry, is understood to be imminently considering genetically engineered maize 1507 permitted for cultivation. Friends of the Earth Europe and Testbiotech have written to the new EU food safety Commissioner Andriukaitis calling for him to halt all cultivation of GM maize. The European Food Safety Authority, in a letter dated 16 December 2014, announced a new investigation into the safety of genetically engineered maize currently being grown in Europe, or in the pipeline to be grown. They claim these new safety tests will be complete by 31 May 2015.

The Fast Track High court in Accra today sat for the second hearing of the case submitted by plaintiffs Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) against the Ministry of Food & Agriculture and the National Biosafety Committee.

The case was first heard on February 17th of this year and was adjourned till Tuesday 3rd March as the Judge, His Lordship Anthony Kwadwo Yeboah requested that all parties to the case submit written documents rather than allow verbal presentations in court.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs George Tetteh Wayo informed the court that there were some clerical omissions in one of the submitted documents and prayed the court to allow him submit the corrected copies. The judge however turned down the request and rather directed that the case be refilled to avoid any further complications.

The Attorney General’s (AG) representative requested that the court join the National Biosafety Authority as well as the AG’s department to the case as 3rd and 4th defendants respectively. Lawyer for the plaintiffs agreed with the request.

Bill passes Assembly’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection

ALBANY — The Assembly’s Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection today passed with nine votes bill A.617 to require the labeling of food made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Despite opposition by big food and beverage corporations, organizing by environmental and consumers’ rights advocates helped ensure the bill made it through the committee. The vote comes on the heels of the controversial decision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve the sale of a genetically modified apple that doesn’t bruise, spoil or brown.

“As Chairman of the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection, I believe consumers have a right to know what their food contains, be it gluten, sugar, or genetically modified organisms. While the research on the long-term ecological, social, and physiological impacts of GMOs remains incomplete, GMOs are a departure from time-tested practices that humans have used to adapt the natural world to their needs. I stand with a growing chorus of voices in New York and across the United States who seek more information about the foods they buy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring this bill to a vote in the full Assembly this session,” said Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx).

Overwhelmingly, Americans want mandatory labeling of genetically modified food. According to polls by Consumer Reports and The New York Times, over 90% of consumers want genetically engineered food labeled.

Rules allowing member states to control GMO regulations in their own country were passed on 2 March by the EU Council.

These new rules allow members states to decide whether or not they want genetically modified crops (GMO) grown on their land.

"This is in line with the subsidiarity principle and respects citizens' and farmers' preferences", said Janis Duklavs, the Latvian minister for agriculture and President of the Council.

Two options are now available to member states that wish to prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their land. When a company applies to grow crops on the territory of a member state, the country can ask the applicant to state in their proposal that GMO cannot be grown in all or part of the country. This step can be taken by a member state without providing a reason why it wishes to prohibit or ban the GMO.

Berlin (dpa) - The majority of Germany‘s 16 federal states would like a nationwide ban on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms, according to a survey carried out by dpa and published on Saturday.

If there is no nationwide ban, than some of the states will implement their own bans, the survey of the various state agriculture ministries found.

"We can‘t have a patchwork in Germany, so the federal government has to enact a ban," the agriculture minister for the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein, Robert Habeck, told dpa.

Interview with EU commissioner-designate for trade

The "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership" (TTIP) between the EU and US will set the standard for the 21st century. With approximately 800 million consumers, it is expected to build the largest economy in the world by eliminating tariffs and trade barriers as well as lifting bureaucratic obstacles vanish.

Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström is negotiating TTIP terms on behalf of the 28 EU countries with the United States. In an exclusive interview with the "Luxemburger Wort" she highlights the benefits of this pact along with the fears and concerns of consumers.

(.....) Chlorine chicken became a symbol of TTIP. Will it end up on the plates of European consumers?

No, that's a myth. In Europe, we have high standards of consumer protection that will not be compromised by a trade agreement. Genetically modified foods are not allowed in Europe, hormone-treated meat is also taboo here, and chlorine-treated chickens are prohibited.

Why is there so much fuss over genetically modified ingredients? This will help you sift through the facts.

Foods made with canola oil, corn, or soy often contain GMOs.

It’s a growing controversy: Should GMO foods always be labeled so consumers are aware that the product contains genetically modified ingredients?

GMOs—or genetically modified organisms—are created in a lab by altering the genetic makeup of a plant or an animal. Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that GMO foods—widely found in kitchens across the country—should be labeled before they’re sold, according to a recent nationally representative survey of 1,004 people from the Consumer Reports National Research Center. (Last year our tests discovered that GMOs were present in many packaged foods, such as breakfast cereals, chips, baking mixes, and protein bars.)

Demand for non-GMO foods has skyrocketed: In 2013, sales of non-GMO products that were either certified organic (by law, organic products can’t be made with GMO ingredients) or that carried the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal increased by 80 percent, according to the Nutrition Business Journal. It has prompted a growing number of companies to avoid using GMOs in new products or to voluntarily reformulate existing ones so that they can sport reliable non-GMO labels. PepsiCo, for example, sells Stacy’s Simply Naked bagel and pita chips with the Non-GMO Project Verified seal; General Mills, which introduced a non-GMO original Cheerios cereal early last year, also has the non-GMO product lines Cascadian Farm and Food Should Taste Good.

AMENDMENT 1 - 156 Draft opinion, Bart Staes, (PE544.393v01-00) on recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI))

Amendment

B n. whereas the EU and US legislators have taken a very different approach as regards the regulation of genetically

modified organisms (GMOs): while in the EU, GMOs need to pass a risk analysis process prior to authorisation, regulators in the US allow them on the market without a distinct regulatory regime;

Amendment

C f. Whereas European consumers are informed of the presence of GMOs in foodstuff thanks to mandatory labelling while in the US, the FDA recognises GMOs as "substantially equivalent" to

their non-GMO counterparts.

Amendment

C g. Whereas several industry sectors representatives have called for the removal trough the regulatory convergence mechanisms of the EU zero tolerance policy for unauthorised GMOs in food and feed.

AMENDMENTS 157 - 314 Draft opinion Bart Staes (PE544.393v01-00) on recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI))

Amendment

4. Agrees with Commissioner Malmström that there should not be a trade-off between the economic goals and the people's health, safety and the environment; agrees further with the

Commissioner that where Europe and the United States have very different rules, there will be no agreement, such as GMOs, the use of hormone in bovine sector, REACH and Cloning;

Amendment

5. Calls on the Commission to exclude any terms in all the horizontal chapters and all the sectoral annexes of the TTIP that would affect the EU's integrated approach to food safety, including EU legislation on GMOs,

Amendment

– the EU's integrated approach to food safety, including GMOs,

Amendment

– European legislation on food safety and relating to GMOs,

Amendment

– affect the EU’s integrated approach to food safety, including EU legislation on animal welfare and GMOs,

Amendment

– affect the EU’s integrated approach to food safety, including EU legislation on GMOs and novel foods,

Amendment

5 d. Calls the commission to make sure that TTIP do not lower the GMOs standards at EU and member states level: in this regards the GMO labelling system should be considered a non-negotiable instrument to ensure consumer's right to choose. Furthermore it urges EU negotiators to preserve the right of the

European legislators to introduce further regulations on OGMs products including those derived from animals (meat and dairy) fed with GMOs..

Hershey’s has confirmed that as part of its commitment to simpler ingredients, its two iconic products will be non-GMO by the end of the year.

Green America Food Campaigns director Nicole McCann states: “We congratulate Hershey’s on this important move and great first step. As one of the leading chocolate companies in the US, this commitment will help move the rest of the companies in this sector. Hershey’s joins General Mills, Unilever, Post Foods and other leading companies in responding to consumer demand to make at least some of its products non-GMO.”

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA, 23 February, 2015 – US agencies, funders such as the Gates Foundation, and agribusiness giant Monsanto are trying to force unwilling African nations to accept expensive and insufficiently tested Genetically Modified (GM) foods and crops, according to a new report released today.

“The US, the world's top producer of GM crops, is seeking new markets for American GM crops in Africa. The US administration's strategy consists of assisting African nations to produce biosafety laws that promote agribusiness interests instead of protecting Africans from the potential threats of GM crops,” said Haidee Swanby from the African Centre for Biosafety, which authored the report commissioned by Friends of the Earth International.

The new report also exposes how agribusiness giant Monsanto influences biosafety legislation in African countries, gains regulatory approval for its product, and clears the path for products such as GM maize (corn).

Only four African countries -South Africa, Egypt, Burkina Faso and Sudan- have released GM crops commercially but the issue of genetically modified maize is deeply controversial, given that maize is the staple food of millions of Africans.