“Keep organic crops GM clean”, Brussels told

Date: 06/03/03

By Karen Carstens

GREEN groups and farmers are concerned about a recent rash of requests from member states to the European Commission for authorisation to cultivate genetically modified crops.

They fear that if genetically modified (GM) crops are allowed to coexist with traditional and organic crops, "massive contamination" in the form of cross-pollination (when pollen from one plant is carried by wind to another in a different field) could occur, unless strict measures are imposed on member states by Brussels to keep the crops "clean".

Eighteen applications - half of them for cultivation rights - have been filed since January, said Catherine Day, the head of the Commission's environment directorate-general.

"We are at the beginning of the process with these 18 applications queuing up in the system," she said, adding that they would most likely not be up for final approval by the Commission until this autumn.

Countries that have forwarded dossiers for consideration to both the Commission and all EU member states include Sweden, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK.

They have thereby set the wheels of the EU's GM approvals system back in motion for the first time since 1998, when the Commission imposed a "de facto" moratorium on the authorisation of new GM crops.

However, none of the countries that initially enforced the moratorium - Denmark, Greece, France, Italy and Luxembourg - are represented. This group could still block the approval process if it wanted to continue to oppose applications.

Moreover, the moratorium remains in place until two new regulations - one on traceability and labelling of GM products, the other on authorisation and risk assessment procedures - are approved this year in the European Parliament. These are expected to enter into force by early 2004.

The current debate, however, centres on "coexistence" - essentially how to ensure that traditional or organic farmers' crops are not contaminated by cross-pollination from GM crops.

"We are now looking into whether it is necessary to do something at the Community level versus at the member state level," Day said. "We need to decide what to do next."

While one DG environment regulation on the "deliberate release" of GMOs into the environment mentions coexistence, there is no EU legislation yet on the matter. That, however, would come under the domain of agriculture policy, Day added. Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler yesterday (5 March) presented an internal communication featuring various policy options to the commissioners at their official weekly rendezvous. But Lorenzo Consoli, Greenpeace's EU adviser on GMOs, lambasted the approach that Fischler has taken.

"The prevailing trend in the Commission is to avoid "hard regulation" on this and to push for voluntary measures by member states," he said.

Even though the Commission has committed itself to promoting organic and sustainable farming practices, he added, "it looks like Fischler is going in the other direction" on the coexistence issue.

"They [the Commission] are trying to do the least possible," Consoli claimed. Options under discussion include the segregation of crops through physical barriers via designated "buffer zones". Staggered cultivation periods and allowing fields to lay fallow for years also help to avoid contamination.

"Coexistence is about guaranteeing that non-GM farmers in Europe can keep growing their traditional or organic products while avoiding contamination and without additional costs," Consoli said.

So a big question mark hangs over who will pay for the additional costs that may be incurred. According to one recent study conducted by the Danish government, costs could increase by up to 21% in that country for organic farmers under "coexistence".

"It should be the GMO grower who has to pay for the measures to avoid contamination, and not the organic farmer," Consoli said.

A draft of the Fischler paper states that most "management measures" to prevent cross-contamination, such as buffer zones, pollen barriers and crop rotation, apply to individual farmers.

"Given that the aim of the measures remains purely economic, the burden of applying measures to deal with coexistence should fall on the economic operators (farmers, seed suppliers, etc.) who intend to gain a benefit from the specific cultivation model.

"So not only is the paper legalising genetic pollution, but it is unfair to farmers by making them foot the bill", Consoli added.

"Fischler and the Commission want to make us [farmers and consumers] pay for something we never asked for."

Green groups and farmers are concerned about a recent rash of requests from Member States to the European Commission for authorisation to cultivate genetically modified crops.