GM-free Scotland

August '08 | King commerce

Image of grain for sale in bags The doubling of animal feed prices in the last year, and its knock-on effect on meat, dairy and processed foods, are being used to put significant pressure on the EU to weaken its laws on GMOs.

Representatives of our farmers, food industry, feed manufacturers, millers, and grain and oilseeds traders are claiming that the EU's 'zero tolerance' of unapproved GM contaminants is restricting the flow of feed and raising prices. Because the livestock industry represents 40% of European agricultural production and because this sector has, a whopping, 77% reliance on imported feed, the availability of feed and its price are major issues.

As mentioned in CONSPIRACY? NEVER! (News, July 2008), actual grain price hikes seem to be greater the more GM is grown in the country of origin, which would suggest that encouraging more cultivation of GM crops will increase prices in the long term. However, a seemingly short-sighted EU debate in May seems to have concluded that feed and food prices could usefully be reduced by accepting GM contamination in imports. Since such action is illegal under the present GMO regulations, an urgent study was requested to find a “technical solution” which would allow low-level presence of non-approved GMOs in feed and foodstuffs.

The report which was rushed out in response to this request has been leaked by Friends of the Earth Europe. You can download it from this page: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/zero_tolerance.html (www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/animal_feed/zero_tolerance_DG_Sanco_draft_technical_solution.pdf. It may give you cause for concern.

Alarm Bell I

The stated objective of the report is to “facilitate the import of cereals from Third Countries”.

The “technical solution” proposed is a change in the permitted thresholds (currently zero) for unapproved GM content. The study analyses the projected impacts of leaving things as they are, or re-setting thresholds at the limit of detection, 0.5%, 0.9% and 5%.

A key question is how each of these changes could be made legally: the EU obviously doesn't want to have to draft new legislation, this would be slow and would require an open debate. The more convenient alternative is to bend the existing legal framework as much as possible, and to do so behind closed doors.

Alarm Bell II

The study deals with animal feed only, as this is an “especially sensitive” issue. However, any decisions taken will apply immediately to “foodstuffs” in the form of virtually all processed foods which contain soya and maize derivatives, and in the longer term will extend to all human food subject to genetic transformation anywhere in the world.

Alarm Bell III

The root cause of the problem under investigation is defined as “asynchronous authorisation” which means “GMOs already approved and commercially grown in Third Countries, but not yet authorised in the EU”.

Note the words not yet. This indicates an attitude behind everything the EU does which assumes any GMO produced in another country will eventually be approved in Europe: it's just going to take longer while the Union demonstrates how carefully it is regulating GMOs.

And it gets worse. In the next paragraph “asynchronous authorisation” also comes to include not only GMOs already approved in Third Countries, but also those under development.

This implies that GM crops not approved anywhere, not tested anywhere, nor even necessarily a candidate for approval anywhere, will be waved through and onto our plates. These could easily include GM crops which generate industrial chemicals or pharmaceuticals.

Alarm Bell IV

Part of the objective, clearly set out in the introduction is to facilitate cereal importation “while guaranteeing a high level of protection of human, animal health and the environment”.

This is comforting until you get into the study itself, where it is admitted that the analysis is primarily about the economic impacts. In fact, public health and the environment are not discussed due to the “limited information/data” available.

Note, too, that the recommendation to introduce a GM contamination threshold has come from the European Union Health Commissioner.

Alarm Bell V

Interruptions to maize importation to Europe are not seen as a major problem, except for five EU states (the UK and Ireland are two) which have become dependent on them. The key problem is identified is that “new and not yet EU-authorised” GM soya is “likely to occur” in 2008, in the USA.

Note that the actual problem the proposal is rushing to solve is one peculiar to America, and hasn't happened yet.

Neither Brazil nor Argentina grow crops not approved in the EU. Brazil uses its vast landmass to grow separate GM and non-GM crops with separate roads, ports and ships used to avoid contamination. Sources in Brazil said “We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy.” Argentina's tight GMO regulations make this soya-grower unlikely to approve the pipeline GM soya (Round Up Ready 2) before the EU does.

Alarm Bell VI

Buried in the middle of the analysis of the projected impacts of the 'leave-well'-alone' scenario (i.e. continuation of the zero-tolerance policy) is a comment that the “EU GMO policy factor” is of questionable significance in affecting food prices. It is pointed out that there are many other important influences, such as oil, biofuels, market speculation and Argentinean export tariffs, which are contributing to the current price inflation, and moreover, countries which have accepted GM are suffering all the same feed and food price problems.

You might ask why, when these reservations obviously negate the excuse for requesting an urgent “technical solution” in the first place, they are not voiced at the beginning, under 'problem definition'.

A very telling example is given of the possible cost of a contamination incident. At the moment, the presence of any level of illegal GM soya found in three bulk ships would affect all major food sectors working with soya derivatives (lecithin, soya flour, concentrates and isolates, oil, and roasted beans). The cost to the EU for dealing with such an incident (the testing, legal costs etc.) would be in the region of €1- €2.8 billion. The additional costs relating to the suppliers and handlers, e.g. product withdrawal and replacement, plant cleaning, brand reputation, compensation, loss of profits etc. which would directly impinge on the cost of food, were not calculated.

OUR COMMENT

The EU has every economic reason to avoid contamination incidents. This could clearly be done by guaranteeing a market to countries or companies willing to provide, for example, a suitable infrastructure for separation, traceability and routine testing, before any consignment lands in the EU. The answer is not to risk the health of the people with a flood of unknown low-level by-products of genetic transformation.

The more fundamental problems which the EU could and should have its attention on are spelled out in the report (and then ignored):

These can be summed up as: we're just too lacking in self-sufficiency and autonomy for our own good.

Our regulators seem very nonchalant about bending their own rules, worryingly careless of the risks consumers may face from world-wide experiments on GM food, and visibly content to pay lip-service to safety precautions and to stage-manage safety regulations.

Think about a visit to your MP's and MSP's local surgeries: ask them to start getting Scotland's self-sufficient house in order, before it's too late. Perhaps others will follow our lead.

SOURCES

Delicious icon Bookmark this on Delicious
About Us | Contact Us | 2008 GM-free Scotland