[Gen-Info] Fwd: EU-Papier: Neue Gentechnik-Flut droht

klausjschramm at t-online.de klausjschramm at t-online.de
Mo Mär 8 08:06:05 CET 2010



-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Faißner [mailto:klaus.faissner at chello.at] 
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:32 PM
To: 'Klaus Faißner'
Subject: EU-Papier: Neue Gentechnik-Flut droht - EU-Kommission will
Gentechnik-Zulassungsprozess weiter beschleunigen!

Liebe Leute,

hier ein hochbrisanter Text. Bitte weit verbreiten. Wenn die EU das 
von Wissenschaftern entdeckte Papier durchbringt, hätten wir wohl die 
Zwangsbeglückung mit Gentechnikprodukten. Die Zeit scheint knapp zu 
sein. Da auf EU-Ebene einheitlich für die Gentechnik gearbeitet wird, 
helfen nur nationale Gentechnikverbote für Anbau UND Import von 
Futter- und Lebensmitteln - siehe auch Unterschriftenliste. Dies gilt 
es jetzt bei jeder Gelegenheit strikt einzufordern.  

Herzliche Grüße,

Klaus Faißner

P.S.: Genau vor dieser Entwicklung warne ich in meinem neuen Buch
"Wirbelsturm und Flächenbrand. Das Ende der Gentechnik" (EUR 14,
versandkostenfrei ab 2 Stk.). Die Zeit der Entscheidung scheint 
gekommen
zu sein. 

--
Mag. Klaus Faißner
Freier Journalist, Wien
Gründer der Initiative Gentechnikverbot
Tel.+Fax: 01/9907738
klaus.faissner at chello.at

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

EU-Papier: Flut an Gentechnikprodukten droht!

* Nach Gen-Kartoffel: EU will Gentechnik-Zulassungsprozess 
beschleunigen * Versteckter Gesetzesentwurf liegt bei der WTO - 
Genehmigung bereits in wenigen Tagen möglich * Wissenschafter warnen: 
Sicherheit für Tier, Mensch und Umwelt in Gefahr * Strikte nationale 
Gentechnikverbote (Anbau und Import) als einziger Schutz  

Die EU-Kommission hat am 2. März mit der Gen-Industrie-Kartoffel 
Amflora von BASF erstmals seit 1998 eine genmanipulierte Pflanze für 
den Anbau zugelassen. Obwohl die Stärkehersteller - also die 
eigentlichen Kunden dieser Kartoffel - sie ablehnen, soll sie auch 
auf unseren Tellern landen, indem das genmanipulierte 
Industrieprodukt (!) auch Tieren verfüttert werden darf. Dass 
zusätzlich gleich drei neue Genmaissorten für den Import - also als 
Lebens- und Futtermittel zugelassen wurden, macht den Skandal noch 
größer.  

Doch das soll erst der Anfang gewesen sein. Offiziell verspricht EU-
Kommission den Mitgliedsstaaten eine Wahlfreiheit beim Anbau 
genmanipulierter Pflanzen - was ihr rundum Beifall einbringt. In 
Wirklichkeit will sie gleichzeitig mit einer geheim gehaltenen 
Maßnahme die Zulassung für gentechnisch veränderte Organismen 
beschleunigen. So soll ganz Europa mit genmanipulierten Futtermitteln 
überschwemmt werden und der großflächige Anbau in den liberaleren EU-
Ländern ermöglicht werden.  

"Weiteres Abrücken von unabhängiger Wissenschaft"

Vor wenigen Tagen schlugen deshalb weltweit unabhängige 
Wissenschafter Alarm (englisches Original siehe Anhang): Das an die 
WTO zur Notifizierung geschickte Dokument - es scheint auf keiner 
offiziellen Seite der EU auf - würde den Zulassungsprozess 
beschleunigen und einen weiteren Schritt in Richtung Zulassungs-
Gleichklang mit den "Gentechnikländern" USA/Kanada bringen. Bereits 
am 9. März könnte es durchgewunken werden (an diesem Tag trifft sich 
die Kommission das nächste Mal; die Begutachtungsfrist der WTO läuft 
bis 13.3.) und im Juni Gesetzeskraft erlangen. Eine derartige EU-
Verordnung würde den multinationalen Konzernen Vorteile bringen, aber 
"der Sicherheit für Tier und Mensch sowie dem Schutz der Umwelt kaum 
Beachtung schenken", erklären die Wissenschafter. "Was wir in diesem 
Dokument sehen, ist ein weiteres Abrücken von einer soliden, 
unabhängigen Wissenschaft (und auf wissenschaftlichen Beweisen 
basierenden Politik) und ein Ruck in Richtung formeller Anerkennung 
einer herrschenden Hypothese - nämlich, dass gentechnisch veränderte 
Pflanzen und Lebensmittel sicher sind."  

Anschließend fügen die unabhängigen Experten 16 wissenschaftliche 
Bedenken gegen die Gentechnik an. Bereits am 9. März könnte die EU-
Kommission diesen Schritt beschließen und im Mai umsetzen. Vorbei an 
allen demokratischen Einrichtungen einer ohnehin undemokratischen EU. 
 

Lösung: sofortige nationale Verbote

Was wäre die Lösung? Da sich die wichtigen EU-Institutionen mitsamt 
EU-Recht als Steigbügelhalter der Gentechnik erwiesen haben, sind 
sofort nationale Gentechnikverbote zu erlassen - egal, ob dies EU- 
und WTO-(Un-)Recht widerspricht oder nicht. Die Sicherung der 
Lebensgrundlagen muss Vorrang haben.  

Somit sind z.B. in Österreich die drei Forderungen des
Gentechnik-Volksbegehrens von 1997, das mehr als 1,2 Mio. Menschen
unterschrieben haben, sofort umzusetzen:

1. Kein Essen aus dem Genlabor in Österreich! 
2. Keine Freisetzungen genetisch veränderter Organismen (GVO) in
Österreich!

3. Kein Patent auf Leben! 

Die Schweiz gilt als Vorbild: Hier hat das Volk, der Souverän, in 
einer Abstimmung ein generelles, kommerzielles Gentechnikverbot 
erwirkt. Auch genmanipulierte Futtermittel werden - im Gegensatz zum 
restlichen Europa - so gut wie keine verfüttert. Strikte nationale 
Verbote schränken somit auch den Gentechnik-Anbau in anderen Ländern 
ein (da nichts mehr importiert wird) und haben Vorbildwirkung. Sie 
setzen die Saat für die Ausbreitung der Gentechnikfreiheit. Jean 
Ziegler, ehemaliger UNO-Botschafter für das Recht auf Nahrung, 
drückte es klar aus: "Der Zerfall des Nationalstaates bringt den 
Zerfall des Gesellschaftsvertrages und die Atomisierung des Bürgers 
mit sich. (...) Wenn die Regierung keine Macht mehr hat, dann bleibt 
auch der Bürger ohnmächtig dem Raubtierkapitalismus ausgeliefert." 
Anmerkung: und damit natürlich auch der Gentechnik, denn sie ist die 
Ausgeburt des Raubtierkapitalismus.  

Es geht um die Sicherung der Lebensgrundlagen. Jeder ist betroffen, 
denn jeder isst jeden Tag.  


[1] Original-Presseaussendung von GM free Cymru (Wales) am 23. 
Februar
2010:

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice23Feb2010.htm  

[2]) 
http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2010/tbt/eec/10_0030_00_e.pdf


Text: Klaus Faißner 
Freier Journalist, 
Autor des Buches "Wirbelsturm und Flächenbrand. Das Ende der 
Gentechnik"  

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

OPEN LETTER 23rd February 2010


Formal Protest from Scientists: 
Commission Regulation on Implementing Rules for GM applications and
assessments

For the personal attention of President Jerzy Buzek, European 
Parliament, Brussels Email: Head of Cabinet 
maciej.popowski at europarl.europa.eu 22nd February 2010  


Dear Professor Buzek,

We write to you as a group of concerned European scientists. Purely 
by chance, we have found a new Draft EC Regulation (1) on the WTO web 
site, and we respectfully ask you (a) to take this as a formal 
protest relating to the content of that regulation, and (b) to bring 
this protest to the attention of the full Parliament at the earliest 
opportunity.  

We gather that this Regulation has been drafted by the Commission 
with great secrecy , submitted to the WTO under its conformity 
assessment procedure, and is due to be brought into law in May of 
this year without any consultation with the public, NGOs or consumer 
groups, and even without discussion among the "competent authorities" 
who are responsible for GMO risk management in the various countries 
of the EU. That causes us very great concern, even though the 
Commission might have followed the correct procedures for bringing in 
an "Implementing Regulation".  

Having undertaken a quick analysis of the Draft Regulation (which is 
long enough at 66 pages to require protracted examination!), we see a 
number of significant and worrying trends. It appears to us, at the 
outset, that this document is designed to speed up the regulatory / 
approvals process, in response to pressure from the US administration 
and the WTO. It also appears to represent a step along the way 
towards "harmonisation" or "synchronisation" of the approvals process 
on both sides of the Atlantic, by building in a whole range of 
measures which will ease the way for "simpler" and cheaper 
applications to come forward. This is to the considerable benefit of 
the multinational corporations, especially with respect to their 
plans for a new generation of "stacked" GM varieties, but we fear 
that it pays scant regard to the safety of animals and human beings, 
or to the protection of the environment.  

What we see in this Draft Reg document is a further move away from 
sound, independent science (and evidence-based policy) and a lurch 
towards a formal acceptance of a ruling hypothesis -- namely that GM 
crops and foods are harmless. There are few signs of checks and 
balances in the system as it is outlined, and hardly any options for 
the replication of scientific experiments. Since non-replicable 
science MUST be considered unreliable and even fraudulent, this is a 
move towards connivance in fraud. And that, in our view, is a very 
serious matter.  

We have a whole range of detailed comments on the text of the Draft
Regulation, which we are happy to submit to you. We summarize them in
Annex 1 below.

It is our firm belief that in this Draft Regulation the Commission 
far exceeds its implementing powers, as indicated in our Annex, for 
the most part through subtle changes of wording, and sometimes 
through omissions and explanations which are distorted. There are a 
number of new assumptions about GM safety which are NOT 
scientifically justified. There are also many policy changes which 
should have no place in an Implementing Regulation. The Draft 
Regulation fails to take account of the extensive recent literature 
relating to the harmful effects of GM, and it must therefore be 
redrafted.  

We gather that this Draft Regulation will shortly come before 
Parliament and Council for approval. We urge you, in view of the very 
great importance of this matter, to refuse approval and to insist 
upon an extended period of consultation, during which due 
consideration can be given (a) to any detailed comments you have 
received relating to the full text of the document, and (b) to the 16 
vital scientific issues which we have raised in this letter.  

We look forward to your confirmation that the draft text of this 
Regulation will be rejected, and then reconsidered and amended to 
take account of these valid concerns. We do not accept that this 
cannot be done at this late stage in the process, since the process 
is entirely under your control.  

We hope to hear from you in the near future. We are also sending this 
protest to your colleague Mr Herman Van Rompuy, President of the 
European Council.  

Yours sincerely,

Dr Brian John
Dr Jose Ramon Olarieta
Prof Brian Wynne
Dr Mae-wan Ho
Prof Jose L. Domingo
Prof Bob Orskov
Prof. Enric Tello
Dr Eva Novotny
Dr Irina Ermakova
Dr Naheeda Portocarero
Dr Arpad Pusztai
Prof Marcello Buiatti
Dr Susan Bardocz

Affiliations and qualifications available on request. 

=============================================================

Reference 

(1) Draft COMMISSION REGULATION on implementing rules concerning 
applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed 
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations No (EC) 
641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) 
http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2010/tbt/eec/10_0030_00_e.pdf  


----------------------------------------------------------------------
-

APPENDIX: SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS

1. REDUCED VIGILANCE

There is a noticeable lessening of vigilance on GM safety issues. 
With respect to feeding studies, we see an increasing emphasis on the 
nutritional equivalence of GM food/feed and a pretence that this can 
give guidance on health and safety. We know already that the majority 
of feeding studies submitted in application dossiers are not safety 
studies at all, but are concerned primarily with nutrition and 
productivity. In several places the Draft Reg text suggests that for 
nearly all GM food and feed varieties, "sufficient experience is 
available" for assumptions to be made about safety and to suggest 
that further studies are unnecessary. We dispute that contention. 
Elsewhere there is the comment that experimental testing "may be 
necessary" involving laboratory animals. That allows applicants to 
avoid lab tests if they can claim that a new variety coming forward 
is "substantially equivalent" to something already tested in the 
past. That is complacent, and it is bad science.  

2. DEROGATIONS AND DEALS

By watering down the regulatory requirements for animal testing, 
toxicology studies etc, there is a distinct possibility that EFSA can 
in future make convenient "deals" with applicants to bypass almost 
all of the studies that should be done. For example: "By way of 
derogation from paragraph 1, an application may be accepted even if 
it does not satisfy all the requirements set out in that paragraph, 
provided that the applicant submits verifiable justification for each 
element not complying with those requirements." Again: "........when 
studies have been already submitted for the purposes of an 
application to the European Food Safety Authority, a reference to 
such studies and the results of the evaluation may, with the 
agreement of the Authority, be made in the framework of another 
application...." Under "Toxicology" there is a paragraph which allows 
the applicant to "state reasons" why he does not need to submit 
required or recommended studies in order for a sound ruling to be 
made on safety and risk. We can take it as read that EFSA will be 
very accommodating........  

3. STACKED EVENTS

We have particular concerns about the method proposed for dealing 
with "stacked event" applications. "Second generation" GM crops, 
including those with supposedly enhanced nutritional value, are 
likely to be non-uniform and unstable because they have complex 
introduced traits. If two or more GM lines are hybridized to 
introduce "stacked" GM traits, the potential dangers become even 
greater because of synergistic effects. And yet it seems to us from a 
reading of the Draft Reg that applications for these complex 
varieties can be pushed through along a "fast track" process with 
simplified requirements, as indicated above. Applicants can simply 
provide a "scientific rationale justifying that there is no need for 
experimental data" for the relevant "sub-combinations." On the 
contrary, "stacked event" varieties should NEVER be approved for 
cultivation or use unless thy have been through a MORE onerous safety 
testing regime than the "single trait" varieties from which they are 
bred. There is a further, quite deliberate, muddying of the water. If 
it can be claimed that the stacking was done by conventional breeding 
(even if the lines used are GM lines) all that is needed is an 
"assessment" of nutritional or compositional changes, and "no further 
studies shall be recommended." (1.6)  

4. RESEARCH STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS

There is a distinct lack of clarity about the precise safety testing 
regime that should be employed with respect to new GM varieties. For 
example, applicants are simply urged to take into account relevant 
international standards, such as the guidelines of the Codex 
Alimentarius and the OECD for the conduct of food safety assessments 
on GM plants. Again, the text indicates that studies presented in 
applications "should" be carried out in accordance with "this 
Regulation", internationally agreed protocols and the test methods 
described by the OECD when available. What we have here are vague 
recommendations, with frequent use of the word "should" and hardly 
any use of the word "must." We know from past experience that EFSA 
does not actually insist on the highest Codex Alimentarius standards 
anyway, for example by accepting evidence based on the use of 
surrogate proteins, and not insisting on tests on cooked or uncooked 
whole GM foods.  

5. CHOICE OF COMPARATORS

It is fully accepted in the Codex Alimentarius and OECD Guidance 
documents that all tests of GM materials MUST involve comparisons 
with non-GM counterparts or isolines. otherwise the results will be 
meaningless with respect to GM effects. We are greatly concerned that 
under "Comparative analysis" in the Draft Reg there now appears to be 
leeway in the choice of "the conventional counterpart" and additional 
comparators. Our reading is that a GM counterpart or "original event" 
can now be used -- rather than the isoline or variety from which the 
GM plant was bred. This would be in clear breach of international 
protocols.  

6. SURROGATE PROTEINS

Under "Toxicology" it is proposed to allow "testing of newly 
expressed proteins" without any instruction or requirement that they 
have to be isolated or derived from the GM plant itself. Under 
"testing of newly expressed proteins" (1.4.1) the new regs say that 
the tested protein "shall be equivalent to the newly expressed 
protein as it is expressed in the GM plant." The use of "surrogate 
proteins" in past research has been a major scandal, and applicants 
have been allowed to get away with it over and again. This is bad 
science, and scientific fraud is inevitable -- with potentially 
dramatic consequences for public health.  

7. INSERTIONAL MUTAGENESIS

We can find no mention of this in the Draft Reg, although it is 
predicted on theoretical grounds and demonstrated in GM plants 
already in cultivation. Under "molecular characterization" there is 
no requirement for information on the effect of the GM process on the 
genome of the recipient plant (insertional mutagenesis.) There is no 
request or instruction for applicants to LOOK FOR insertional 
mutagenesis. This is a major defect, again with safety and health 
implications.  

8. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE MARKER GENES

In the text, we can see no requirement that ARMs (antibiotic 
resistance marker genes) MUST be removed after initial plant 
breeding. All the EC appears to insist upon is this: "The risk 
assessment may be facilitated if the presence of inserted DNA not 
essential to achieve the desired trait is minimised." (See also Annex 
II, 2.1) That is hardly a tough statement of policy or intent, and 
there are public health implications.  

9. MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION

There are a number of major deficiencies in the Draft Reg. Under 
"Hazard Identification" there is no requirement for information on 
the donor organism, its safety or health effects, allergenicity and 
so forth. As indicated above, the effect of the GM process on the 
genome of the recipient plant (insertional mutagenesis) MUST be 
demonstrated. Relating to DNA, applicants can submit a sequence as it 
was "intended to be inserted" -- which may of course turn out to be 
quite unlike the sequence actually contained within the 
commercialised GM plant. And when it comes to the expression of 
inserts, the text says that where tissue- specific promoters have 
been used, information "may" be requested on the expression of target 
genes in other plant parts relevant for risk assessment. That means 
that such information may also NOT be requested.........   

10. SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

Under 1.3.2.1. (Description of the protocols for the experimental 
design, (a) Principles of experimental design) there is a fascinating 
and protracted discussion on how an applicant is supposed to 
demonstrate that a GM variety is substantially different and 
substantially equivalent to its "counterpart", all at the same time. 
Please forgive us for saying so, but this is like something from a 
comedy show, and is a perfect example of science in the mad-house. In 
any case, there is now overwhelming evidence that GM varieties are 
substantially different from their isolines.  

11. SAFETY STUDIES INVOLVING ANIMALS

The Draft Regs appear to accept that 90-day rodent feeding studies 
need not be designed "to detect effects on reproduction or 
development, other than effects on adult reproductive organ weights 
and histopathology." Why not? Reproductive effects are of massive 
potential significance, and the effects of reproductional toxicity 
should be looked for during and after the first generation. 
Applicants are given the option to test the whole food and feed 
beyond a 90-day rodent feeding study, "where appropriate." It is 
beyond belief that any applicants will ever do this, if they are 
given the option not to. Given what we already know about toxic 
effects arising from the consumption of GM feed, full lifetime 
studies on rats should be mandatory. There is also no requirement 
even for short-term livestock feeding studies (1.4.4.4. 
Interpretation of relevance of animal studies) -- although the Draft 
Regs say they may be considered, on a case-by-case basis and be 
hypothesis-driven. Again, there is no chance whatsoever that any such 
studies will be done voluntarily. There should be a clear requirement 
for lifelong feeding studies on "target animals" -- ie those which 
will consume GM materials for the whole of their lives. (1.6.2) Also 
there is very little in the document about the indirect effects of 
herbicide residues arising from the planting of RR or other herbicide 
tolerant GM crops, although by law these effects must be identified 
and revealed. This is another major defect. Again, there is no 
requirement placed on applicants to look for the synergistic or 
combined effects of herbicide treatment and transgenes on either 
nutritional value or toxicology. We already know, for example, that 
certain transgenic rice varieties have reduced nutritional value in 
addition to other defects.  

12. DEPENDENCE ON INDUSTRY STUDIES

Under 1.4.5. (Conclusion of the toxicological assessment) there is 
mention of various "adverse effects" that might be identified in 
feeding and other studies. But it is extraordinary that the EC 
proposes that all of the assessment of the safety studies should be 
done by the applicant, with no independent involvement or 
verification studies. Does the EC really think that an applicant is 
going to point out potential adverse effects in his toxicology 
studies? The invitation in 1829/2003 for independent reviews of the 
raw data, or for peer-reviewed studies to be submitted, has now been 
ditched. There are two problems here. The first is that EFSA and the 
EC assume the honesty of Monsanto, Syngenta and other corporations 
which are renowned for their expertise in scientific fraud. The 
second is that the research which the regulators accept as honest is 
almost always non-replicable, since the seed and feed owners will not 
permit truly independent research teams to use their materials for 
repeat or improved experiments. In spite of frequent invitations, the 
Commission has consistently refused to address this issue, although 
it was invited to do so by the Environment Council on 4th December 
2008. In our view all industry-sponsored research on GM safety must 
be assumed as designed to produce "convenient" results, until it is 
independently verified.  

13. ANALYSES OF RAW DATA  

There is no requirement in the Draft Regs for an applicant to release 
or reveal his test data for peer group or public review -- he is only 
asked to "justify his conclusions" or to "consider" or "evaluate" his 
data. That is a nonsensical state of affairs. This is a very 
controversial area, given that EFSA connives in the "protection" of 
data and experiment information if applicants claim it under the 
"commercial in confidence" rules. There is secrecy and censorship on 
a scale that is entirely inappropriate, and where there is no threat 
whatsoever to intellectual property rights. It is unacceptable that 
interested parties have to resort to the courts in order to achieve 
public access to experimental data and to facilitate peer review by 
independent scientists. Under 3.2.2.2. (Information of variation of 
constituents from databases) we find the following: "Based upon the 
considerations above, the applicant shall establish whether the 
differences and/or lack of equivalence observed are to be considered 
relevant for further consideration in the risk assessment process or 
if the difference and/or lack of equivalence does not raise safety 
concerns". This allows applicants to argue that observed differences 
between test animal groups are "not biologically significant" even if 
they are statistically significant. We therefore ask for the 
following to be added: "Statistically significant differences shall 
always raise safety concerns." Furthermore, we condemn the common 
practice of EFSA in accepting without question the data analyses 
conducted by applicants, while subjecting independent analyses of the 
same data to sceptical and even hostile scrutiny. This can only lead 
to accusations of complacency, connivance in defective science, and 
lack of objectivity in the "facilitation" of GM approvals.  

14. POST-MARKET MONITORING

"When necessary, a proposal for post- market monitoring regarding the 
use of food for human consumption and/or the use of feed for animal 
consumption shall be submitted in accordance with Annex III." The 
Annex allows the applicant and EFSA to say "we have monitored past 
crops that have now been combined into a stacked event -- so 
monitoring of the stacked event in the field and in the food chain is 
unnecessary." That is unacceptable to us, for the reasons outlined 
above. Annex III also implies that, as long as a Post-Marketing 
Proposal is submitted, it is permitted to market a product even if 
"it is not possible to address remaining uncertainties", if "the 
relevance and intensity of effects and side-effects ... are difficult 
to predict", and if "potential side-effects are identified but cannot 
be studied in ... the safety assessment". In other words, the company 
need not bother to test safety thoroughly, as long as it will 
continue to collect some data (unspecified) about the general public 
and any animals that are given the GM food / feed, in order to see 
whether people or animals are becoming ill in large numbers. This 
again is irresponsible, and completely unacceptable.  

15. HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

We see signs in the Draft Regs that the Commission and EFSA are 
making unjustified assumptions about the safety of GM crops and 
foods. For example, on the matter of allergenicity, there is a 
watering down of long-established requirements to show that GM plants 
are not harmful. Now we see the use of vague terms such as "depending 
on the available information"...... with no requirement for studies 
to demonstrate safety in use. Also, there seems to be a conflation of 
Nutritional assessment and Exposure assessment. The Draft Regs say: 
"If possible, the applicant shall identify and consider particular 
sections of the population with an expected high exposure and shall 
within the risk assessment (stet)." There is a drafting error here -- 
but in our view there should be a strict requirement for a written 
analysis of sections of the population that might be at increased 
risk from the consumption of GM food or animal products from GM-fed 
animals -- for example, vegetarians or those with coeliac disease 
might be subjected to high levels of GM soy intake.  

16. RESEARCH BLOCKING

In Annex IV we find these words: Applicants shall provide "samples of 
the food and feed and their control samples of a type and amount to 
be specified by the CRL for the specific application for 
authorisation." Also: "The applicant shall provide information as 
regards the place where the reference material can be accessed. This 
shall be accompanied by adequate information demonstrating that the 
availability of the reference material will be maintained throughout 
the period of validity of the authorisation." Generally, CRL only 
requires enough reference material for verification of the GM event, 
and for confirming the efficacy of test methods etc. There is NO 
requirement for applicants to provide adequate quantities (of GM 
varieties and their isolines) for independent verification or repeats 
of their safety experiments and feeding trials. So effectively the 
applicants retain full control of their reference materials and have 
to make no commitment to provide extra material either for the EC or 
for anybody else. As indicated in (12) above, this means that all of 
their experiments are NON- REPLICABLE -- and on that basis alone they 
should not even be considered by the regulators as valid "science." 
What do the Commission and EFSA propose to do about this blatant and 
on-going abuse of scientific ethics?  

--

Similar letter to:
Mr Herman Van Rompuy 
President of the European Council 
Brussels 
ec.president at consilium.europa.eu
23rd February 2010





Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste Gen-Info