Brussels, 01/07/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 30 June, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a scientific opinion supporting the renewal of the 10-year authorisation of genetically modified maize MON810 by Monsanto for cultivation, food and feed purposes. This insect resistant GMO has been legally authorised in the EU since 1998, but is so controversial that Spain is the only country where it is grown.
While this opinion will not determine what the European Commission will do, it will provide guidance since it repeats that its decisions are science-based. Published the day after an Environment Council, which restated its call for an overhaul of European expert opinions and GMO authorisation procedures (see EUROPE 9930), EFSA's decision is likely to fuel the debate. So far, six member states (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg) have used the safeguard clause to put a provisional ban on crops of this transgenic maize on their soil, and the Commission, which was able to point to EFSA opinions, was defeated by a qualified majority in the Council in its attempts to require these countries to lift their bans (see EUROPE 9852).
The EFSA panel on assessment of GMO risks said it was unlikely that this maize, genetically modified to resist the corn-borer (a parasite that feeds on maize), would have any adverse effect on the environment, especially if management measures were put in place to reduce the possible exposure of non-targeted organisms.
In delivering this favourable opinion, the scientists on the panel considered previous EFSA opinions, analysed additional information provided by the manufacturer, and took account of the environmental risk assessment carried out by the competent Spanish authority and its biosecurity committee, all scientific reports available and the comments of the various EU member states.
EFSA's approval refers not only to the renewal of the authorisation to grow MON810, but also to its use in food and feed. It comes after consideration of renewal requests by the manufacturer under regulation 1829/2003 for three applications (foodstuffs and existing food ingredients produced from MON810; animal feeds consisting of or containing MON810, including the use of seed for growing; food additives produced from MON810 authorised under directive 89/107/EEC and animal feeds and additives legally marketed under directive 70/524/EEC).
When asked by press what the Commission intended to do, Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, replied, “We will examine the EFSA recommendation in detail and take the appropriate decision”.
She was asked if the Commission would propose the renewal of the authorisation for a further 10 years when 11 member states of the Council (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovenia) were calling for the review of European legislation to allow each member state to decide for itself, under the subsidiarity principle, whether or not to authorise GM crops on its soil. She did not, however, give a direct answer. “Commissioner Dimas has said that we will look at all the information we have received.” The proposal by the 11 member states and the outcome of the study being carried out on the socio-economic factors linked to GM crops form part of that information, she said.
Greenpeace accuses EFSA of closing its eyes and Commission of blindly following
Mario Contiero, Greenpeace EU GMO policy director, said in a press release that, “Once again EFSA has buried its head in the sand and ignored scientific evidence on the negative effects of Monsanto's pesticide-producing GM maize on the environment. The Commission's blind reliance on EFSA's flawed opinions is likely to anger member states who feel scientific concerns on GM maize are not being addressed seriously”.
Greenpeace says that independent scientists have complained of serious flaws in the application filed by Monsanto and in the quality of EFSA's work, particularly with regard to the long-term impact of GM crops. EFSA itself acknowledges that it is not in a position currently to be able to assess long-term effects, and the European Commission has given it until April 2010 to make improvements in this area, Greenpeace says. (A.N./transl.rt)