Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

Action in Brussels on GMO risk assessment meeting

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 
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Corporate Europe Observatory's new report 'A spoonful of sugar' illustrates how the sugar lobby undermines existing laws and fights off much-needed measures that are vital for tackling Europe’s looming obesity crisis.

This week's European Commission decision to extend Glyphosate's market authorisation points to many broader problems - here is a CEO overview of the issues at large.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

In recent times we have seen various examples of green activists “coming out” as GMO-proponents, arguing that GMOs are safe and have multiple benefits: reduced pesticide use, higher income for farmers, contributing to food security, reduced greenhouse gas emissions... As an essential part of their discourse, organisations that continue to reject GMO technology are depicted as old-fashioned and as acting in contradiction to their own aims.

Mark Lynas is a well known example of this in the UK, with an (in)famous public apology for his past role in the anti-GM movement that drew a lot of media attention. Lynas' move has been copied by others, like blogger Stijn Bruers in Belgium. This framing of the GMO debate has proven quite attractive to the media, even though it is not always clear why specifically these people are seen to have the credentials to merit this attention.

There are many fundamental flaws in the argumentation they are putting forward. Claire Robinson of GMWatch, at the request of Corporate Europe Observatory, has written a rebuttal of many of the claims made by these newly converted GMO proponents. For practical reasons, this rebuttal follows the argumentation and claims made in an article by Bruers on his blog about GMOs .

A few weeks after the May coup against Dilma Rousseff by conservative parties backed by the country's largest corporations, Brazil's “interim” government, led by Michel Temer, signed an emergency loan to the State of Rio de Janeiro to help finance infrastructure for the 2016 Olympics. The bailout was conditional to selling off the State's public water supply and sanitation company, the Companhia Estadual de Águas e Esgotos (Cedae). 

When we interviewed City Councillor and chair of Rio’s Special Committee on the Water Crisis Renato Cinco, in December 2015, he was already warning against such privatisation threats and provided important background information on the water situation in Rio.

Never before has a former European Commission official been criticised as much for his post-EU career as ex-Commission president Barroso upon joining infamous US investment bank Goldman Sachs this summer. Citizens are outraged and evidence already points towards a gross violation of the EU Treaty.

Following the high-level appointment of former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso to Goldman Sachs, NGOs have launched a petition demanding stricter rules for ex-EU commissioners’ revolving door moves.

Corporate Europe Observatory's new report 'A spoonful of sugar' illustrates how the sugar lobby undermines existing laws and fights off much-needed measures that are vital for tackling Europe’s looming obesity crisis.

 
 
 
 
 
-- placeholder --
 
 
 

The corporate lobby tour