FoEE website | Press Releases | Publications | Contacts | Links

Since spring1998, no new GMOs have been authorised for planting or use in the
EU. This “de facto” moratorium was made ‘official’ at an EU Environment
Ministers Council meeting in June 1999 when five Member States - Denmark,
France, Greece Italy and Luxembourg - issued a declaration that they would
effectively block new GMO approvals until the European Commission proposed
legislation for traceability and labelling of GMOs and products derived therefrom.
Following the revision of the Deliberate Release Directive regulating the release of
GMOs into the environment (Directive 2001/18/EC repealing Directive 90/220/EEC,
adopted by the European Parliament in February 2001), these five countries,
subsequently joined by Austria, again declared that they would not lift the
moratorium until the issue of traceability and labelling is resolved. The moratorium
has been consolidated over recent months by similar declarations from Germany
(October 2001) and Belgium (December 2001).

Why does FoE support the moratorium?

Over the last few years there has been growing public concern about the impact
that GM crops will have on both the environment and public health. Numerous
independent research studies indicate that there are serious potential problems linked to the use of GMOs and that the current regulatory framework is not adequate in light of these developments.

FoE believes there should be a moratorium on:

• the commercial growing and marketing of GM seeds, food and feed food, feed and seed imports patenting of food genes.
• In FoE’s view, a moratorium is essential to allow sufficient time to fully research and analyse the long-term effects of introduction into the environment of GM crops and food. It will also allow time to update the regulatory framework and ensure public participation in the decision-making process.

Scientific reasons for concerns:

At least 60 pieces of research since 1994 indicate that:

• genes from GM crops will be transferred to wild relatives and non-GM
  crops;
• herbicide-tolerant crops may seriously threaten biodiversity in agricultural
  areas;
• widespread use of glufosinate and glyphosate could affect soil ecosystems,
  crop performance and nutrient cycling;
• insect pests may rapidly develop resistance to GM crops expressing Bt
  toxins, shortening the useful life of such crops and compromising the
  effectiveness of existing Bt insecticides;
• pest-resistant crops may have adverse impacts on beneficial insects and
  other invertebrate populations;
• it will be impossible to ensure that GM foods will not cause new allergies;
• GM crops expressing proteins toxic to pests may also be toxic to humans;
• antibiotic resistance could be passed on to pathogens and lessen the
  effectiveness of important drugs.

This evidence contributes to the widely held view that the introduction of GMOs
should be subject to the ‘Precautionary Principle’. FoE considers that its
application in the field of GMOs is urgently necessary - it will give a breathing
space for the science to be independently tested, for the public to be properly
consulted about whether it wants GM food or not, and for a much-needed reform of
the regulatory system.

The Commission’s initiatives to lift the moratorium

The European Commission has been under increasing pressure both from the
biotech industry and the United States to lift the moratorium. To overturn the EU
objections to GMO authorisations, the US has threatened to initiative a dispute in
the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Under WTO rules, member countries are
obliged to permit imports if the products are deemed to pose no risk to humans,
animals or plants.

Ungentlemanly conduct?

On more than one occasion, the European Commission has tried to break the
moratorium by proposing voluntary “gentlemen’s agreements” with the biotech
industry under which the companies would agree to comply with the rules of new
GMO directives and regulations before they are even in place.

The Commission first attempted this in the summer of 2000 before the revised
Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18/EC had been adopted in Parliament. More
recently, it proposed that biotech companies accept, on a voluntary basis, the
new requirements laid down in their Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed
proposals. On both occasions, the EU Member States remained firm in their
opposition to re-starting the approvals process.

The next moves?

Mid September 2002 European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne has said -after a three-day informal gathering of EU farm ministers in Denmark- that the EU would be “very soon” getting to the point where the entering into force of tougher legal criteria on GMOs would justify the lifting of the moratorium. Byrne also suggested that the entering into force of the Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18/EC on 17 th October would be the right moment to end the moratorium. However, the Deliberate Release Directive only provides a general framework for the regulation of GMOs and does not address key environmental problems, like the genetic pollution of seeds and liability for environmental problems caused by GMOs. These problems will have to be addressed in seperate pieces of legislation (Seeds Directive (SANCO/1542/02) and Environmental Liability Directive (CM (2002) 17 final) that are still in the pipeline and will not be finalized before the end of 2003. Moreover, the Deliberate Release Directive does not provide a legal basis for the labelling of genetically modified (GM) food and GM-animal feed and it will take at least another half year before the laws that will secure the full labelling of GM food and GM animal feed are fully operational. In October the Council of EU ministers will vote upon two proposals (COM (2001) 182 final and COM (2001) 425 final) to extend the mandatory labelling regime to all GM food and GM animal feed, but these proposals – if adopted by the Council- will have to go back to the European Parliament for a second and possibly third reading before they can enter into force.

It is unlikely that the Member States that support the moratorium will change their position until the new rules for traceability and labelling are in place. In 1999 they have written in their statement that started the moratorium that " new authorizations for bringing under cultivation and for the placing of GMOs on the market are suspended until effective arrangements are adopted for the thorough traceability of GMOs enabling reliable labelling of all GMO-derived products to be guarantueed. “ Friends of the Earth believes that , in addition to installing effective arrangements for the traceability and labelling of GMO-derived products, at least adequate systems to ensure environmental liability for GMO producers and the protection of seeds against genetic pollution, should be fully operational before even considering the possible ending of the EU moratorium.

New applications

Since the 22nd January 2003, the European Commission has published 18 notifications for placing on the market of new GMOs (see: http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/partc_browse.asp). Half of these notifications concern the import of GMOs for food and feed processing within the Community and 9 notifications seek authorisation for the commercial cultivation of GM crops such as oilseed rape, sugar beet, cotton and potatoes. The applications have been made by just a few multinational biotech companies, mainly Monsanto : 10 applications, and Bayer (which took over Aventis) : 5 applications.

Countries that have forwarded notifications for consideration by the Commission and other EU Member States include Sweden, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. But the countries that have so far enforced the moratorium - Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg- have restated their objection to the lifting of the moratorium. Their comments came in response to calls by EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner David Byrne for a lifting of the ban at an Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 20 February. Together the “moratorium countries” have enough votes under the EU's Qualified Majority decision-making procedure to form a blocking minority which could uphold the moratorium and effectively prevent any new approvals.

The "moratorium countries" have good reasons to do so. Many problems relating to GMOs have not yet been resolved. As far as the protection of conventional and organic farms against GM contamination is concerned, no legislative initiatives have yet been taken at EU level, although this is urgently required in light of problems of so-called “co-existence” of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic crops. If allowed without further limitations and protective measures for organic and conventional agriculture, the commercial release of GM crops will cause massive genetic contamination throughout the EU.

Monsanto’s application for GM oilseed rape: untransparant, incomplete and inadequate

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) has analysed in detail the first of the 18 new notifications: an application by Monsanto for the marketing of genetically modified GT73 oilseed rape. Because the notification was first made in 1998 (under the old Directive 90/220) and the new Directive 2001/18 entered into force in the meantime, FoEE paid special attention to compliance with the new law. FoEE also tried to find out if Monsanto has delivered all relevant studies relating to environmental risks and food/feed safety to the EU. This was not an easy task since most of the dossier was not available for the public. In the case of GT73 oilseed rape, the website of the Joint Research Centre (where the Commission publishes the notifications and risk assessments), only provides a 12-page summary of the evaluation of the notification carried out by the Netherlands Competent Authority. In addition, there is the summary notification information format (SNIF) of 20 pages. It is not indicated either on the JRC website or in any other form by the European Commission or the Member State Competent Authority if and where the full documentation can be accessed. This means that out of a dossier of supposedly 5000 pages, only 32 pages are publicly available which, needless to say, makes a mockery out of the EU’s policy for more transparency.

Nevertheless, on the basis of the summaries published by the Commission and information available on several web sites, several conclusions can be drawn about Monsanto’s application for the commercialisation of GT73 oilseed rape in the EU, such as:

• Monsanto has not delivered all the studies that it conducted with regard to feed safety of GT73. The feed safety assessment presented by Monsanto in the additional information is supported by a four-week feeding trial on rats (Naylor MW, 1996). It should be noted that this study submitted to the EU is, in fact, only one of three such studies conducted by Monsanto, as can be concluded from a description of all three studies on the web site of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An interesting “detail” is that the two studies that Monsanto did not deliver show less favourable result (like significant decrease in bodyweight in rats that were used during feeding trials).
• Monsanto has failed to give an explanation for the consistently higher level of alkyl glycosinolate (an anti-nutritional factor) in the GM oilseed rape.
• The guidelines with regard to environmental risk assessment that are part of Directive 2001/18 have not been followed. This means the risk that the GM oilseed rape may pose to the environment have not been properly assessed.
• The monitoring obligations which are laid down have been neglected. No measures are given for the management of an accidental release of GMO oilseed rape into the environment and no monitoring plan is proposed in order to detect such an accidental release.

Friends of the Earth believes that these four facts alone should be more than enough for all EU Member States to object to Monsanto’s application or to at least ask for additional information (like the missing feeding studies). FoEE also believes that the Member States should carefully scrutinise all other applications, especially the ones delivered by Monsanto: a company that has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be the 'champion' when it comes to delivering horrifyingly bad information about the health and environmental impacts of GMOs. Friends of the Earth strongly believes that Monsanto’s application is just not good enough to break the moratorium.

For FoE's full assessment of Monsanto’s oilseed rape application, click here.

10 GOOD REASONS TO KEEP THE MORATORIUM

1. EU consumers don’t want GMOs

A Eurobarometer opinion poll published by the European Commission in December 2001 showed that 94.6% EU citizens want the right to choose, 85.9% want to know more before eating GMOs, and 70.9% simply do not want GM food.

2. New rules for Traceability/Labelling of GMOs and for approval of GM Food/Feed are not yet operational.

The proposals by the Commission, when agreed, will only come into effect in 2003.

3. Legislation to protect European seed production against genetic pollution is only in a initial stage. The current proposal by the European Commission (draft Seeds Directive) to allow genetic contamination in seeds -without even labelling- from levels of 0.3% up to 0.7% is controversional and needs to be improved.

4. Voluntary agreements with industry don’t work

Biotech companies want to push GMOs onto the market using voluntary
‘gentlemens agreements’ under which they promise to adhere to future legislation (which is not yet in force or not even agreed so far). Past experience shows that voluntary agreements with industry do not work; they should not be allowed to substitute legislation.

5. There is no liability for GMO producers

Despite its promises, the European Commission has completely failed to bring forward legislation that would make GMO producers responsible for any harm caused. In most cases, companies would not be liable for any environmental, consumer health or economic damage resulting from GMOs.

6. Contamination of conventional and organic farming by GMOs is inevitable

Governments are increasingly recognising that co-existence of GM and non-GM crops is impossible. Introduction of GM crops will lead to the unavoidable contamination of conventional and organic farming.

7. GM crops do not benefit the consumer

The majority of GMOs that have been authorised or are pending approval are either herbicide-tolerant and/or insect-resistant. They pose real problems for the environment and offer absolutely no benefit to the consumer.

8. Herbicide-tolerant crops do not reduce the use of chemicals

Biotech companies continually claim that GM crops are ‘environmentally-friendly’ because they require less chemicals. Recent research in the United States, however, showed that herbicide use could actually increase with GM soya. So-called 'gene stacking' in GM oilseed rape has resulted in plants that are tolerant to 3 different herbicides, requiring even more toxic chemicals to deal with weed control.

9. Insect-resistant crops have harmful effects on beneficial insects

Many studies demonstrate that GM crops with the inserted Bt gene have harmful effects on beneficial and benign insects such as ladybirds, lacewings and butterflies, pointing to unknown long-term damage to biodiversity.

10. Biotech companies want complete control of agriculture and the food system

The corporations that market GMOs and the associated chemicals seek to control global agriculture and food production by buying up seed companies, patenting seeds and locking farmers into exclusive agreements. This strategy will dramatically reduce agricultural biodiversity and lead to more industrialised and unsustainable farming.