Roger Kalla, Director Korn Technologies
1 Preamble:
EU lifted is ‘de facto’ moratorium on the authorisation of genetically modified (GM) crops for importation and cultivation in 2004 at the same time as Australian State Governments introduced moratoria on the cultivation and marketing of genetically modified (GM) canola. In the following I have compared different European national regulatory regimes aiming at achieving crop coexistence. They follow on from the adopted EU wide labelling standard for GM crops and foods. The alternative legislatory approaches taken by individual European member states to achieve coexistence, and the analysis of the underlying political aims of these enacted or drafted regulations, will serve to enlighten the Australian political debate on what important EU markets accept as thresholds for accidental presence of authorized GM crops in non-GM crops. Moreover they address the important issue of who should be held liable for any economic damage resulting from the accidental presence of authorized GM crops in conventionally grown crops.
Spain has been growing in the order of 25,000 -50,000 hectares of insect resistant GM maize annually since 1998 and the Spanish farmers has found a ready internal market for their GM produce within the animal feed industry3. It was only in July 2005 the Spanish government announced a new framework that aims to regulate the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops. According to the proposed legislation the Spanish GM farmer needs to notify the local authorities one month in advance of planting what allowed variety he wishes to plant and what the introduced gene is in the culture of interest.
The farmer must adhere to specific rules for the preparation of the seed, the surveillance of fields, and the cultivation of the harvest in addition to any existing contractual obligations between the farmer and the GM seed provider. A crop exclusion zone of 50 meters has to be kept between the fields of GM crops and other crops. The anticipated period of flowering of the GM crops has to be declared in order to facilitate the prevention of accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops during flowering. In addition, a buffer area of four rows of conventional maize to act as a GM pollen trap, which is to be handled as GM, has to surround the GM field.
In addition the farmers must participate in education programs concerning GM crop cultivation. If a non-GM variety is deemed to be a source of GM seed at trace levels it could be cancelled from the national register of varieties that are traded and cultivated.
Neighbouring
Mariann Fischer-Boel, Danish Minister of Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, November 20036
3.2.1 The Danish Act – trusting the seed industry
The Danish GM farmer needs to notify neighbours of their intention to grow an authorised GM crop. This information is put on a public register. The GM farmer is also required to take an obligatory course for GM growers which will give them a ‘GMO licence’ required by law before any GM crop is cultivated. The cultivation of some GM crops (including rape seed, grasses and clover) where the seed industry could foresee technical problems in upholding the 0.1 % level of tolerance in segregation are temporarily blocked in Denmark.
“It is quite clear that our farmers desire agriculture free from GMOs.”
Renate Künast, German Federal Minister for Consumer protection, Food & Agriculture, May 2004.
In particular under Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, Member States are entitled to take ‘appropriate measures’ to avoid the unintended presence of genetically modified organisms in other products.
However the same article specifically invokes the principle of proportionality, a fundamental principle of EU law. According to this principle, members of the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives, and no further. This principle applies to any nationally legislated restrictions of the free movement of goods (including GMOs). Any such restrictive regulation must avoid excessive interference with free use of authorized GMOs for its intended purpose.
Moreover EU legislation is very clear on the point that national prevention measures for avoidance, like the ones adopted in
"I have no problem with liability, if you do something wrong, you should pay for it. But with this law, you have liability without blame. This is an absolutely impossible situation."
Mark Stitt, Managing Director at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology 9
The political aim underpinning the drafting of the German Act is most clearly enunciated in the draconian civil liability provisions. For example, a German non-GM farmer that has signed a contract to deliver a product that contains less than 0.9% GM can according to the German Act hold neighboring GM farmers jointly liable for damages caused by accidental presence of authorized GM crop at trace levels down to 0.1% in his crop. Liability for accidental presence of authorized GM crops has thus been extended to voluntary assumed contractual obligations. The GM farmer is still held liable even if he followed all safety precautions and on farm segregation protocols to the best of his ability.
The contractual obligation of the non-GM farmer to grow a crop with lower tolerance than 0.9% does not have to be disclosed to neighboring farmers while the GM farmers will have to notify the authorities of his intentions to grow a GM crop. Moreover the location of the GM crops is required by law to be put on a publicly available register.
3.3.3 The German Act - introducing an incalculable and unpredictable liability regime
However the new provisions for liability for perceived loss due to presence of trace levels of authorized and safety evaluated GM crops are even more wide ranging. An organic farmer can hold neighboring GM farmers jointly liable for loss of “ethical” values as well as loss of future market opportunities or change in market perception.
These liabilities have been labeled “incalculable and unpredictable” by authoritative legal sources. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the practical application of such an ephemeral liability regime other jurisdictions, e.g. US and Canada, have deliberately stayed away from imposing GM crop liabilities except for physical harm causing significant economic damages, the same as for adventitious presence from any agricultural crop. The US and
The immediate result of the new EC directives and regulations and amendments to Directives on the labeling and cultivation of GM crops that came into place in 2003 – 2004 have been to end the ‘de facto’ moratoria on importation and authorization of new GM crops into one of Australia’s trading partners. It has done so through the enforcement of a 0.9% threshold level of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of authorized GM crop. The EU specifically did so because in the production of food, feed and seed, it is practically impossible to achieve products that are 100% pure. The implementation of these directives has given European national governments some reference points for enacting their own legislation to ensure coexistence and freedom of movement of authorized products including GM crops or foods derived from GM crops across EU.
Acknowledgement:
No comments:
Post a Comment