GMOs - the Malta vote explained

Have you heard of the biotech master plan for saving the world from mass poverty, hunger and war? GMOs are the answer to all these - say the multinationals selling genetically modified seeds... and the pesticides to match.

Environmentalists, farmers, scientists and the general public are more prone to believe that it is hunger for profit and power that drives the corporations to lobby so fiercely for a technology few people want in their food and on their farms.

A scene of nightmare proportions arises on considering a future world dominated by agro-chemical and novel food companies with farmers turned into helpless slaves.

Contamination of organic crops by GM crops would spell disaster for those farmers who grow food without pesticides. Opponents of GM food say famine is more likely to be caused by inefficient, unfair distribution systems and poor farming methods.

The EU Commission claims to have made a huge effort over the past years to review its regulatory system "in the light of scientific evidence, social concerns, and internationally agreed principles". The improved legal framework to decide on the release of GMOs into the environment is hailed by the Commission as "the right way to respond to the citizens' demands for open and responsible decision-making with regard to GM products".

At the EU-US summit last month an EU panel defended Europe's stand on GMOs in the face of a World Trade Organisation dispute by claiming that most member states have adopted a precautionary approach with a view to achieving their preferred level of protection.

Malta vote

The chairman of the Bioethics Consultative Committee of the Department of Health, Nationalist MP Michael Asciak, has referred to GMOs in a recent article as "dabbling with nature to our advantage in a sustainable manner".

In a tone somewhat out of keeping with Church policy on the environment today, Dr Asciak refers apocryphally to the "Christian mandate of subduing the earth".

The Ministry for Rural Affairs and Environment has not been able to put off showing its hand any longer on the GM debate. On Thursday, June 18, the news broke with a Reuters report on Malta's vote at the Council of Ministers in Brussels against a GMO application for rapeseed. The application was not for planting in the environment but for release onto the market in Europe.

Six out of ten new EU members, among them Malta, voted against the use in Europe of genetically modified rapeseed in animal feed and industrial processing. Something of a test case, this was the first application to come up for approval since GMO applications were re-opened last April.

Environment Minister George Pullicino last Monday voted against a second application made to the competent authorities in Spain for pesticide-resistant GM maize.*

The Maltese objection was made on the grounds that monitoring plans of labelling and traceability by the applicant Monsanto were inadequate.

If we are optimistic about how Malta is voting over this issue it can be said that the ministry appears to be adopting a case-by-case strategy aimed, for as long as possible, at keeping the lid on the GMO pandora's box being let loose on European territory.

But the votes of a larger group of member states are needed to support the growing European stand against GMOs. Lack of a qualified majority means that the decision reverts to the Commission, which proposed the authorisation in the first place.

Commissioner Borg on European interest

The case-by-case decisions began after the EU Commission approved BT11 maize last April, lifting a de facto moratorium that had been in place for six years. A member of the College of Commissioners, Dr Joe Borg, was present at the meeting that discussed, and ultimately granted, authorisation of BT11 maize as a food product.

A spokesman for Dr Borg's office comments: "While there is a Commissioner from each Member State in the College of Commissioners, they do not represent the Member States they come from. Collectively they have to come to the decision that represents the general European interest."

Patrick Tabone, speaking on behalf of the Maltese Commissioner, shadow to the Commissioner for development aid, added:

"BT11 maize was already authorised in the EU since 1998 for use in feed and derived food products. The Commissioners for Health, the Environment and Agriculture - who are specifically mandated to protect the citizen, the environment and the agricultural sector, and who do so with great vigour - all publicly made the argument that the EU has put into place the most sophisticated regulatory and administrative framework in the world aimed at ensuring that through a comprehensive and rigorous tracing and labelling system, the consumer is empowered to make his or her choice. They stress that this is a science-based regime founded on the precautionary principle."

Referring to last Monday's vote by the Council of Ministers, Michel Somville, adviser on genetic engineering issues for the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, observes:

"This is the sixth time in six months that the European Commission has failed to convince the member states to approve a GMO. It is politically evident that the 25 European member states are deeply divided over GMOs."

The Malta Greens have in the past months raised the issue both locally and internationally. At the request of the Malta Green Party a resolution was passed in Rome last February, during the launch of the Europe-wide Greens, urging that Malta declare itself a GMO-free zone.

On the home front AD Greens mustered with other organisations, including the National Council of Women, in a nationwide appeal for vigilance over the issue.

Accidental and deliberate release

Escape of genetically modified organisms into the environment from laboratories or by unintentional cross-pollinating of conventional crops is the sort of accident that EU directives on contained use and deliberate release are intended to address.

Indecision in Europe is a reflection of the reservations many Europeans have over our ability to control this technology should it run away with us.

Deliberate release includes release into the environment when GM seeds are planted in fields. The legal notice which transposes the directive into local law ensures that plantings cannot be kept secret as the site must be made known to the public.

Deliberate release can also mean release onto the market of GM plants, animals or bacteria for use in industrial processes, pharmaceuticals or food products.

The first misconception resorted to by promoters of genetic modification is that anyone who does not want to eat or grow GM organisms must by default be equally against any form of gene technology carried out in contained laboratories for medical or other purposes.

This is tantamount to claiming that those who oppose pollution are against all forms of chemicals in use. It is misleading of GMO aficionados to declare that people who do not want GMOs in their fields or their diet are against all other forms of biotechnology.

The "GMOs are inevitable" tactic was exposed when people began to question whether gene-altered food aid being sent to developing countries was part of a strategy to spread GM crops around the world.

A consultant to the biotech industry admitted: "The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there is nothing you can do about it."

The USAID Website candidly states: "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States."

An EU directive controlling contained use in laboratories has been put in place in the Maltese Islands by means of the Bio-Safety Co-ordinating Committee set up by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in compliance with European regulatory requirements.

One of the main concerns under this directive is that of waste containing GM material escaping down laboratory drains or by other means into the environment.

Such a concern in itself acknowledges the degree of uncertainty and apprehension with which GMOs are regarded in Europe since the risk of contaminating natural organisms is very real.

What is not so easy to swallow is that people are being fed GMOs without being told. In a question-and-answer booklet put out in 2002 the Malta-EU Information Centre stated that many imported staple foods already contain genetically modified wheat, maize and potatoes.

Long and complex, the debate on GMOs will drag on as reports of new evidence supporting the arguments against proliferating their use in agriculture continue to come to light. If you want to know the real story about GMOs make sure your source is not funded by the industry. Subscribe to the newsletter at www.biodemocracy.com

* Modifying genes to make a crop more resistant to pesticides is followed by the application of higher doses of pesticide. The agro-industry sells more pesticides but the cost is higher levels of pollution in soil and ground water.