1.Letter from Swedish beekeepers to Advocate General
2.EU beekeepers stage win against GM crop producers
NOTE: Item 2 provides the background for the letter to the Advocate General (item 1). See also this important piece on GM crops and honey bee research, which includes an interview with the bee researcher Prof. Dr. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz of the University of Halle-Wittenberg.
---
---
1.Letter from Swedish beekeepers to Advocate General
Dear Mr Yves Bot
We wish to thank you for the excellent report you have written concerning GMO and pollen. As beekeepers we are very concerned about the situation in which we now find ourselves and therefore greatly appreciate that these issues are been dealt with so thoroughly.
We do however wish to call your attention to certain points:
- None of the existing approvals for any GMOs in food and feed include an approval for placing pollen on the market. Nor have any food/feed safety or environmental risk assessments of pollen been carried out.
- With respect to renewed approvals, for example of Bt 11 (decision 2010/419/EU), MON 88017+MON810 (decision 2010/419/EU) and 1507+59122 (decision 2010/432/EU), the approvals have been renewed in accordance with the earlier decision and also extended to include all food/feed products made from these crops. This approval has been given without having carried out a risk assessment and approved placement on the market all the various products - for example honey or pollen as a food supplement
These renewed approvals are not in line with EUs GMO Regulations because the initial approvals did not include pollen. Pollen in honey and raw pollen as a food supplement have never been assessed for risks nor approved for placement on the market. Also EFSA's Scientific Opinion does not take these aspects into consideration. For example, the risk for horizontal gene transfer from pollen mixed with the lactic acid bacteria from the bees honeystomach has not even been considered. Due to the graveness of the risks involved the Precautionary Principle must be applied.
- In the recently (2010) approved Mir604 no risk assessment of its pollen has been carried out and no specific request for the placement of pollen on the market has been made. The approval covers all food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from this genetically modified maize. It also covers products over than food and feed containing or consisting of this maize for the same uses as any other maize with the exception of cultivation.
It is of great urgently that the renewed approvals as well as the recently approved MIR604 be challenged based on the fact that no risk assessment of pollen has been carried out. The risks that GMOs carry for bees and beekeeping need to be taken seriously. We need both support and research. Beekeeping is threatened if beekeepers are thrown out into a legal 'limbo' where we alone shall bear the responsibility that our products follow food regulations concerning GMO content while at the same time no risk assessment has been carried out, no approval given for release on the market and no labelling rules are applicable.
Syngenta has recently applied for authorization of Event MIR604 maize cultivation in the EU. If this and other applications for cultivation of GMO crops in the EU are approved the result will be widespread contamination of bees and bee products with GMO pollen. This will occur without any serious attempt to asses the risks involved for bees, beekeeping and consumers of bee products. Traceability and consumer information, two of the cornerstones of EUs GMO policy, will be undermined. If the EU regulations are to be of any value to beekeepers and consumers then GMO pollen must also be included in the approval for market release after a thorough risk assessment has been made. All regulations governing GMOs must also rigorously apply to our products. Anything less is completely unacceptable.
Yours sincerely,
Ann-Charlotte Berntsson
Daphne Thuvesson
Marie Rosell
Beekeepers in Sweden
c.c Whom it may concern or be of interest.
---
---
2.EU beekeepers stage win against GM crop producers
Nina Haase
Deutsche Welle, 15 Feb 2011
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14843153,00.html
The EU's highest court may classify honey containing traces of genetically modified material as "food produced" from modified plants. Such a ruling may enable beekeepers with hives close to GM crops to seek damages.
Beekeepers with hives close to fields of Monsanto genetically modified maize can't sell their honey in the European Union without regulatory approval, an adviser to the European Court of Justice has said.
The presence in honey "even of a minute quantity of pollen" from the maize is reason enough to restrict its sale, Advocate General Yves Bot told the court last week.
Damage claim
"Food containing material from a genetically modified plant, whether that material is included intentionally or not, must always be regarded as 'food produced' from modified plants," said Bot. Acting as an independent adviser to the court, he was tasked with suggesting a ruling, based on previous EU decisions. If the EU tribunal follows Bot's advice, which it is expected to do, the ruling could have consequences across the bloc.
This would be a huge success for "anyone wanting to prevent food and animal feed from being more and more contaminated with genetically modified material," said Achim Willand, a lawyer representing food producers. "Beekeepers are especially susceptible because bees collect the pollen of GM plants within a radius of three to five kilometers," he told Deutsche Welle.
Monsanto's genetically modified corn type MON 810 has not been authorized for sale on the European food market. If new regulations are established, making it impossible for beekeepers to sell their product because it has been contaminated by pollen from MON 810 crops, the beekeepers may be able to claim damages from Monsanto.
Zero tolerance policy
"Yves Bot didn't use the word, but the opinion basically translates into a zero tolerance policy," said Thomas Radetzki, an advocate for German beekeepers against genetic engineering in agriculture. "It would mean that any produce with even the slightest trace of genetically modified crop would become a GM food product, with all the consequences."
Beekeeper Karl-Heinz Bablok, from Kaisheim near Augsburg in Southern Germany, originally brought the case to court. His hives were two kilometers away from fields where research was being conducted with Monsanto's MON 810 maize. He went to court trying to get the research stopped or get protection for his produce. Researchers argued that the bees weren’t interested in pollen from maize.
In an attempt to prove the researchers wrong, Bablok put his hives 500 meters away from the maize fields. He had to throw away the honey his bees produced, because he found it was contaminated with traces of GM pollen.
Lack of protection
Thomas Radetzki of the beekeepers' action group said beekeepers who have hives close to GM crop fields have not had enough protection, despite the existence of protective laws.
Currently, Monsanto is banned from testing its maize in Germany. Meanwhile, the beekeepers case is being watched closely by the agricultural sector. "If we're successful, others may follow, and then the matter may be brought to other national courts too," said Radetzki.
No winner declared yet
Achim Willand, the lawyer representing food producers, said the Advocate General's suggested ruling could have implications for anyone seeking permission to grow genetically modified plants in the EU.
But Thomas Radetzki said, while opponents of GM crops may be pleased at the moment, the case hadn’t been won yet. Advocate General Yves Bot based his suggested ruling on laws which are in place right now. Radetzki warned that, even if the EU tribunal were to follow Bot's advice, "the EU Commission can always change its laws. Then we'd have to start from scratch."