Carinthia shows route towards ceasefire in GM-foods war

By David Cronin

Date: 09/09/04

REGIONS opposed to genetically modified foods are turning to Carinthia for inspiration.

The mountainous province in southern Austria has introduced what those on both sides of the biotechnology debate consider a model law. It does not outlaw genetically modified (GM) crops but allows farmers to create GM-free zones on a voluntary basis and obliges those wishing to plant GM crops to seek authorization.

According to the European Commission, the Carinthian move is fully in compliance with EU legislation. By contrast, an act passed in Upper Austria, which sought to ban GM crops across the entire region, has been torpedoed by the European Commission. Upper Austria is now appealing against the Commission's decision to the European Court of Justice.

"We have no problem if regions are creating a GM-free zone; it is a great marketing tool," says the Commission's agriculture spokesman Gregor Kreuzhuber. "But it has to be done on a voluntary basis. If you have GMOs that are scientifically safe, you cannot deny farmers the right to plant them. That is one of the fundamental principles of the EU."

Official assurances that GM crops pose no discernible risk to human health or the environment have not allayed the widespread fears about them. And local authorities are unlikely to take on public opinion. The anti-globalization group ATTAC last month announced that 38 million out of France's 60m inhabitants live in areas where their local authority has declared its opposition to GM foods.

The situation is similar in other EU states. In November 2003, ten provinces formed a network of GM-free regions; these included Tuscany in Italy, Wales, the Basque Country, Schleswig-Holstein in Germany and Aquitaine in France. Since then the number of regions seeking to emulate them has more than doubled.

At national or regional level, meanwhile, a safeguard clause in a 1990 EU directive to prevent GM foods being grown has been invoked in France, Germany and Greece. And while the UK government is often perceived as being pro-GM, Wales triggered the safeguard clause against a GM maize.

In all cases, the Commission has asked the governments or regional authorities to revoke these measures, while in the cases of Austria and Greece it has asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess whether the bans are based on sound science. In both instances, EFSA decided they were not.

Last year the Commission introduced a new initiative on the so-called co-existence of GM and conventional crops. This gave member states the power to dictate what distances must be kept between GM plantings and conventional ones, in order to prevent contamination of crops in the latter by pollen carried by insects or the wind.

Friends of the Earth campaigner Geert Ritsema argues that the Commission's position in cases such as that of Upper Austria runs counter to the notion that regions can write their own rules on where GM crops can be planted."The Commission's recommendation on co-existence made it clear it was up to member states and regions to make legislation if they wanted. Yet when they take steps to do so, the Commission intervenes."

He argues that having wide tracts of GM-free land is necessary because the scientific thinking about the risk of cross-contamination from nearby farms which have GM crops is disputed. "Some industry scientists say it is enough to have 25 metres between fields to prevent contamination," he adds. "But one UK study talks about 26 kilometres."

Campaigners have been able to cite some evidence about the dangers of contamination. For example, in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, GM contamination is reported to have wiped out the organic oilseed rape sector. And a 2002 study for the European Environment Agency found that GM contamination of oilseed rape can occur even if there are large distances between where GM and conventional varieties are grown. For sugar beet, it found that it is common for contamination to occur even in cases where GM and non-GM varieties are separated by more than 1km.

In many regions, the quest for GM-free status has been tied to a desire to shield local produce from a perceived homogenization of agriculture. This is particularly the case in Tuscany, the picturesque region where Chianti wine is made. Campaigners argue there should be no GM plantings there whatsoever as the dominance of small farms located next to each other makes it hard for a farmer to control his own destiny.

"In some regions, it is impossible to comply with the coexistence rules," says Stefano Masini from the Italian farm lobby Coldiretti. "Farms are very small in Tuscany, for example. They are often 1-2 hectares.

"We are making big efforts to promote high quality agriculture, with the emphasis on traditional produce and regional specialities. If you are going to introduce GM products, then consumers will not trust us anymore."

The umbrella group for Europe's biotechnology industry denies it wants to harm small producers. "I want to go against the idea that because you have GM, you have to have massive holdings," comments Johan Vanhemelrijck from EuropaBio. "That might be the case in the US but that's because of farm structure in the US, not GM. We have no problem about protecting traditional production. But it could be that GM will create new traditions.

"For example, if you look at flavour-saver tomatoes, it doesn't mean that you have to have big production plants. It's just another type of tomato."

Article on regional initiatives and other campaigns against the use of genetically modified foods.

• Primary Source

European Commission: DG Health and Consumer Protection: Overview: Food and feed saftey http://ec.europa.eu/comm/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

---