GM Crops and Food Policy

Introduction

We believe that the entire island of Ireland should be a GM-Free Zone and that this is a feasible option the Government should actively pursue. This would mean that GM seed or crops would not be grown in the island (either as crop 'trials' or commercially), there would be no GM feed for animals and no transgenic farm animals.

Some Key Points

• Immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals.
• Begin negotiations with the UK government in an attempt to achieve an all island GM-Free Zone.
• Establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs.
• Veto any EU proposed legislation that would allow a certain threshold for GM contamination in conventional seeds before the seeds had to be labelled as containing GM traces.
• Oppose the patenting of seeds.
• Ensure that the Irish Seed Savers Association receives adequate funding. (This voluntary organisation is dedicated to the location and preservation of traditional varieties of fruit and vegetables. The ISSA maintains a seed bank and plays a vital role in saving our genetic diversity for the future.) We will also ensure that naturally occurring or conventionally bred rare and native varieties of seed can be freely sold.

Authors: Drawn up by Carol Fox, Green Party Researcher, with amendments from Caroline Robinson, Convenor of the Policy, and Quentin Gargan.

Status: Presented to December 2003 National Council by Councillor Mary White, Spokesperson on Agriculture.

Introduction

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas believes that the entire island of Ireland should be a GM-Free Zone and that this is a feasible option the Government should actively pursue. This would mean that GM seed or crops would not be grown in the island (either as crop 'trials' or commercially), there would be no GM feed for animals and no transgenic farm animals.

GM crops pose a significant threat to the sustainable future that Green politics are trying to achieve. One of the founding principles of the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas is that "the impact of society on the environment should not be ecologically disruptive". Another is that: "as caretakers of the Earth we have the responsibility to pass it on in a fit and healthy state". GM crops pose a direct threat to both these principles. Ecological stability is endangered because there is no way to stop GM crops from spreading once released. The spread is irreversible. GM crops have failed to live up to the claims made for them and have been found to damage biodiversity, to contaminate conventional crops, and to raise serious concerns about health risks and food monopolies. No one knows the long-term effects of GM crops on either human or animal health or the environment. Indeed, the risks are so incalculable - and potentially so immense -- that no one will accept liability for them. The Precautionary Principle-a core value of environmental good practice and a principle enshrined in EU law - is at the heart of the Green Party's objections to GM crops.

There are also major issues raised by GM crops in terms of democracy and social and economic consequences. Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are attempting to force GM foods and GM technology on countries which do not want them, through such mechanisms as patenting of seeds, WTO free trade rules, and - in the case of developing countries - under the guise of GM foods 'solving' world hunger. In fact, GM foods are destroying food self-sufficiency, making farmers dependent on global agribusiness, and diverting attention from the real causes of world poverty (e.g. highly subsidised agriculture in the rich West and the low prices paid to the poorer countries for their raw materials).

The EU is now in the process of lifting what has been a de facto ban on GM foods since 1998. This follows the agreement of a new regulatory framework for GM foods: a strict and comprehensive system of labelling and traceability for the food industry has been initiated, requiring that all food products with over 0.9% of GM be clearly labelled as being produced form GM crops. There has also been no experimental or commercial growth of any new GM crops since October 1998 and that moratorium will now be lifted. Individual EU states are to set their own rules to prevent GM crops contaminating non-GM crops (known as co-existence).

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas welcomes the traceability and the labelling rules now being put in place, although the 0.9% GM content is too high. However, until the issue of liability can be solved, the moratorium should not be lifted in the EU. Likewise for the licensing of GM crops. The moratorium should remain until questions of liability and questions of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops are resolved. There is a possibility that neither issue can be adequately settled

Legally it appears there is nothing the Irish Government can do to prevent the sale of GM foods in our shops. However, opinion polls have shown that consumers are overwhelmingly anti-GM and clear labelling should allow consumer power to be felt. At any rate, the supermarkets and food stores are well aware there is no market for GM produce and many have already decided against buying GM food.

However, as already indicated the Government can take action to ensure that Irish agriculture remains GM-free. Following are the more detailed reasons why and how Ireland should keep GM crops off the island.

This GM Crop and Food Policy Document should be read in conjunction with the Green Party's Agriculture and Food Policy.

Back to contents

1.0 Policy Points

The Green Party/Comhaontas Glas in Government would:

1.1 immediately declare Ireland to be a GM-Free zone and prohibit the use of GM ingredients in animal feed and any testing or growing of GM crops and ban transgenic farm animals;

1.2 immediately begin negotiations with the UK government in an attempt to achieve an all island GM-Free Zone;

1.3 establish a GM-Free regulatory authority to ensure that rigorous testing is put in place to verify that animal feed is free of GM inputs;

1.4 veto any EU proposed legislation that would allow a certain threshold for GM contamination in conventional seeds before the seeds had to be labelled as containing GM traces;

1.5 oppose the patenting of seeds;

1.6 ensure that the Irish Seed Savers Association receives adequate funding. (This voluntary organisation is dedicated to the location and preservation of traditional varieties of fruit and vegetables. The ISSA maintains a seed bank and plays a vital role in saving our genetic diversity for the future.) We will also ensure that naturally occurring or conventionally bred rare and native varieties of seed can be freely sold.

1.7 introduce strict liability laws, holding GM companies and users of GM crops responsible for any GM contamination in Ireland in violation of Ireland's GM-free status;

1.8 At a local level, Green Party members of Local Authorities will campaign to make their Local Authorities GM-Free and assist local farmers to organise into GM-Free regions;

1.9 At EU level, Green Party MEPs will campaign to make the EU GM-Free and, at a minimum, to insist there is no lifting of the EU moratorium on GM crops and food until the new EU regulations on labelling and traceability are in place; there is an enforceable system of liability agreed; and the problems of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops have been resolved.

Back to contents

2.0 GM Crops and Health and Safety

2.1 Long-term effects not known. There have been no systematic investigations of what the long-term effects of eating GM food are on human or animal health, specifically on immune and reproductive systems, organ development, metabolism and whether GM plants containing genes that cause immunity to antibiotics might trigger antibiotic resistance in gut bacteria. [This lack of scientific analysis has been highlighted by the former UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Meacher amongst others. (Michael Meacher, 'Science Backs Consumers' Rejection of GM Food - Are You Listening Tony?',The Independent, October 19, 2003)] Both the British Medical Association and the UK General Medical Council have stated there is still not enough scientific information to vouch for the safety of GM food. [The Observer, October 19, 2003; and BMA's November 2002 submission to Scottish Parliament: "Submission of BMA to Health and Community Care Committee on the Health Impact of GM Crop Trials", available on: www.foeeurope.org/GM crops/explore/whats_wrong.htm]

2.2 Recent UK Field Trials show GM crops harmful. The results released in October 2003 of the independent research overseen by the UK Government's Scientific Steering Committee provide damning evidence of the harmful impact of GM crops on wildlife and biodiversity. The UK study looked at three GM crops and compared the effects of the chemical weed killers used on those crops (so-called 'broad spectrum' weedkillers, glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium) with the effects of the conventional weed killers used on the same non-GM crops. The study concluded: 1) two of the three GM crops, oil seed rape and sugar beet, were significantly more harmful to the environment than conventional crops; 2) the third crop, GM maize appeared to be less harmful but the weed killer used on the non-GM maize crop, Atrazine, has now been banned by the EU and fresh trials would have to be conducted; 3) Contamination of conventional and organic crops can occur within a 16 mile radius of GM trial sites; 4) a separate British Department of Environment, Food and Rural Development Study published in October 2003, prior to the crop trials results found that once GM oil seed rape has been grown in a field, it takes 16 years before a conventional crop can be grown in the same field without fear of contamination of more than 0.9%, the EU threshold allowing a crop to be claimed GM free. [Study results found on UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Development website: www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031013b.htm. Also on website of Friends of the Earth: www.foei.org/media/2003/1014gmo.html; Full texts of the crop trials' scientific papers: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk]

2.3 Broad-Spectrum weedkillers used on GM crops are dangerous. The broad-spectrum weedkillers (glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium), used with 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are 'systemic metabolic poisons' according to the Independent Science Panel, (a group of independent and eminent international scientists, including Prof. David Bellamy, OBE, and Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a member of the UK Government's Advisory Committee on Pesticides.) Glufosinate ammonium is linked to neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal and haematological toxicities and birth defects in humans and animals. It is toxic to butterflies and to a number of beneficial insects, to the larvae of clams and oysters, some freshwater fish including rainbow trout, and it inhibits beneficial soil bacteria and fungi, especially those that fix nitrogen. Glyphosate is the most frequent cause of complaints and poisoning in the UK. Exposure to it doubles the risk of late spontaneous abortion. ("The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World", Independent Science Panel, May 10, 2003; report available on www.indsp.org/index.php)

Back to contents

3.0 GM Crops and Agriculture Contrary to the initial arguments put forward to sell GM crops:

3.1 GM crops don't increase yields According to the UK Soil Association's book, Seeds of Doubt, (www.soilassociation.org) the experience of GM crops in North America has been one of lower profits, higher costs, reduced yields and greater dependence on chemicals in all but a handful of crops. [The GM Bt maize was an exception, showing a small increase in yields. However the main GM variety (Roundup Ready soya) has had yields of 6 to 11% less than non-GM varieties.] The US and Canadian National Farmers' Unions, American Corn Growers Assn, Canadian Wheat Board and 200 other agricultural organisations (many once enthusiastic GM supporters) have signed a petition calling for a moratorium on the next generation of GM crops, wheat. [Zac Goldsmith, 'This Should be the End for GM', The Observer, October 19, 2003]

3.2 GM crops don't reduce herbicide or pesticide use. (The very nature of GM crops is that they are engineered for resistance to chemicals and are therefore designed to withstand liberal applications of chemicals). A US Department of Agriculture study in 2000 revealed no overall reduction in pesticide use with genetically engineered crops (cited in GM FreeIreland website: www.gmfreeireland.org); Seeds of Doubt demonstrates that GM 'volunteers' (plants that appear after harvest) with built-in resistance to herbicides have spread quickly in North America. Farmers are spraying with more herbicides in an attempt to counter this phenomenon, sometimes reverting to older more toxic chemicals. According to independent analyst, Dr. C. Benbrook, US Government statistics confirm that GM HT (herbicide tolerant) crops actually increased the average amount of herbicide applied. (Benbrook, C., 'Do GM Crops mean less pesticide use?', Pesticide Outlook, October 2001; www.pmo.gov.uk/su/gm/submission/latter3.pdf) The Union of Concerned Scientists has indicated that genetically engineered Bt crops could lead to pests becoming resistant to Bt. This non- chemical pesticide is essential to organic and conventional farms throughout the world. If plant pests develop a resistance to it, it could fatally undermine the world's organic farming sector. [Now or Never: Serious New Plans to Save a Natural Pest Control, Edited by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, Union of Concerned Scientifists, 1998; www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm]

3.3 GM crops cannot co-exist with non-GM crops: In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, GM contamination wiped out the entire organic oilseed rape sector. The UK crop trials have demonstrated the great difficulties in devising any regulatory framework that would allow GM and non-GM crops to co-exist. UK Green Party MEP, Caroline Lucas, has cited research by the EU Commission, the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA), and the European Environment Agency, all concluding that the licensing of GM crops will almost inevitably lead to widespread contamination of non-GM crops. ("European GM Ban Must Stay in Place", Caroline Lucas MEP, News Release, July 2, 2003). Indeed, the EU Commission study ('Scenarios for Co-Existence of Genetically, Modified, Conventional and organic Crops in European Agriculture', report from the joint research Centre commissioned by Agriculture Directorate-General, January 2002, seen on www.archive.greenpeace.org/geneng/highlights/gmo/may22coexist-release.htm), concluded that the introduction of GM crops would boost costs considerably to EU farmers because of the problems of managing contamination. The EU Commission, however, has passed the problem on to the member states to devise solutions. Distances between the two types of crops would have to be substantial and the argument for GM-free exclusion zones as a means of addressing the problem is an overwhelming one. (See below: Liability and GM-Free Zones)

3.4 Climate change increases the unpredictability of GM crops Major crop failures have occurred in GM soya and GM cotton crops, apparently due to their 'unpredictable behaviour'; (e.g. the failure of the GM cotton crop in the southern states of India in 2002 prompted the Indian government to prohibit the cultivation of GM cotton in the northern states.) Ireland's climate is changing with a tendency towards warmer, wet, windy winters and hot, dry summers. May and June in 2002 and 2003 were unusually cold and wet, making the early growing season particularly difficult. With the weather becoming unpredictable, it doesn't bode well for farmers to invest in planting 'unstable' GM crops.

Back to contents

4.0 GM crops and Economics

4.1 GM crops are commercially unpopular. The commercial growing of GM crops has been in existence for about six years but still only four countries, including the US and Canada, grow 99% of GM crops worldwide and just four crops account for 99% of global area planted to GM crops. (Greenpeace International Briefing, 'GE Crops Increasingly Isolated as Awareness and Rejection Grow', March 2002) This is largely because there is no market for GM food. The majority of EU consumers do not want GM food and, in the UK, all the supermarkets have rejected GM foods for use in their own brands.

4.2 Co-existence problems are proving costly. GM crops have cost the US an estimated $12b in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to contamination of non-GM produce by GMs . (Independent Science Panel, www.indsp.org/index.php) Because of the failure to segregate GM from non-GM (the co-existence problem), the export market from North America to the EU has collapsed. Almost the entire $300m annual maize exports to EU and the $300m annual Canadian rape exports to EU have disappeared and the US share of the soya market has fallen. (Seeds of Doubt) The failure to segregate GM from non-GM has also made the whole food processing and distribution system in US vulnerable to costly and disruptive contamination incidents. In September 2000, just one percent of unapproved GM maize contaminated almost half the national maize supply and cost the company, Aventis, up to $1 billion. (Seeds of Doubt)

4.3 Transnational corporations given too much control. GM foods and patented GM seeds give transnational corporations more control over our food supply. This damages local food production, both in the developed and developing world, and increases dependence of farmers on transnational corporations.

Back to contents

5.0 Liability problems

5.1 Insurance companies won't cover GM crops. Insurance companies are refusing to give cover against GM disasters, a clear indication that the risks posed by GMs are incalculable and that they far outweigh any perceived benefits The UK insurance industry will not give cover to UK GM farmers and has publicly compared GM with thalidomide and asbestos in terms of future risks;

5.2 Class actions against GM crops. In SaskatchewanProvince in Canada, a class action has been launched on behalf of the whole organic sector for loss of the organic rape market due to contamination from GM crops;

5.3 Proposed liability legislation and Government action. In Scotland, in June 2003, a Green Party MP, Mark Ruskell, launched a parliamentary bill to make GM seed companies pay for any damage they do to other farmers' crops through cross-pollination or processing. (Scottish Green Party press release, June 11, 2003 and July 10, 2003) The Soil Association has also argued that biotechnology companies should be required to pay for any environmental, health or economic damage resulting from their products, not consumers or farmers; Until questions of liability are resolved, the EU should not be lifting the moratorium on either GM foods or GM crops. The Irish Government can control the latter in Ireland and must act responsibly by insisting that the ban remains.

Back to contents

6.0 GM and Transgenic Farm Animals

The issue of the genetic manipulation of human and animal life is dealt with in the Green Party's Health Policy. This current document is directed at GM manipulation of crops. However, a GM Free Ireland would include a ban on the farming of cloned and GM animals. In addition to broader ethical concerns, such processes are highly random and typically several hundred deformed creatures are created before an apparently undamaged one is achieved. Not only would animal welfare be seriously undermined, but reduced genetic diversity could lead to increased susceptibility to disease.

Back to contents

7.0 Legal Feasibility of a GM-Free Zone

There is confusion and contradictory signals from the EU as to whether EU States and/or regions could declare themselves GM-Free. A number of local authorities throughout the EU have already made such declarations, particularly in the UK (over 12 local authorities, and all of Wales; note: these declarations only legally apply to lands owned by the local authorities), Austria, and Italy (the Italian provinces of Tuscany and Piedmonte) The recent case where a province in Austria was told such status was illegal by the EU Commission has been cited as a reason for abandoning such proposals. However, there is considerable scope and legal opinion to argue otherwise.

7.1 The Austrian Case: Upper Austria is the EU region with the highest number of 'biological' farmers and its status as a region of excellence in terms of its organic produce is internationally recognised. Upper Austria attempted to bring in a blanket GM ban, introducing a law that would prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified seeds and propagating material, the use of transgenic animals for breeding purposes and the release of transgenic animals - in particular for hunting and fishing purposes - in Upper Austria. In its case, Upper Austria cited regulations under Article 95(5) of the EU Treaty. This Article allows member states to derogate from EU harmonization measures under certain strict conditions related to the 'protection of the environment or the working environment'. The Austrian case to ban GM was based on two main arguments: 1) The already cited status of the region as an organic farming zone, in need of special protection, and 2) the fact that the risks of genetic manipulation have not been fully researched, and that, in practical terms, GM crops cannot be kept completely separate from non-GM crops, i.e. coexistence doesn't work. The EU Commission stated that Upper Austria could not bring in a complete ban, but would have to argue against each GM crop separately and produce new scientific evidence to warrant such a ban. However: 1) The Austrian Government has vowed to bring a case to the European Court of Justice to challenge this ruling (a move Greenpeace has suggested and will support). The Commission's interpretation may be wrong and the decision reversed; 2) Friends of the Earth have argued that the UK GM-Free Zones are still viable because they are based on a different section of EU law, the Deliberate Release Directive, Article 19 (Directive 2001/18/EC). This Directive allows particular geographical areas or habitats/ecological zones to be excluded from GM marketing consents on a case by case basis provided the environmental case can be made to support each application. The Irish Government could consider pursuing such a policy as a means towards a ban.

7.2 The Biosafety Protocol (Cartagena Protocol) affirms Ireland's right to refuse GM crops based on the Precautionary Principle which is enshrined in EU law. There is considerable scientific uncertainty about GM crops. The Protocol explicitly upholds the right of Parties to ban imports of GM crops and to impose higher safety standards. Article 2.4 of Protocol permits the enactment of stricter national legislation on GM crops: "nothing in this Protocol shall be interpreted as restricting the right of a Party to take action that is more protective of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity than that called for in this Protocol, provided that such action is consistent with the objective and the provisions of this Protocol and is in accordance with that Party's other obligations under international law".

7.3 Agenda 21 Agreement: The World Trade Organisation (WTO) asserts that GM foods are a trade issue and fall under its jurisdiction. But it can be argued that this is contradicted by the Agenda 21 agreement, signed by 110 heads of state at the Rio Earth Summit, which regarded GM as more of a biosafety issue.

7.4 Contradictions within the EU: In addition to the areas already cited above in the Austrian case, there are further routes to pursue under EU law in terms of establishing GM-Free zones, such as:

7.4.1 the model suggested by EU Agricultural Commissioner, Franz Fischler in early September 2003 when he told EU farm ministers that he now favours voluntary GM-free zones, allowing farmers, businesses and local authorities to declare themselves GM-free;

7.4.2 EU subsidiarity rules. EU Health and consumer Protection Commissioner, David Byrne, confirmed to the EU Parliament's Environment Committee in October, 2003, that if UK farm-scale trials showed that GM crops posed a threat to biodiversity (which they did), then, under EU rules, the UK could ban GM crops. It would be treated as a matter of subsidiarity. (Report from UK Green Party MEP, Caroline Lucas, October 2, 2003);

7.4.3 possible legal actions on the basis of the precautionary principle, the principle of subsidiarity, biodiversity, wildlife, human life, food monopoly, sustainability, fundamental property rights, commercial stability, consumer choice, lack of insurance and liability enforcement for financial damages,?etc. (cited by GM-free Ireland, Oct. 2003);

7.4.4 the EU's 'co-existence' guidelines. The UK Soil Association (Sept 8, 03 press release) believes that GM Free zones are possible within the EU guidelines published last July. These describe measures that can be taken by countries and regions to protect non-GM crops from contamination. Regional approaches - including GM Free Zones -- are possible if other measures to prevent contamination are insufficient. This is an advance because previously new scientific evidence had to be put forward proving that GM crops were a risk to health or the environment. Groups of farmers can also voluntarily choose not to grow GM crops.. [EU guidelines on GM co-existence issued on July 23, 2003, paragraph 2.1.5: "Measures of a regional dimension could be considered. Such measures should apply only to specific crops whose cultivation would be incompatible with ensuring coexistence, and their geographical scale should be as limited as possible. Region-wide measures should only be considered if sufficient levels of purity cannot be achieved by other means. This will need to be justified for each crop and product type (e.g. seed versus crop production) separately."].

Back to contents

References:

Benbrook, C., 'Do GM Crops mean less pesticide use?', Pesticide Outlook, October 2001; http://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=b108609j

British Medical Association's November 2002 submission to Scottish Parliament: "Submission of BMA to Health and Community Care Committee on the Health Impact of GM Crop Trials", available on: www.foeeurope.org/GM crops/explore/whats_wrong.htm]

EU Joint Research Centre, Scenarios for Co-Existence of Genetically, Modified, Conventional and Organic Crops in European Agriculture, commissioned by EU Agriculture Directorate-General, January 2002, seen on http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/coexistence/index_en.htm

Goldsmith, Zac, 'This Should be the End for GM', The Observer, October 19, 2003

GM FreeIreland website: www.gmfreeireland.org)

Greenpeace International Briefing, 'GE Crops Increasingly Isolated as Awareness and Rejection Grow', March 2002

Independent Science Panel, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, May 10, 2003; report available on www.indsp.org/index.php)

Lucas, Caroline, MEP, 'European GM Ban Must Stay in Place', News Release, July 2, 2003, and Report from UK Green Party MEP, Caroline Lucas, October 2, 2003, www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk

Meacher, Michael, 'Science Backs Consumers' Rejection of GM Food - Are You Listening Tony?', The Independent, October 19, 2003

Mellon, Margaret, and Rissler, Jane, Ed., Now or Never: Serious New Plans to Save a Natural Pest Control, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1998; www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

(Scottish Green Party press release, June 11, 2003 and July 10, 2003, www.scottishgreens.org.uk

Soil Association, Seeds of Doubt, www.soilassociation.org

UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Development website: www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031013b.htm

Also on website of Friends of the Earth: www.foei.org/media/2003/1014gmo.html;
Full texts of the crop trials' scientific papers: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk]

Back to contents

Appendix: Chronology on EU GMO Moratorium

The EU has not allowed the experimental or commercial growth of any new gene crops since October 1998, or the imports of new GM-based food products. Before this time, 18 GM plant varieties were approved, including maize, rapeseed, chicory and soybeans.

APRIL 1998 - EU's last approvals of new GM food products.

OCTOBER 1998 - EU authorises two biotech carnation varieties (to improve vase life and modify flower colour), the last live GM plants to win EU approval. The United States sees this as the point where the EU closes its doors to new GM crops -- at this time, 18 GM crops are authorised for commercial release in the bloc.

JUNE 1999 - France and Greece lead calls for de facto moratorium on new GMO approval at meeting of EU environment ministers and win backing from Italy, Denmark and Luxembourg. They are later joined by Belgium and Austria, forming a minority of EU states that can block any vote on a new approval.

JANUARY 2000 - European Commission adopts regulation that additives and flavourings have to be labelled if DNA or protein of GMO origin is present in the final product.

JUNE 2000 - French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet insists on the need for a liability scheme for biotech products.

JULY 2000 - EU environment ministers say they will support the moratorium at least until proposals are presented for labelling and tracing GMO content in biotech products.

JULY 2001 - European Commission presents labelling and traceability proposals.

OCTOBER 2002 - Updated "deliberate release" directive enters into force, regulating the release of live GM crops into the environment. This repeals previous legislation dating from 1991. The updated directive sets down a step-by-step approvals process for GM crops or products containing GM crops, and tightens controls on traceability and labelling.

MAY 2003 - United States announces its intention to file a complaint against the EU's unofficial ban on GM crops at the World Trade Organisation.

JULY 2003 - EU adopts strict rules on labelling and tracing all GM food and feed which will apply in member states by mid-April 2004 at the latest. The labelling threshold for GMO content in non-GM food is set at 0.9 percent.

JULY 2003 - European Commission issues guidelines on how to grow and separate GM crops in Europe's fields to minimise the spread of GM crops to organic and conventional crop cultivation.

AUGUST 2003 - United States, Canada and Argentina challenge the EU over its de facto moratorium on GM crops at the WTO, arguing that the ban is illegal and without any scientific foundation.

SEPTEMBER 2003 - European Commission rejects a request by the regional government of Upper Austria to ban the cultivation of GM crops and create a GMO-free zone.

OCTOBER 2003 - European Commission delays debate on its proposed seed purity rules setting GMO content in conventional and organic seeds after EU states demand stricter safety checks. The proposed thresholds range from 0.3 to 0.7 percent. A vote is now expected for early 2004.

NOVEMBER 2003 - Government of Upper Austria says it will challenge Commission's ruling on its proposed GMO-free zone at the Court of First Instance -- the EU's second highest court.

NOVEMBER 2003 - EU committee fails to agree on proposal to authorise imports of Bt-11 maize, a GM sweetcorn food product whose seeds are made by Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta.

JANUARY 2004 - European Commission approves Bt-11 maize proposal, giving EU ministers three months to consider the issue and reach a final decision. The Irish Presidency will now have to deal with this issue. Source: GMWatch This article can be found here: http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1013

Back to contents