Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Action in Brussels on GMO risk assessment meeting

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska

This morning, about 40 activists and concerned citizens handed out flyers to participants to a closed-doors meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH), gathering representatives of the European Commission and Member States in the Borschette conference centre, rue Froissard 36 in Brussels.

The meeting's agenda contained a key item: the draft regulation which, if voted today, would define how GMOs' harmfulness should be assessed in the EU. This regulation is based on EFSA guidelines which were written by scientists with conflicts of interests with industry: if voted today, the regulation would guarantee that risk assessment protocols used for GMOs risk assessment in the EU are unlikely to detect any undesired effect. The meeting comes at a strategic moment as GMOs risk assessment is one of the key items in the US-EU free trade talks due to be launched any moment soon.

 

Food and feed safety must be based on science, not on the interests of the biotechnology industry! 

  • Our health cannot be sacrified to free trade agreements and biotech industry interests
  • The draft regulation being discussed today lets “stacked events” off the hook and enshrines dodgy risk assessment protocols first drafted by scientists with conflicts of interests with industry
  • The 27 GM crops whose authorisation for cultivation in the EU is still pending would not even comply to the mandatory toxicology tests foreseen by this regulation; however, the text does not apply to them! 

Today's closed-doors meeting of the EU's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH), involving only officials of the European Commission and Member States, will deal with a crucial text: a regulation describing how the potential toxicity of GMOs should be assessed [1]. Based on EFSA guidelines written by scientists with conflicts of interests with the biotechnology industry [2] and vaguely improved by the Commission, the current draft regulation is flawed and will only make sure that risk assessment protocols used for GMOs risk assessment in the EU are unable to detect any undesired effect: studies on rats are only required to last 90 days (when recent studies indicated severe effects only appeared after at least a year, leading numerous scientists and national experts to call for longer studies than these industry-favoured 90 days[3]), and “stacked” crops (GM crops with several genetical modifications) are spared separate testing. 

But even though these protocols are flawed, they remain comparatively better than those used by industry to evaluate the 27 GM crops whose authorisation is currently pending in the EU system[4]. However, this regulation does not apply to these. Why such haste in deciding on useless food safety protocols? One answer could be free trade: the European Commission strongly pushes to sign a USA-EU free trade deal, hoping it will help the EU out of the ongoing crisis; but GMOs risk assessment is a key point in the debate5, because the US' GMOs risk assessment regime is even weaker than the EU's and the US do not want to risk undermining the interests of their biotech companies. 

However, we consider that sacrifying our health and our environment to short-term trade objectives and the irresponsible greed of biotech companies is not an option. 

1 Draft Commission implementing Regulation on implementing rules concerning applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations No (EC) 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006. 

2 Led by ILSI scientist Harry Kuiper, see http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/166-harry-k...  

3 Séralini's study on rats fed with Monsanto GM corn, also on the meeting's agenda, has been dismissed in a coordinated effort by EFSA and national food safety agencies; however, many independent scientists and strong minority opinions within Belgium, France and Germany's food safety agencies acknowledged the quality of the study's design and its relevance to the subject, calling for similar long-term studies. 

4 These studies' statistical power is way too low to enable any meaningful toxicity conclusion and would not even pass the weak requirements foreseen in the regulation. 

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/us-economy-trade.mda 

   

Food and feed safety must be based on science, not on the interests of the biotechnology industry! Our health cannot be sacrified to free trade agreements and biotech industry interestsThe draft regulation being discussed today lets “stacked events” off the hook and enshrines dodgy risk assessment protocols first drafted by scientists with conflicts of interests with industryThe 27 GM crops whose authorisation for cultivation in the EU is still pending would not even comply to the mandatory toxicology tests foreseen by this regulation; however, the text does not apply to them! Today's closed-doors meeting of the EU's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH), involving only officials of the European Commission and Member States, will deal with a crucial text: a regulation describing how the potential toxicity of GMOs should be assessed [1]. Based on EFSA guidelines written by scientists with conflicts of interests with the biotechnology industry [2] and vaguely improved by the Commission, the current draft regulation is flawed and will only make sure that risk assessment protocols used for GMOs risk assessment in the EU are unable to detect any undesired effect: studies on rats are only required to last 90 days (when recent studies indicated severe effects only appeared after at least a year, leading numerous scientists and national experts to call for longer studies than these industry-favoured 90 days[3]), and “stacked” crops (GM crops with several genetical modifications) are spared separate testing. But even though these protocols are flawed, they remain comparatively better than those used by industry to evaluate the 27 GM crops whose authorisation is currently pending in the EU system[4]. However, this regulation does not apply to these. Why such haste in deciding on useless food safety protocols? One answer could be free trade: the European Commission strongly pushes to sign a USA-EU free trade deal, hoping it will help the EU out of the ongoing crisis; but GMOs risk assessment is a key point in the debate5, because the US' GMOs risk assessment regime is even weaker than the EU's and the US do not want to risk undermining the interests of their biotech companies. However, we consider that sacrifying our health and our environment to short-term trade objectives and the irresponsible greed of biotech companies is not an option. 1 Draft Commission implementing Regulation on implementing rules concerning applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations No (EC) 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006. 2 Led by ILSI scientist Harry Kuiper, see http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/166-harry-k...  3 Séralini's study on rats fed with Monsanto GM corn, also on the meeting's agenda, has been dismissed in a coordinated effort by EFSA and national food safety agencies; however, many independent scientists and strong minority opinions within Belgium, France and Germany's food safety agencies acknowledged the quality of the study's design and its relevance to the subject, calling for similar long-term studies. 4 These studies' statistical power is way too low to enable any meaningful toxicity conclusion and would not even pass the weak requirements foreseen in the regulation. 5 http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/us-economy-trade.mda    
 
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
On 17 April, Via Campesina, the D190-20 Alliance and Corporate Europe Observatory held a lobby tour around the Brussels European quarter, highlighting the corporate lobbies who are pushing an aggressive agenda around TTIP (the EU-US trade deal currently being negotiated). There was a particular emphasis on the impacts TTIP will have, if passed, for farmers' livelihoods, food standards, and for the way food is produced in the EU. The next negotiation round will take place on 20 April, this time in New York.
Are public regulators siding with the corporations they are supposed to regulate or with the public interest?
Multi-sectoral civil society coalition calls for greater protections for consumers, journalists, whistleblowers, researchers and workers.
375 civil society organisations from across Europe have called on MEPs to protect citizens, workers, and the environment from the threats posed by the controversial TTIP talks.
The first corporate sponsors of this winter's 'historic' UN climate talks (COP21) have been unofficially unveiled: luxury brand Luis Vuitton (LVMH) and Suez Environment, a key member of the French pro-fracking lobby. According to an article by ATTAC's Maxime Combes, others were initially announced in the press (BMW, Vattenfall and New Holland Agriculture) but later denied by the COP21 organisers.
"There is de facto a systemic collusion between the Commission and business circles"
The way in which the Commission has appointed the head of its “in-house think-tank” has demonstrated its woefully inadequate conflict of interest assessment for new appointments, says Corporate Europe Observatory. The conflict of interest assessment applied to the former chief of the Lisbon Council, Ann Mettler as head of the new European Political Strategy Center (EPSC) does not appear to have explored her close cooperation with some of the biggest corporate players in the digital and technology market. In CEO's view, this casts serious doubts on the independence of the advice that is to be given to President Juncker and his college of commissioners.
Civil society organisations denounce European Commission’s leaked proposal

Alternative Trade Mandate

Corporate Europe Forum