News | August '07 | Designed to breakdown
Our administrators seem to have given themselves one big GM headache.
Their problems start as far away as the country of origin of our imported staples. All shipments have to be accurately labelled with their contents (EU labelling and traceability regulation 1829/2003). But, hey, if the customer wants a GMO-free label, let's give it to him. Who's checking anyway?
The answer to that last question is, by and large, no one. At least not very often.
Greenpeace has pointed out that in 2005 the Dutch Food Safety Authority with responsibility for Rotterdam, a major EU port of entry, carried out 1,582 tests and inspections on ships for GM contamination. In 2006, it carried out just 175. After the recent scandal of GM contaminated cargoes which were distributed around Europe from Rotterdam (see GM BLOWING IN THE WIND – News, August 2007), the Authority has announced it is stepping up its inspections from one-in-ten to one-in-four. But that's still only 25 per cent of what is landing on your plate.
Besides GM cargoes deliberately or carelessly disguised as non-GM, many which are genuinely non-GM to start with will have become GM as they were sitting in the field or as they were hauled around the globe.
Testing is expensive, and can lead to huge delays, especially if the laboratories haven't been given enough reference materials or the necessary molecular information to set up appropriate tests. In the absence of any laws on disclosure, this vital information is only available at the whim of the biotech company which manufactured it in the first place.
The test results and paper-trails must be recorded, retained and accessible if they are ever going to be of use in the event of an emerging problem. But, it has still been possible for the Irish Government to lose the whole of its database for 2006 due to 'computer failure'.
OUR COMMENT
What we are seeing is a GM regulatory system based on crises-management only and in which the infrastructure for practical, comprehensive testing and for reliable segregation is simply not there.
It doesn't help that the EU has decided that GM contamination which is “adventitious” and “technically unavoidable” should be legal, despite not having defined either term.
GM Free Cymru has pointed out that our technology and farm management systems (COMMENT including instant on-site testing kits for contamination) have advanced to the point where GM crops and non-GM crops CAN be isolated providing there is a will to work to high standards. In other words, there is no such thing as “technically unavoidable contamination” While such management impose a financial burden on farmers, millers and distributors, that is their problem, not ours. “All segments of the industry have connived over the last decade in the mixing of GM and non-GM crops of soya, maize and canola by failing to use the many techniques available to them and failing to take advice from concerned NGOs for keeping products isolated.” The concept of “adventitious” contamination emerges as nothing less than planned pollution.
The arbitrary EU decision that a GM content of up to 0.9% is inevitable and acceptable, and so should be kept secret from consumers, is not necessary.
What we seem to have a system which has been designed to breakdown.
You can still avoid most GM-contaminated food by:
- avoiding all processed foods
- favouring organic foods, especially maize, rapeseed oil and soya
- buying meat and dairy only from outlets which specify that they are requiring GM-free feed from their suppliers.
SOURCES
- www.foodqualitynews.com 11.05.07
- Dutch News 28.04.07
- GM-free Ireland Network Press Release 30.04.07
- GM Free Cymru 30.04.07