This is a report of the GMO-freezones conference recently held in Brussels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GMO Free Zones
Report prepared by Becky Price GeneWatch UK and Iza Kruszewska, ANPED
1. Introduction
This is a report about a conference on GMO-free Zones held in the European Parliament on 11th January 2001, which was organised by Green and European Free Alliance parties. The impetus for the conference was the European Commission's attempts to lift the de facto moratorium on new GM crop approvals.
1.1 Participants
The conference was open to anyone who registered. Participants included representatives of various green parties, environmental and consumer NGOs, and academics from EU Member States (MS), as well as biotech companies and lobby groups such as Europa-Bio. Delegates from Eastern Europe included NGOs/academics from Bulgaria, Slovenia and Poland as well as a member of of the Polish Parliament. This conference was not a strategy meeting, but was used for information exchange.
The following day (12th January), an NGO strategy meeting was used for further discussion of the idea of GMO-free zones and to catch up with current legislative developments within the EU Commission and Parliament. This briefing is not intended as a 'How to..' guide on GMO-free zones but as a feedback from the conference to stimulate ideas on the subject.
2.What is a GMO-free zone?
The basic idea is similar to that of nuclear-free zones. They can be created at many levels: village, city, county, country or even continent. One conference delegate proposed defining a GMO-free zone as one where no releases of GMOs (GM seeds) took place, but where GM food and GM feed could be marketed, provided that the GMOs were not capable of reproduction. At the NGO meeting, it was agreed that there should not be one formal definition. Whilst it is important that each GMO-free zone has a clear and well publicised definition, the precise nature of the definition will depend on what is possible and practical for each zone.
3. Are GMO-free zones a good idea?
Not all present at the NGO meeting thought that GMO-free zones were automatically a good idea. Below is a list of pros and cons of GMO-free zones:
Against
Nuclear-free zones failed to abolish nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
GMO-free zones are impossible to enforce due to cross-pollination.
GM-free zones in more affluent countries lead to dumping of GM crops and foods onto countries which don't have the infrastructure/will/money to stop them
Those countries/areas with the strongest resistance will be first to achieve a GMO-free status; there is then the potential that all those working on the issue will go and do something else. GMO-free zones will then not help to make a GMO-free area.
In favour
GMO-free zones are consistent with the idea: Think Globally, Act Locally
We don't want GMOs anywhere, but practically we can start with where we are
Nuclear free zones mobilised communities (and stopped the construction of nuclear shelters)
Using 'GMO-free' zone logo, (e.g. on national/local stationery) increase public awareness.
4. Practical examples of GMO-free zones
The conference included speakers from around the world who had been involved in creating GMO-free zones. The following summarises their presentations of how and to what extent GMOs had been banned from their respective areas.
4.1 Tasmania
Peg Putt, Tasmanian Green MP, explained that there has been a temporary ban is in place since May 1999, introduced on the basis of Tasmania's quarantine regulations that classified GMOs as a pest. The ban, that covers field trials and commercial growing is being followed up by a postcard campaign to persuade retailers not to sell imported GM food. There is likely to be some political will to make the ban permanent because of the importance of Tasmania's tourist industry and the fact that its agriculture cannot compete in the bulk world markets and so focuses on niche marketing, which often needs to portray the 'clean and green' image.
However, the Tasmanian Government still wants some trials to continue: it quietly passed a declaration to allow exemptions from the ban. When questioned about this, they said any exemptions would all be 'contained use'. There are now some trials of Aventis/Monsanto GM oilseed rape being conducted in tents and 4 more applications are in the pipeline. One pressure that Tasmania is under with the current GM crops is that it is used by companies as an 'off season' seed bulker for Northern Hemisphere planting.
4.2 Italy
Italy's approach is more piecemeal. Italy has invoked Article 16 of EU Directive 90/220 over Novartis' (now Syngenta) Bt maize line 176; this has stopped the growing of the GM seed on a commercial scale. In addition, 400 vineyards in Italy have declared themselves GM-free as have about 75 municipalities. The Green Italian Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, who is very anti GM crops, said that there would be no more approvals of GMOs in Italy until at least the next election.
4.3 Wales
Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans talked about attempts by the Welsh Assembly to create a GM-Free Wales. Despite the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Agriculture Committee voting to block the inclusion of the Aventis maize Chardon LL (T25) on the UK's national seed list, the Welsh Agriculture Secretary, Christine Gwyther, gave the go-ahead due, it is thought, to political pressure from Westminster.
The Welsh Assembly can still (in theory) stop GM crops from being trialled in Wales and this is what they are, in the main, achieving. Last year, though, an oilseed rape trial was planted on a farm whose buildings and address were on the English side of the border, but the trial crop was actually planted in Wales.
Jill Evans said that she would recommend that Welsh local authorities adopt the specimen GMO-Free Zone declaration circulated at the conference.
4.4 Brazil
In Brazil, no GMOs can legally be grown, but there is much pressure from Monsanto and the biotech industry to change this situation. Brazil is the world's second largest producer of soybeans and as Argentina (third largest) and the USA (largest) are both growing GM varieties, Brazil is key to supplying GM-free soya to Europe. However, there is likely to be some illegal contamination of the Brazilian soya seed at a level of 5-10%.
Many in the Government would like GMOs to be grown in Brazil, however so far it is the courts that have prevented their introduction.
Rio Grande do Sul is in the south of Brazil on the border with Argentina. It was the first state to declare itself GMO-Free. However, its closeness to Argentina has led to suspicions that Argentinean farmers have been saving Roundup Ready soya seed and selling it to farmers in Rio Grande do Sul, as have seed companies. Rio Grande do Sul has a lot of farming co-operatives, whereas the north of the country is dominated by more industrialised farming and Cargill has their facilities in the north. For these reasons, there have been many rumours that Rio Grande do Sul has a high level of GM contamination. At the conference, Maria Idalina de Sant Ana said that 1 million hectares of Rio Grande do Sul had illegal RR soya growing on it last year (that is 1/3 of the growing area of the region). This is a figure that is often pushed by companies such as Cargill and Monsanto. However, others who have visited the region think the figure is much lower.
4.5 Austria
Joseph Hoppichler, from the Federal Institute for Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas, spoke mainly about using international and EU legislation which protects specific natural areas. The idea that these areas need to maintain their 'genetic and biological diversity' could be used to argue the necessity of keeping these areas GM-free.
5. EU/Global legislation
Much of what happens on both a global and EU scale will determine how feasible it will be to create GMO-Free Zones. The following outlines some of the issues within the framework of global and EU agreements and examines how they may affect GM-Free Zone status.
1. Moratorium on new marketing consents in the European Union
Since 1998, there has been a de facto moratorium on new marketing consents within the EU. The moratorium is likely to stay in place until the new Deliberate Release Directive (currently EEC/90/220) is in force. In February 2001, the Conciliation Committee will agree the revised directive, but it will not come into force for another 20 months (to give time for it to be implemented into national law).
However, the EU Commission is now saying that it would like to lift the moratorium as soon as the Directive is agreed. The Commission is proposing to enter into 'gentlemen's agreements' (i.e. voluntary agreements) with the biotech companies, under which industry would undertake to comply with the future revised 90/220, even though the new Directive is not yet in force. Many Member States (MS) support this idea (Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Austria, Spain); Margot Wallstrom (Environment Commissioner) is also campaigning for a voluntary approach.
Note: until July 1998, the Commission could take a decision on approving a GMO with only one country in favour (e.g. Bt maize). In July 1998, the commitology procedures were changed to avoid the situation (as happened with Bt maize), so that if there was a 'blocking minority' (more than one third of MS), the proposal to approve a GMO would go back to the Commission.
The new commitology procedure applies once the new 90/220 is implemented (20 months after its introduction) - but what happens in the interim period?
The Commission has threatened MS to use the old approval system (approval with agreement of only one MS) if MS do not agree to the gentlemen's agreement.
Pro-moratorium On the Fence Anti-moratorium
France Austria The Netherlands
Luxembourg Belgium Spain
Denmark Portugal UK
Germany Ireland
Italy Sweden
Greece Finland
2. Traceability and Labelling
The Commission has proposed labelling requirements that go beyond the Novel Food regulation. If the labelling requirement is based on tracing GMOs in final products, this creates problems with oils, refined starches, etc.
To include labelling for everything derived from GMOs (i.e. enzymes, vitamins, additives) might be counter-productive: how to determine which products might be GM-free - even organic companies may have problems complying. This could play into the hands of the biotech industry because if the standards are raised high enough, everything will need to be labelled. It is not easy to defend why something should not be labelled.
A report will be produced for the EU Commission on traceability in late 2001. Also by that time the Commission is also scheduled to produce a draft directive. However, it often takes many years for the European Parliament and the Council to agree on a common text and to adopt it. So, from the time of a published Commission proposal for a new directive, it can easily take 4-5 years before the directive becomes effective.
3. Novel Feed regulations
The only large quantities of GMOs currently being imported into the EU are in the form of animal feed; hence the Novel (Animal) Feed regulations are paramount to a GM-free Europe. The regulations are in the pipeline but the Commission says that first we need to sort out traceablility (see above). It is not known if traceability of feed will be addressed under the new 90/220 (Deliberate Release Directive) or under other legislation. However, an emergency clause in the Amsterdam Treaty allows the Commission to act even if it has no competence in this area. This clause has been used to tackle issues of BSE and GM-contamination of seeds.
Some MS could take measures in advance of the EU regulation. Alternatively, Sweden, which currently has the presidency of the EU (until June 2001), could be pushed to move on animal feed. Finally, the spread of the BSE crisis from Britain to other EU states may push the whole issue of animal feed labelling up the agenda and this could be used to secure animal feed labelling.
5.4 WTO and GMO Free zones
The conference brought out the issue of how the WTO would react to such attempts to stop GMOs. The prevailing opinion was that neither the US nor the biotech companies would push the restraint of trade argument because GM already had a bad press especially in the EU where it has been seen as being 'forced on people by multinationals from the US'.
There was also comment that the WTO did not want to be arbitrator in this instance, possibly because if the mounting backlash against the WTO and biotech industry where to be combined, the future of both would be in real jeopardy.
However, since the US has not signed the Biosafety protocol and has a great influence over the World Bank and IMF (organisations which - it has been said - are destroying local economies and 'making the dollar king'), means that the US and the biotech industry does not need the WTO to help it push GMOs into most corners of the world.
5. GMOs and EU Accession
A new report by ANPED and Ökobüro, "EU Enlargement and GMOs: Chasing a Moving Target", outlines NGO policy on this issue. It could provide a way of stalling the EU approval process for GMOs by requiring the re-authorisation of all GMOs already approved in the EU, by allowing applicant countries an automatic 'Article 16 procedure' to be conducted when they accede. For the full report, visit: www.anped.org
6. New EU Food Standards Agency
This new agency would replace the Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP), whose advice is often ignored. Moreover the SCP can only investigate an issue at the request of the EU Commission and relies on literature reviews instead of undertaking independent testing.
7. GM Seeds
There is currently no EU regime to deal with GM seeds, although the new 90/220 allows for the setting of thresholds of contamination, but only for approved GMOs. A strong regime on GM seeds, with zero thresholds, could enable the creation of GM-free zones.
8. Environmental Liability
In late 2000, the Commission published the long-awaited White Paper on Environmental Liability, which includes references to GMOs. A White Paper outlines the Commission's policy on specific issues.
6. Summary/conclusion
Any area which is thinking of becoming a GM-free zone must think carefully about their own definition of GM-free in terms of both what they ideally want and what is practically possible.
Clearly, there are many EU legislative initiatives and administrative changes (e.g. commitology procedures) which could support the creation of GM-free zones if they result in policy and laws that are restrictive on GMOs. There is a lot of work to be done on the EU level but it is also important that MS are lobbied by national NGOs to ensure that we achieve outcomes that will support the creation of GM-free zones.
Finally it was agreed that GENET would put together a website on GMO-free zones, as a resource for both campaigners and retailers trying to obtain GMO-free products. The GENET website is at: http://www.gene.ch
Lorenzo Consoli, from Greenpeace European Unit, has promised to circulate an explanatory paper on the EU's commitology procedures. For information contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) biotechnology programme produces a mailout every six weeks which, amongst other things, tracks the development of EU legislation. Current and back issues of this mailout can be viewed at: http://www.foeeurope.org/biotechnology/about.htm