EU commission 'admitted GM food uncertainty'

The Guardian
Apr. 19, 2006

The European commission has been approving genetically modified crops for human consumption while secretly warning about their impact on health and the environment, a report published today reveals.

Papers obtained by two environmental groups under freedom of information laws show the commission pushed through the approval of seven GM foods.

They were approved despite admissions that there were "large areas of uncertainty" and "some issues have not yet been studied at all".

The released papers formed the backbone of the commission's case during a dispute with the US, Canada and Argentina - which produce 90% of the world's GM crops - over a Europe-wide ban on GM foods in member states between 1998 and 2004.

The 340-page document reveals that, in support of its stance, the commission told the World Trade Organisation that "it is apparent from the scientific advice ... that there is no unique, absolute, scientific cut off threshold available to decide whether a GM product is safe or not".

It also said that because of a lack of data concerning chronic conditions such as cancer and allergies, there was "simply no way of ascertaining whether the introduction of GM products has had any other effect on human health".

As the WTO case continued in 2004, the commission ended its six-year moratorium on GM foods and has since approved more than 30 GM crops.

"We have found that the European commission has had double standards over crops and the safety to the environment with regard to GM foods," Clare Oxborrow, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, which co-authored the report with Greenpeace, said.

"On the one hand, they have been pushing forward with new GM foods and saying they are safe. But the commission clearly knew this was not the case and was prepared to recognise the risk behind closed doors."

The commission said the report's authors were selectively quoting from "a very long and complex document". "The commission naturally rejects the accusation of double standards made by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace," it said in a statement.

"It is perfectly normal that the commission seeks to make its legal case to the WTO to the best of its ability, based on scientific and technical arguments where necessary.

"These documents set out the case that the commission has made to the WTO and in public - that scientific uncertainties and disagreement for some applications covered by the WTO case explain the time which needed to be taken before authorisations could be granted."

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have called for the immediate suspension of the use and sale of all GM foods and crops until the safety issues have been addressed.

The report also shows the commission told the WTO that it was "a reasonable and lawful position" that insect-resistant crops - the only GM crops being grown in the EU - should not be planted until all the effects on the soil were known.

In addition, commission officials told trade negotiators that a key study used to support the environmental safety of a GM crop was "scientifically flawed".

The report's authors say that, at the same time as the commission submitted these documents to the WTO, it pushed through the approval of seven GM foods and commercialised 31 varieties of Monsanto's GM maize for cultivation in the EU.

"The truth is now out in the open for all to see," the Greenpeace campaigner Christoph Then said. "The released EU papers outline detailed scientific concerns about the safety of genetically modified food and crops.

"These revelations are astonishing - they show contempt for humans and the environment and prove that Europe's safety net is not working."

Mr Then said the European Food Safety Authority, on which the commission depends for advice, came out particularly badly and needed urgent reform.

Ms Oxborrow said the seven approved crops were likely to be destined for animal feeds or highly processed foods.

Most British food retailers, responding to public concerns over GM food, do not stock genetically modified products.

The US, Argentina and Canada made their complaint to the WTO in May 2003, claiming Europe's moratorium on approvals for importing and growing GM crops broke international trade rules.

In February, the WTO decided in favour of the GM producers in an 800-page ruling that has not been published. The commission is appealing against the decision.

An EFSA spokesman said the organisation was considering how to explain the scientific basis for its assessments, and in particular how it dealt with uncertainties over human health and environmental safety, more clearly.