Brussels, 07/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - A blow for Monsanto and the policy of the coexistence of GM and conventional/organic crops within the EU. Honey which is contaminated, even by a tiny quantity, with pollen from a genetically modified variety of maize cannot be sold in the EU without prior authorisation, according to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). It took position to this effect in a ruling dated 6 September (case C-442/09) over a dispute between the State of Bavaria (Germany) and a German beekeeper (Karl Heinz Bablock). Once the presence of tiny quantities of DNA from MON 810 Mais had been detected in a few samples of the honey he produces 500 metres from fields of MON 810 grown for research purposes, this amateur beekeeper felt that his products were unfit for consumption and brought legal proceedings before the Bavarian State, in which he was joined by other amateur beekeepers.
“Honey and food supplements containing such pollen (containing GMO) constitute foodstuffs which contain ingredients produced from GMOs within the meaning of the regulation” which cannot be sold without prior authorisation, the Court confirms. In so doing, it is confirming the main conclusions returned on 9 February of this year by Advocate General Yves Bot (EUROPE 10312).
Regulation 1829/2003 concerning genetically modified foodstuffs and animal feed of the EU requires products to be labelled “produced from GMOs” if they contain 0.9% or more GMOs. However, this labelling is not compulsory in the event of the “accidental” or “technically unavoidable” presence of GMOs resulting, for example, from pollenisation or contamination during transport of the product. However, the Court argues, it does not matter whether the pollen from genetically modified maize was introduced to the honey deliberately or accidentally. Prior marketing authorisation is obligatory, “irrespective of the proportion of genetically modified material contained in the product in question”.
The Court recognises that this pollen - which is incapable of reproduction and has no ability to transfer its genetic material - cannot technically be described as a GMO. Nonetheless, it stresses that “products such as honey and food supplements containing such pollen constitute foodstuffs which contain ingredients produced from GMOs within the meaning of the regulation", and therefore require prior marketing authorisation.
On Wednesday 7 September, the European Commission assured the press that it would respect this ruling of the Court of Justice and that in order to do so, it would have to analyse it and look into action to take to ensure its full execution.
“MON 810 maize was not approved for honey when it was authorised [in the EU] in 1998. We will discuss this with the member states in a fortnight's time”, said Frédéric Vincent, spokesperson to Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, John Dalli. He went on to add: “It is highly likely that the ruling will have an impact on imports of honey into the EU, because the EU is not self-sufficient and imports honey from countries such as Argentina and China, where there is genetically modified production. We will have to discuss this with the member states and honey producers”. It is worth noting that MON 810 maize is one of two GMO crops which, within the EU, are authorised for production for commercial purposes. So far, two European honey-producing countries (Spain and Romania) grow this variety of genetically modified maize.
The Greens/EFA group at the European Parliament welcomed the Court ruling, stating that this calls into question the European Commission's decision to abandon the policy of zero-tolerance for unauthorised GMOs in the EU. “This case clearly shows that coexistence is a sham and that growing GMOs is a hindrance to choosing GM-free products. Allowing GM crops to be grown necessarily leads to the contamination of other crops and foodstuffs, such as honey. Beekeepers are powerless against the contamination of their honey by GM pollen, as our farmers against the contamination of their crops”, said José Bové (French Green), vice-president of the committee on agriculture of the European Parliament (our translation). He goes on to argue that “the only way to avoid contamination is to ban the growth of GMOs”. Sandrine Bélier, a member of the committee on the environment of the EP, reiterated this point: “The biotechnology lobby talks only of freedom of choice, but the question is: choice for whom? This verdict stresses that we need European rules which genuinely protect farmers, food producers and consumers from the contamination of their products by GMOs. The concept of zero-tolerance should mean that traces of unauthorised GMOs, at whatever level, should not be tolerated”. Greenpeace stated that the Court's ruling stresses that conventional and genetically modified crops cannot coexist. “When a GM crop is grown in open fields, contamination is impossible to stop. It is a scandal that there is no Europe-wide liability regime to protect beekeepers or farmers affected by GM crops”, said Greenpeace's Stefanie Hundsdorfer, who goes on to argue that “Monsanto and the Bavarian government should be held responsible for this GM pollution and compensate any beekeeper affected by it”. (A.N./transl.fl)