International updates on coexistence – October to December 2006
Global
• The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared that the experimental GM rice LL601 detected in the US rice supply in July 2006 poses no food or safety concerns. LL601 is an experimental rice designed by Bayer CropSci to be herbicide resistant but was dropped by the company in 2001. Bayer, which has no plans to commercialise LL601, now faces a class action lawsuit filed by farmers in several states, as the rice escaped from its test plots around the country and was found in US rice exports in August 2006. The FDA gave its preliminary approval on September 8 2006.
• A draft decision by the European Commission (EC) imposing mandatory counter testing for unauthorised GMOs in all imports of US long grain rice was endorsed on 24 October 2006 by Member State experts in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. The decision follows the lack of agreement by the US authorities on a common sampling procedure for the unauthorised GM rice LL601 in consignments to the EU. The measures are being taken in response to finding LL601 in shipments of US long grain rice in July 2006. Under the draft Decision, in addition to this certification requirement, all consignments of US long-grain rice will also be sampled and tested at the point of entry to the EU by Member State authorities.
• On 29 September 2006 the World Trade Organization (WTO) circulated the final dispute panel report on the dispute brought by the USA, Canada and Argentina against the EC in the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products cases in August 2003. The proceedings related to the EC's failure between 1999 and 2003 to reach a final decision on applications for approval of GM organisms or products. New Zealand was a third party in this dispute. New Zealand's submission to the dispute settlement panel focused on the need to preserve the disciplines in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), including certain procedural obligations. The Panel held that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligation under the SPS Agreement to complete approval procedures without undue delay. More substantively, it held that individual GM product bans applied by some EC Member States were in breach of the SPS Agreement. The complainants' key arguments, that the EC's de facto moratorium on GM approvals and product-specific bans were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, did not succeed.
Africa
• The Kenyan government has approved its biotechnology policy. The National Biotechnology Development Policy outlines the safety procedures for biotechnology in the context of research and development, technology transfer and commercialisation of products that would result from research undertaken in Kenya.
• Tanzania has implemented a policy to control the importation of GM organisms and products into the country. From now on nobody will be able to import GM organisms without written approval from the environmental section of the vice-president’s office. The new policy has been prepared in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which Tanzania has ratified.
• A bill to regulate GM organisms and products in Namibia was introduced to the National Assembly last week. The new legislation will protect the conservation and sustainable use of the country's biological diversity, taking into account the potential risks to the health and safety of Namibians, and possible harmful consequences of GM organisms to the environment.
Europe
• Hungary is set to impose strict rules on GM crops that would mostly block their cultivation even if the EU overturns the country's GMO ban. Although the European Union permits cultivation of the MON 810 maize hybrid produced by Monsanto, Hungary banned the crop in 2005. Hungary is defending its moratorium on the grounds that it lacks coexistence legislation to regulate the simultaneous production of conventional, organic, and GM crops. Relevant committees of the Hungarian parliament have discussed a draft coexistence regulation; parliamentary debate on this legislation was scheduled to begin in late October 2006.
• On 12 October 2006, the EC started infringement proceedings against Poland over the country's ban on all cultivation of GM plants. The Polish parliament has banned the entry of any GM crops in the national seed catalogue. Blanket bans of this kind are not in line with EU legislation. If the Polish authorities do not fall in with the Commission's request, eventually the European Court of Justice will have to decide on the matter.
• At the beginning of October 2006, the EC decided to ask the Council of Environment Ministers to assess the Austrian import ban on GM maize varieties MON810 and T25. Referring to an opinion paper by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Commission claims that Austria's reasons for the import ban are unsound.
• The EC has asked the Court of Justice to impose a 38 million euro fine, plus daily penalties, on France for not adopting an EU directive on the deliberate release of GMOs. Despite written warnings France has still not complied with the ruling. A daily penalty of 366,744 euros would have to be paid until France has adopted the necessary legislation.
• A report on the “Ecological Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops: Ten Years of Field Research and Commercial Cultivation” was prepared by the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture (ART), with the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety providing the majority of the funding. The report concludes that: “The risks GM crops pose for the environment, and especially for biodiversity, have been extensively assessed worldwide during the past ten years of commercial cultivation…The data available so far provide no scientific evidence that the commercial cultivation of GM crops has caused environmental harm.”
• Two GM potatoes have come under scrutiny by regulatory bodies in Europe. One is a late blight resistant potato, and the other is a potato modified to produce a specific type of starch for industrial use. The starch potato, known as Amflora, is not intended for human or animal consumption. Both potatoes were developed by BASF AG, the world's largest chemical manufacturer.
• The field trial for the blight resistant potato will be the first in the UK since 2003. The trial will go ahead in 2007 despite the withdrawal of one of the two proposed sites due to the farm owner’s fears for his personal safety. BASF was required by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to provide detailed Ordnance Survey map grid references for the on-farm GM sites. This consent is for field trials only and not for placing the GM potatoes on the market (which requires a separate consent and approval process). Potatoes harvested from the field trials will not be used for food or feed purposes. This approval for field trials has been met with strong opposition by the potato industry and the country's largest maker of chips, citing ”consumers' mistrust” of GM technology.
• The EC's regulatory committee has failed to decide on the approval for cultivation of Amflora, the starch potato. This means that the decision will be passed on to the Council of Ministers. If the Council of Ministers does not decide within three months, then the EC must make a decision. If the EC approves the cultivation of this biotech crop under certain conditions, this potato could be the first GM plant to be approved for commercial cultivation in the EU since 1998. New Zealand has not yet had an application to fully release a GM organism.
Asia
• A study in the Philippines showed "a wider acceptance to GM rice, particularly if it is high yielding, safe for human consumption, has good eating quality and has sufficient market demand." There are so far three such rice varieties being developed in the Philippines at present: insect-resistant Bt rice, which promises lesser chemical use; and "Golden Rice", a vitamin A enriched rice and iron-enriched rice with improved nutritional contents. The research work, conducted jointly by scientists from the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), covered farmers, millers and traders, and end consumers.
• A recent in Japan survey of consumer attitudes to genetically modified foods by a quasi government body STAFF (Society for Techno-innovation of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) showed that only 9% of those polled had a “good image” of GM food while 51% declared themselves opposed to GM foods. 61% said they were reluctant to eat it at all.
• An agreement between Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters to maintain non-GM produce will be made official in March 2007. The Thai Exporters Association believes that this agreement may enable Thailand to gain more access to EU markets.
Australia
• Five GM cotton varieties modified for herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance were approved for commercial release in the northern areas of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland in October 2006. The Australian Government through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator issued a license to Monsanto Australia Ltd., allowing the company to grow the cotton varieties in the specified regions without any containment measures. The newly approved varieties are Bollgard® II (MON15985), Roundup Ready® (MON1445), Roundup Ready Flex® (MON88913), Bollgard® II/Roundup Ready® (MON15985/MON1445), and Bollgard® II/Roundup Ready Flex® (MON1445/MON88913).
• The South Australian (SA) government has extended a ban on GM food crops until the end of April, 2008. The ban, first imposed in 2004, was due to have ended in 2007. But SA’s agriculture Minister Rory McEwen said the extra time would allow for a review of the current legislation. The minister said the state government remained committed to protecting the state's clean and green reputation by preventing the introduction of GM crops until it was clear they could co-exist with conventional crops.
• Western Australia’s (WA’s) agriculture Minister Kim Chance is, according to this story, under renewed pressure to lift the WA State Government’s moratorium on GM crops. Pastoralists and Graziers Association grain committee chairman Leon Bradley was cited as saying it was essential the ban was lifted and the Government was denying farmers the technology that would enable them to "stay in the race". But Mr Chance was standing firm on the Government's ban, which prevents the commercial release of all GM crops in WA until at least 2009.
New Zealand
• The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) has been considering the issue of food derived from cloned animals and their offspring for some time. Its policy recommendations are based on completed and peer-reviewed research from many sources. There is no evidence suggesting food derived from healthy cloned animals would constitute a risk to consumers. On that basis, NZFSA believes there is no need for specific regulation of such foods, should they ever enter the food chain, as they would be subject to general safety requirements under existing legislation. Research is continuing in this area and NZFSA will continue to monitor international developments. Should research demonstrate there are risks from food derived from cloned animals or their offspring, NZFSA will consider the need for specific regulation. Cabinet confirmed the recommendations of the Policy Position Paper "Food Derived from Cloned Animals and their Offspring" on 12 September 2006.
North America
• The California legislature was considering a bill pre-empting individual counties from banning the growing of genetically modified crops, but the bill failed to come before the relevant committee due to procedural issues. The bill was introduced in 2005, and was approved by the California Assembly's Agriculture Committee in June 2006, and was considered by the state Senate in October 2006. Four California counties already have adopted local bans on biotech crops, and state legislators fear a patchwork of confusing regulations if many more counties follow suit.
• Two telephone surveys in the United States of America (USA) have examined consumer support for tobacco “bio-pharming” and plant and animal agricultural biotechnology. Tobacco bio-pharming seems to have widespread support when it generates a socially beneficial application. Public support for agricultural biotechnology is higher when plant rather than animal vehicles are used, and non-food applications are more acceptable than GM foods.
• The potential of GM foods to cause allergic reactions in humans may be a concern with foods modified to produce proteins similar to known allergens. A Michigan State University researcher has developed the first animal model (a mouse) to test whether GM foods could cause human allergic reactions. If successfully validated, the testing could be available commercially in about five years. There is currently no standardised way to test whether a particular GM food causes an allergic response in a person exposed to it. The Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants recommends that the properties of GM proteins be compared with properties of known allergens (and there are laboratory-based tests available if the comparison raises concerns).
Contact for Enquiries
Dr Sharon Adamson
Manager,
Innovation Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0618
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0741
Contact this person
