Bayer says its latest GMO application is "copyright" protected, according to an article in the July 15, 2011 edition of EU Food Policy. 

Bayer CropScience and MS Technologies have applied for approval for the import and processing of FG72 soybean for food and feed uses (excluding cultivation). The dossier has gone to EFSA for the risk assessment.

EU Food Policy says Bayer CropScience is claiming confidentiality for two studies – Verhaeghe 2009 and Verhaeghe 2011 – and all documents relating to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.

It is also saying that even the non-confidential part of the dossier is “copyright protected and must not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of the authors".

EU Food Policy says NGOs have been campaigning for more information to be made public in GMO dossiers and their call is supported by many politicians who want to see wider access to the information on which approvals are based.

In June this year, the NGO Earth Open Source published on the internet documents relating to the EU's approval of the pesticide glyphosate/Roundup. 

The documents revealed that industry knew from its own tests as long ago as the 1980s that glyphosate causes birth defects in lab animals at high doses, and from the 1990s that these effects occurred at lower and mid doses. 

The documents also showed the creative attempts by Germany, the 'rapporteur' member state for glyphosate, to whitewash the findings of birth defects.

However, the published documents did not include details of the actual tests done by industry, which remain hidden from the public.

In its report on the 30-year coverup (http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5), EOS called for all information on which pesticide approvals are based especially the industry studies submitted to regulators in support of the approvals to be published on the internet. 

This must also apply to GMOs, food additives, chemicals, and other substances that industry want us to consume/use without question.

It's clear that the public is demanding more transparency about the scientific justifications behind regulators' approvals of risky products. Bayer's desperate attempt to hide this important information speaks volumes about its practices and motives.