The GMO Seed Directive & background information on GMOs

The GMO Seed Directive & background information on GMOs • • • • • • • • • • EU Commissions Seed directive Impacts of seed contamination Calculations of the Scientific Committee Legal procedure and voting system Save our Seeds Initiative Gobal state of GMO cultivation Political and legal situation in the EU New labelling regulations Co-existence – concept and costs GMO free Regions and Zones Benedikt Haerlin Foundation on Future Farming March 2004 The EU Commissions planned GMO Seed Directive Contamination of conventional and organic seeds with "adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMO" needs not be labelled below thresholds of 0,3% in Oilseed Rape, maize ? (proposal Wallström, Fischler) 0,5% potatoes, tomatoes, beet, maize ? (demand Commisioner Byrne) • Initial proposal withdrawn after massive protest • New proposal drafted by Commissioner Wallström • Legal basis: "Commission Directive" to be approved by Standing Committee on GMOs (regulatory procedure) Consequences: No precaution – no control – no co-existence Unlabelled seed contamination would • Make a recall practically impossible • prevent registration of GM planting • make thorough monitoring impossible • prevent GMO free zones and regions • disable co-existence and liability regulations • Substantially increase costs of non GM products • Put costs on those who want to avoid GMO every 200th maize plant on a non-gmo field could be a GMO 500 GM plants every hectar To scale: Maize field with 0,5 % GMO contamination Calculations on contamination levels Average contamination under ideal conditions of good agricultural practice Source: Scientific Committee on Plants (2001, confirmed 2003) 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,0 0,09 0,05 0,05 0,13 0,05 margin 0,28 storage transport harvest 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,2 Prof. Jeremy Sweet: volunteers 0,5 0,5 outcrossing Seed up to 0,4% 0,3 rape seed maize beet David Byrne to European Parliament, 19.9.2003: "...the SCP clearly shows that starting with seeds at the limit of such thresholds will result in a product with a GM presence of around 0,8%, which still leaves a margin vis à vis the 0,9 % threshold for the final product." No solid scientific basis • • • • • EU Scientific Committee does not confirm that proposed seed thresholds would guarantee to stay below 0,9% is generally sceptical on keeping contamination below of 0,9 % emphasises that "zero" contamination is impossible agrees on need for further research Scientists disagree on key details such as outcrossing frequency, distances, seed survival in soil, role of bees and other insects, impact of scale (small GMO islands vs. small nonGM islands), accumulation of GMOs over time have no concept for co-existence of oilseed rape base their findings on small scale experiments and computer models and not on large scale and long term experience (poor documentation in GMO growing countries) • • testing costs production chain and critical points =testing point potential GM contamination processing A GMO Seed production Import Import storage A Seed packaging and distribution 0,3 – 0,5 % transport A Planting processing B-n growing storage B-n harvest transport B-n Import storage packaging transport trade collection Import retail Import 0,9 % ? adapted from: GAFTA commodity fact-sheet Comitology procedures Regulatory procedure Committee (applied in the Standing Committe for GMOs under Directive 2001/18) • Proposal of the Commission, adopted with qualified majority in the Standing • else submitted to the Council of Ministers • Council decides with qualified majority • if no Council decision is reached within 90 days Commission can implement initially proposed measure administrative procedure (in the Standing Committee for Seeds under Seed legislation after 2001/18 approval) • Proposal of the Commission, adopted unless qualified majority in the Committee rejects it • if rejected submitted to Council of ministers (same procedure as above) Majorities and Votes per Member State from 1.May 2004 the 25 members will vote as described in the left column, as of November 2004 the Nice treaty foresees the voting system described in the right column. Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republik Denmark 4 5 2 5 3 10 12 4 12 7 Lithuania Luxembourg 3 2 7 4 Malta Netherlands Poland Slovakia 2 5 8 3 3 13 27 7 Estonia Finnland France Germany 3 3 10 10 4 7 29 29 Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Total Qualified Majority * minimum 13 member states 3 8 4 10 124 88 4 27 10 29 321 232* Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia 5 5 3 10 3 12 12 7 29 4 European "Save our Seeds" initiative • no forced GMO cultivation through the back door • GMO labelling in seeds at the detection limit • no additional costs for GMO free farming • 200.000 European citizens signed "Save our Seeds" Petition to EU Commission and governments • 350 organisations of farmers, consumers, environmentalists, cooperatives and companies with more than 25 Mio members EU wide support "Save our Seeds" • An increasing number of EU governments and the European Parliament support labelling of GMOs in seeds at the detection limit Demo If you want seeds without genetic engineering you better act now Global cultivation of GMOs 5 countries = 98 % of GM planting USA: 63 %, Argentina: 13,9 %, Canada: 4,4 %, Brazil: 4 %, China: 4% >1%: India, Uruguay, South-Africa, Australia, Rumänia, Spain Breakdown by species global acreage = % of global cultivation Soybeans Maize Oilseed Rape Cotton Papaya Total 41,4 mio ha 15,5 mio ha 3,6 mio ha 7,2 mio ha > 1000 ha 67,7 mio ha 55 % 11 % 16 % 21 % >1 % (figures - cum granum salis – from the international association for GMO promotion, ISAAA, 2003) GM Tomatoes, potatoes and tobacco have been withdrawn from the market In the pipeline: Rice, wheat, beet, mustard, sunflower and Commercialised traits and properties Herbicide tolerance Insect toxicity (Bacillus Thuringiensis) 77% 15% (Roundup = glyphosate, Basta = gluphosinate, Imidazolinone) Combined HT / Bt 8% In the pipeline (5 years): More HT- and Bt-varieties, (Western corn rootworm) Modified Oli and starch compositon (Oilseed Rape, Potoato, soya) Ripening (Tomato) ... new colors (flowers) etc. Number of new approvals world wide Source: Agbios GM-Databases The situation in the European Union • Few GMOs approved (before 1998) most of them as food and feed only, three Bt-maize gm events for cultivation • No commercial planting except ~30.000 ha maize in Spain • Moratorium since 1998 soon to be waived First new approvals for food and feed before summer 2004 – WTO pressure from the USA • Improved Directive for deliberate releases 2001/18 Still not implemented in most member state • New labelling and traceability regulations in food and feed labelling threshold 0,9% for adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination • Practically no GM food in the supermarket-shelves 2/3 of the major food producers and retailers have a non-gm policy • Large amounts of feed marketed (soya, maize gluten >15 Mio t) Must be labelled as of 18.April 2004, but not their products (meat, milk, eggs) Voluntary non-GM feeding programmes Overview on the legal situation in the EU in national legislation Deliberate release Directive 2001/18 national GM law approval, risk assessment, monitoring, withdrawal and Implementation of 2001/18 plus emergency plans good agricultural practice filed tests (Part B) and commercialisation (Part C), general labelling provisions St. Committee liability co-existence measures GMO Food and Feed regulation 1829/2003 Approval and labelling general legislation on civil liability Traceability and labelling regulation 1830/2003 GMO-Seed-Directive Seed Directives directly applicable legislation Labelling of GMOs in conventional seeds Approval, control, production of seeds and reproductive material for beet, fodder plant, cereals, potatoe, oil and fibre plants, vegetables National Seed legislation St. Committee Approval, control, production of seeds on Seeds Registration in national seed catalogue Common Catalogue National Seed Catalogue directly applicable legislation St. Committee organic ag. Common Seed catalogue 2002/53/EC Automatic inclusion of nationally approved varieties Organic farming regulation Cultivation, Certification, list of ingredients excludes the use GMOs (specific thresholds possible but not established) Guidelines on Co-existence by the Commission for the development of national strategies and best practices, not legally binding Com-document New labelling regulations for food and feed as of April 2004 Product GMO GM-Food and feed in which GMOs can be identified (protein or DNA) NEW YES YES OLD YES YES example maize-cob, potato Chips, Lecithin % 0,9 % 0,9 % GM-Food and feed in which GMOs can no YES longer be identified 95% of all imported > Animal feed NO NO NO NO YES starch, oil, fructose 0,9 % GMOs in Europe YES NO NO YES soybeans, maize gluten meat, milk, eggs enzyme, vitamine chymosine 0,9 % 0,9 % products of animals fed with GMO Additives produced with the help of GMO (contained use) Additives derived from GMO Co-existence policy - mission impossible? EU Commission wants to leave to the member states, within limits of existing EU-regulations and directives • good agricultural practice, EU Directive 2001/18, Article 26a Measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs • protection of non-GM and organic farmers • protection of ecologically sensitive areas • liability and redress Many member states & EU Parliament demand • EU wide regulations on coexistence • EU wide liability regulations, which include GMO producers 1. Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. 2. The Commission shall gather and coordinate information based on studies at Community and national level, observe the developments regarding coexistence in the Member States and, on the basis of the information and observations, develop guidelines on the coexistence of genetically modified,conventional and organic crops.’ Disputes about national co-existence measures already emerge – harmonisation will be inevitable EU Commission guidelines on coexistence and recommended measures • • • • • • isolation distances and buffer zones pollen traps, barriers, hedgerows field monitoring and elimination of seed spillage sowing and crop rotation agreements between farmers cleaning of machinery and facilities reduced seed saving of farmers (only where "save") • • use mandatory land-register of GMO cultivation (GIS system) review of national liability legislation Source: Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming Costs of co-existence Estimated additional production costs due to co-existence 53 € - 345 € per ha Source: EU Joint Research Centre: Scenarios for co-existence No conclusive picture of costs of co-existence • few scientific studies and scenarios; no systematic overview available from EU Commission or governments • available estimations only refer to costs in agricultural production, not to total costs within the food and feed production chain (processing, retail, trade) • seed purity is a key factor and still undeciced • Who will pay the bill? Allocation of most cost factors unclear, massive share of costs will have to be borne by those not wishing to plant or use GMO under current legal and market conditions Scientists calculate insurance costs as they expect frequent contamination above the labelling threshold level. But insurances explicitely exclude coverage for GM-contamination. civil liability and redress Definition of damages - What is included /excluded?  Contamination up to which level? (labelling threshold?)  loss of product value  loss of land value / planting options / marketing options definitions and calculations left to national courts Who is liable ?  EU product liability directive does not include contamination (only life, health and property loss from defective products)  EU environmental liability directive does not include GMOs  National liability legislation varies, is not adapted to reproductive materials (different from chemical and other immissions) GMO producers may be excluded from liability Collective funds proposed to cover damage Burden of proof    How to prove and claim the damage? (costs of testing, lawyers) how to prove the cause of damage? farmers liable regardless of negligence and fault? some worrying facts • Non-GM growing of oilseed rape no longer feasible in Canada • emergence of recombined multiple herbice resistant GMOs (gene stacking) • Seeds found in soil 13 years after initial planting; UK ministry of agriculture prohibits planting of oilseed rape on former test sites • Outcrossing events found up to 26 km from source • Outcrossing frequency proves not to be linear • Massive GM contamination found in non-GM seeds in the USA • "Starlink"-maize found in 12% of test samples in the US 3 years after ban and massive recall measures and even in Mexican landraces GMO free regions and zones • • Probably the most cost-effective and the only practical solution for coexistence under many circumstances Ten regional governments demand the right to establish GMO free regions Aquitaine, Basque Country, Limousin, Marche, Salzburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Thrace-Rodopi, Tuscany, Upper-Austria, Wales • • • • Hundreds of communities and regions in Europe have declared themselves "GMO free" Farmers sign voluntary agreements not to grow GMOs The EU Commission rejects the right to generally prohibit GMO cultivation in a country or region and insists that GMO free regions can only be established on a voluntary basis. However it accepts that they might be a valid solution for co-existence or environmental protection under certain regional conditions for specific crops The local government of Carinthia (Austria) developed GMO-precaution law, factually prohibiting GM cultivation as a measure of co-existence, which was not contested by the EU Commission Recommendations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. EU seed labelling legislation at the detection limit EU wide liability to be borne by GMO producers EU wide standards for GMO planting All costs and financial risks must be estimated and taken into account GMO producers and users must cover all additional costs No approvals for GMO cultivation without EU wide co-existence measures No special GMO-thresholds for organic farming GMO free regions and zones should be established and protected korn www.saveourseeds.org Seeds are handed over from generation to generation since more than 8000 years. They are the basis of global food security and the heritage of future generations.