GM-free Scotland

Germany seems to be a land of contradictions these days.

At the start of 2008, the government there announced in the same breath that it puts safety and consumer opinion above economic concerns, while passing legislation to help the country's biotech industry “catch up” with competitors.

The fact that consumer opinion in Germany is increasingly hostile to GM has been made clear by a number of recent events in German universities. One university in Hesse has pulled the plug on its insect-resistant maize field trials because it felt “no longer able to deal with the massive opposition from the public and their government representatives. The university also realised it was risking its reputation by persisting with GM research. A second university in Hesse has halted trials of insect-resistant and fungal-resistant maize which had been on-going since 1996 after the rector and external advisory board “urgently recommended” it stop. The move was in response to vandalism and threats, besides occupation of the test-site by activists and the realisation that the university was becoming known as “Monsanto University”. The rector and board state they have always been critical of this kind of research, but seem to have tolerated it until public feeling got out of control. These trials were approved by government agencies and the former one was being conducted on behalf of the German government.

To demonstrate its support for public concern, the government is allowing products from non-GM fed livestock to carry a 'GM free' label. It didn't try to extend the legislation to GM-derived enzymes and vitamins which will still feature in the feed of 'GM free' animal produce because there often isn't any alternative.

At the same time, to demonstrate its support for the country's biotech industry (a.k.a. Monsanto), the government has ended its moratorium on MON 810 maize cultivation.

This maize has been banned in seven EU countries due to environmental safety concerns, and because the evidence is unconvincing that the Bt toxin it contains is safe for the humans or animals exposed to it. The stability of the engineered DNA in different strains of MON 810 is also in doubt (see MON 810: IS THIS REGULATION? - News, June 2008).

The German government's promotion of MON 810 cultivation is connected to serious legal issues for another industry. Beekeepers have long been concerned that the contamination of their honey with pollen from GM crops not approved for human food use would render it illegal and unsaleable In a test-case brought by a beekeeper whose honey became contaminated with MON 810, which is approved for animal-feed only, a German court confirmed the beekeepers' worst fears, it is indeed unfit for human consumption. The ruling will, of course, also apply to honey contaminated from any test site of any GM crop.

Since bees, as major pollinators, are a vital part of our food supply, you might expect governments to protect their bee industry? The European Professional Beekeepers Association described how it has alerted the government in writing to the danger of unapproved GM pollen contamination several times over the last two years. Yet, at a meeting with the German Minister of Agriculture at which the issue was raised “The Minister and his legal experts were completely surprised and clueless”. Put another way, the government gets all its information from industry and anything the beekeepers have to say goes straight to the 'circular' file.

OUR COMMENT

The government which 'puts safety and consumer opinion above economic concerns' is still approving and commissioning unwanted GM research, still allowing GM additives and processing residues to go into the food chain undeclared, and still ending a moratorium on a GM crop which is causing widespread concern, besides ignoring the implications of GM crops for vital non-GM industries, and paying little or no attention to concerns raised by the public.

Interestingly, while the court failed to rule that Monsanto or the government had any responsibility for the damage caused, it ruled that the beekeepers could take civil action against the growers and that they would have to move their bees away from the GM field. These seem rather contradictory rulings:

The company responsible for safety-testing the seeds, and the body which accepted the industry tests and gave permission for the growing of the crop are not liable, while the farmer who was growing the crop, perfectly legally, can be sued.

The beekeeper was told he could sue the grower, but was also told to move his bees away from the GM field. Does that not mean that the court has already ruled it was the beekeeper's fault for putting his bees too close in the first place?

If a person develops a lung disease after breathing in GM pollen, the precedent in Europe seems now to be that the company which failed to test its pollen adequately for allergenicity in humans and the government who failed to require adequate testing are not liable, while the farmer who has no medical expertise, nor the ability to test for human allergens, will be held responsible, and the person who can't breathe will be told to relocate his lungs further away from the GM crop.

The beekeepers are preparing a legal action at the European level, but need considerable funds to do this. Please alert any beekeepers you know about this issue and ask them to consider getting involved: it is obviously important that beekeepers the breadth of Europe support the German initiative.

SOURCES

• Germans loosen GM labelling and planting rules, Thin Ice, 10 April 2008
• Annegret Grafen-Engert, New Pep for the German Soy Market, Bioland Organic Agriculture, April 2008
• Walter Haefeker, Honey contaminated with MON 810 unfit for human consumption, European Professional Beekeepers Association, May 2008
• Quirin Schiermeier, Plug is pulled on maize research, Nature News, 14.05.08