If you can't beat them you need not join them

The controversy over genetically modified organisms - or should one say the war on them? - is reaching a climax.

Those for and those against are both searching for ways and means of winning more support for their causes.

Renate Kuenast, the German Minister of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture, ironically representing the Greens, has suddenly had a change of heart and decided to give in to the pressure from the research and economics ministries.

Although the law will ensure that food containing GM products will be adequately labelled, Edda Meuller, a board member of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations, was "disappointed that the labelling requirement did not apply to animal feed or to food served in restaurants, schools and hospitals".

This means that 60-70 per cent of food containing GMOs will bear no label. To give credit where it is due, in the labelling obligation and regulation, Mr Kuenast succeeded in including that "farmers whose conventional crops are contaminated with GMOs because of cross-pollination between fields, can claim compensation from GM farmers in their area".

This is certainly a step in the right direction and runs contrary to the situation in Canada where the Supreme Court is hearing Percy Schmeiser's appeal after being charged and convicted for having planted his fields with Round-up Ready (RR) Canola without paying the royalties to the giant bio-tech company Monsanto.

Mr Schmeiser, 73, has appealed, arguing that he had been saving his own seed for 50 years and not only is he not responsible for the RR genes that must have been blown onto his crops by the wind, passing trucks or whatever, but when this is over, he intends suing Monsanto for contaminating his conventional crop.

Regardless of how this is going to end up, while farmers and consumers alike have a right to grow/consume GM products, does not the conventional farmer and consumer alike equally have a right to grow/consume GM free crops?

If labelling is going to be introduced, it should be done in a way to ensure that abuse is controlled, if not entirely eradicated. To give a few examples, the wine sector is very close to achieving transparency (at least in principle).

To all intents and purposes, the regulations for grape growing and, consequently, wine making, as well as a few other products, provide for the reduction of abuse. But why does the same not apply to other items?

If a bottle of "Quality Maltese Wine" can be described as such only if the grapes that go into that bottle were grown in Malta why is it that this rule does not apply in case of processed tomatoes?

How can one claim the kunserva as being a traditional Maltese product when, in many cases, the concentrate is Chinese importation?

How can one believe that the Dutch consumer is eating the Malta potato when the same potato leaves Malta in bulk and is re-graded and packed in Holland, the bulk of which, we are told, ends up on the shelves of the largest supermarket chain in Holland? How can we ensure that the Malta potato is not being mixed with a cheaper produce?

While all this pressure in favour of GMOs is going on, the European Union is pushing the expansion of organic farming. In fact, this is so true it now transpires that the supply, as well as the demand, for organic food has increased so much that it is no longer going to be considered as a niche market but as an alternative to the unknown.

If, on the other hand, GMOs are going to be allowed to roam freely in our countryside, we can say goodbye not only to our organic growing but, worse than that, to our endemic species to which we need to fall back on when engineered varieties do not remain viable.

Of interest as well is the fact that while organic produce needs to be certified by a competent body (rightly so), the Americans are saying that if you let the consumer know that a product is GM, the chances are that they will refuse to buy that product, a very valid observation and a good reason for not wanting to inform the European consumers of what's in the can!

Our Canadian friend has been lucky in a way because he has managed to attract not only moral but financial backing on an international level. This has enabled him to pay for massive legal expenses that amount to far above what the average farmer can afford. Probably, this is what helped these giant firms get to where they have got. While they have the means of supporting such research, the common farmer, or consumer, in the street can't do much to counteract matters.

It is worth noting that 99 per cent of GM crops are confined to four countries, in the following proportions: 67 per cent US, 23 per cent Argentina (where royalties were not charged for the seed), Canada six per cent and China three per cent.

The other one per cent is spread in 12 different countries. Overall, GM crops account for four per cent of the total area of agriculture. The area of GM Canola has basically remained at the same levels of 1999 while there has been no increase in the cultivation of GM corn and cotton since 1999.

Soya is one of the crops that saw an increase but this was due to Brazil planting it illegally and this should not be repeated next year. Due to all this opposition, the bio-tech industries have had a very bad year and Monsanto pulled out of Europe because of the overwhelming opposition.

Besides this, one has to keep in mind that Europe has introduced stringent new GM food labelling laws while China has introduced stringent GM import and labelling requirements.

It is also very obvious that the European consumers, in their overwhelming majority, will reject buying GM foods, so much so that processors and other supply chain managers are opting for GM-free products.

In North America, most farm groups are opposing the proposed releasing of GM wheat. Many insurance companies, including Westfarmers, are now excluding GM crops from insurance policies.

There is then the very serious accusation that Monsanto and Pioneer are fixing the price of GM seeds in the US. If Mr Schmeiser manages to win his appeal this could be the end of patents on GM plants.

There are many countries still sceptical about the subject and are playing safe. There are many more sitting on the fence waiting to see where the current is going to blow instead of reaching their own conclusions by studying the facts and weighing the pros and cons. Let's hope the "current" does not have the snowball effect GM genes had in the case of our Canadian friend!

May I appeal to all decision makers to consider all the facts, keeping in mind that even if it is proven that GMOs are harmless to one's health, the proof that cross-pollination is taking place and could reach a point of no return should be enough to persuade anyone to stay away from the horrible consequences that will occur.

Besides, while you can always revert to GMOs you can never replace your endemic species if these were to be eradicated. The generation to follow must have the right to improve on nature as we have had all these years. Improve yes, destroy no.

Finally, let us work on the idea of making Malta a GM-free zone and not to deprive the consumer of his right of consuming GM products if he so desires. The government can make an exception to import such products if it so happens that other countries decide to produce them.

Let's not take the "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude.

Mr Axisa is general secretary of the Association of Farmers.