[Pirateninfo] WTO - Schmeiser - Seeds - Bayer

[Martin Sundermann]

THE NEXT TRADE WAR? GM PRODUCTS, THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL AND THE WTO
NGO'S SEEK STANDING IN MONSANTO V. SCHMEISER
EU: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT GMOS IN SEEDS
BAYER ABANDONS BRITISH CROP TRIALS


THE NEXT TRADE WAR? GM PRODUCTS, THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL AND THE WTO
September 2003
The Royal Institute Of International Affairs Sustainable Development
Programme Briefing Paper No. 8
Duncan Brack, Robert Falkner and Judith Goll
Complete paper available at:
http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf (ca.550kb, 12 S.)
On 20 May 2003 the United States initiated a dispute under the World Trade
Organization (WTO) about the European Union¹s de facto moratorium on the
approval of new uses of genetically modified (GM) products. Following the
failure of the consultation stage of the WTO¹s dispute settlement procedure,
a dispute panel was established at the end of August, signalling the
long-expected opening shots in what may turn out to be a serious and
long-running trade conflict between the US and the EU.
The dispute settlement process, if pursued through all its stages, including
the final Appellate Body ruling, normally takes between twelve and eighteen
months to complete. Whatever its outcome, it is quite likely that further
disputes may be initiated, given the rapid evolution of national regulatory
regimes for GM products, and also the entry into force of the Cartagena
Protocol, the multilateral environmental agreement regulating trade in GM
products, on 11 September.
As commercial GM products have only been deployed since the mid-1990s, there
is still considerable debate and uncertainty over their impacts on health,
the environment, industrial structures and market power. Given the
deep-seated cultural differences towards science, technology and government
regulation between US and EU consumers, trade disputes centring on GM
products will be particularly difficult to resolve. This briefing paper aims
to provide the background to the likelihood of many years of ongoing
argument and dispute.
http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Next%20trade%20war%20GM%20%20CP%20&%20WTO%20Brack%20et%20al%20Sept%2003.pdf

NGO'S SEEK STANDING IN MONSANTO V. SCHMEISER
September 30, 2003
>From a press release
OTTAWA, ON - Today, a coalition of NGOs, led by the Council of Canadians,
applied to intervene in the patent infringement case involving Saskatchewan
farmer Percy Schmeiser and biotechnology giant Monsanto that will be heard
by the Supreme Court of Canada.  The Federal Court of Appeal found that
Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's patent rights to genetically
engineered canola. The Supreme Court has granted Schmeiser the right to
appeal that ruling. Intervener status would allow the Council of Canadians
and its coalition partners to make submissions to the Supreme Court
countering Monsanto's arguments.  "This will be the first time that an
appellate court anywhere in the world will consider what infringement means
on a patent to a genetically modified life form" says Steven Shrybman, the
lawyer representing the coalition. "The Court's decision is likely to have a
considerable impact on both the domestic and international debate about
patents to life." The coalition also involves Canadian organisations such as
the Sierra Club of Canada and the National Farmers Union.  "This case is far
greater than just Percy Schmeiser," says Terry Boehm of the National Farmers
Union. "Given the level at which Monsanto's GE canola has contaminated
Western Canada, the implied liability for all Canadian farmers is enormous.
We simply cannot allow the current verdict against Schmeiser to stand."
The precedence associated with this ground-breaking case has also attracted
key international groups to the coalition. These include the Action group on
Erosion, Technology, and Concentration, the Washington-based International
Center for Technology Assessment, and the Research Foundation for Science,
Technology and Ecology, led by renowned Indian environmentalist Dr. Vandana
Shiva.
"If other jurisdictions were to follow the approach adopted by the Federal
Court of Appeal in this case, the result would undermine the seed-saving
practices of hundreds of million of farmers whose livelihoods depend on this
practice. Moreover, because seed saving fosters biodiversity and increases
productivity, any new constraint on the practice of saving seeds is likely
to harm both goals," says Dr. Shiva.
"Unfortunately, a policy and regulatory vacuum continues to exist in Canada
when it comes to biotechnology and genetically engineered foods," adds
Nadège Adam of the Council of Canadians. "This is yet another example of how
our government has dropped the ball on these issues."
The case is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court on January 20,
2004.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT GMOS IN SEEDS
September 29, 2003
European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Press Release
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO
/03/186|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=
Brussels - Questions and Answers about GMOs in seeds What is the EU seeds
legislation?
The Directives on the marketing of agricultural and vegetable seeds aim to
improve the quality of seeds (e.g. identity and purity of the variety)
marketed in the EU. Specific requirements are set out on sealing, labelling
and documentation.
If technical amendments and updates of the Directives are necessary, the
Commission is assisted by Member States in adopting measures through the
Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture,
Horticulture and Forestry. A Management Committee composed of
representatives of the Member States assists the Commission in those cases.
A Commission proposal can be rejected by qualified majority. The Commission
can despite this adopt the proposed law but has to get an opinion of
Council. If Council rejects it as well with qualified majority the law is
annulled. The European Parliament has a right of information.
Is there separate legislation on GM seeds?
Yes there is. All GM seed varieties have to be approved and authorised in
the EU for cultivation under Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release
into the environment of genetically modified organisms or under the
Regulation on genetically modified food and feed which will soon enter into
force. Authorisation is only granted after a positive scientific assessment
has concluded that no unacceptable risks to the environment or human health
is likely to appear.
Why is there a need to set thresholds for GM-impurities in conventional
seeds?
Legislation on seeds has always recognised that a 100% purity is not
possible, which is why thresholds have been set which take into account the
fact that plants are grown in an open field, that cross-pollination is a
natural phenomenon and that one cannot control wind and insects which
contribute to this. For example, certified soya beans may have up to 1%
impurities of another soy variety. Impurities can arrive through
cross-pollination, dissemination of volunteers and at harvest, transport and
storage.
Thresholds in seeds also exist for the presence of harmful organisms, e.g.
mushrooms.
Genetic modifications have been introduced in beet, maize, potato, swede
rape, soya bean, cotton, chicory and tomato world-wide. Only GM-maize,
GM-swede rape, GM-soya bean and GM-chicory are currently authorised in the
EU. Requests for authorisation for GM-potatoes, GM-beet and GM-cotton have
been made.
The EU is also heavily dependent on imports of conventional seeds from third
countries where GM cultivation is present. About 33% maize seeds are
imported, 80% soya bean seeds, 66% cotton seeds and 10% rape seeds.
The experience of recent years shows that the ³adventitious² or ³technically
unavoidable² presence of traces of GMOs in conventional seeds has therefore
become inevitable since it is an existing reality.
But although the seed directives lay down minimum conditions in respect of
the seed harvested and intended to be marketed, in particular in respect of
varietal purity, they do not include specific requirements regarding the
presence of genetically modified seeds in seed lots of non-genetically
modified varieties.
Therefore, to recognise this reality and to facilitate the marketing of
seeds with traces of GM presence, it is proposed to establish de minimis
thresholds for such presence of authorised GM varieties only.
The thresholds should be adapted to the reproductive system of the plants
concerned, the vegetative cycle, as well as the probability of adventitious
presence in the seed crop.
Conditions and requirements could also be included for other plant species,
if appropriate, in the future.
What thresholds for GM-presence in conventional seeds will the Commission
propose?
The proposed thresholds will be established according to the species and
taking into account the reproductive systems of the plants:
0.3% for swede rape
0.5% for beet, maize, potato, cotton, chicory and tomato
0.7% for soya bean
The opinion of the Scientific Committee of Plants (SCP) of 7 March 2001
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html
concerning the adventitious presence of genetically modified seed in
conventional seed has been considered while establishing the thresholds
proposed. The opinion has been reviewed and confirmed on 24 April 2002 and
on 30 January 2003.
What is the aim of such thresholds, what is the relationship between the
seed thresholds and the labelling thresholds for food and feed products?
The thresholds which will be proposed will be established at levels such
that food, feed or products intended for direct processing produced from
crops grown from non-genetically modified seed should have a GMO content not
exceeding the 0.9% threshold adopted by Council and European Parliament and
provided for by Regulation (EC) N°  /2003 on genetically modified food and
feed and by Regulation (EC) N°  ../2003 on traceability and labelling of
GMOs²).
What kind of GMOs will benefit from the thresholds proposed?
It must be stressed that only GMOs which have been assessed for their safety
to human health and the environment and authorised to be cultivated will
benefit from the seed thresholds.
The GM seeds present adventitiously must indeed be authorised either a) as
GMOs for use in cultivation under Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms or b) the
genetically modified organisms for food or feed use must be authorised to be
used as seeds under Regulation (EC) N°  ./2003 on genetically modified food
and feed.
In the case of presence of traces of genetically modified seeds in seeds of
a non-genetically modified variety to be used in food or feed, only GM
material derived from such GM seeds used in food or feed which is authorised
under Regulation (EC) N°  ./2003 on genetically modified food and feed is
tolerated.
In order to benefit from the seed thresholds, the presence of GM seeds must
in addition be adventitious or technically unavoidable.
Where the threshold is exceeded or where the presence is not adventitious or
technically unavoidable, the label or document of a non-genetically modified
variety should state that the lot contains genetically modified seeds and
should specify the unique identifier(s) of the GMO(s).
Will these thresholds be important for the co-existence of genetically
modified crops with conventional and organic farming?
The Commission has adopted 23 July 2003 a Recommendation on guidelines for
the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the
coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic
farming.
In this Recommendation it is emphasised that co-existence refers to the
ability of farmers to make a practical choice between the different types of
agriculture, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or
purity.
It is stated that national strategies and best practices for co-existence
should refer to the legal labelling thresholds and to the applicable purity
standards for food, feed and seed. The standards for food and feed have just
been established under the Regulation on GM food and feed. An amendment of
the seeds Directives will therefore provide the missing thresholds for
seeds.
(Aktionspostkarten ordern unter www.saveourseeds.org bzw. info at saveourseeds.org - Stichtag: 20.Oktober)

TOP GM FOOD COMPANY ABANDONS BRITISH CROP TRIALS
September 28, 2003
The Observer
Robin McKie, science editor
A key GM crop developer, Bayer, the last company carrying out GM trials in
the UK, has, according to this story, decided to halt UK trials of
genetically modified plants, though it said yesterday it hoped to start up
again soon when conditions were Œmore favourable¹.
The company blamed Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett for its decision.
Her insistence that the locations of all trial sites be made public had
forced its hand, a spokesman was cited as telling The Observer.
The story says that until last week, Bayer CropScience, Bayer¹s crop
subsidiary. believed it was close to a deal that would allow GM crop test
sites - which are regularly destroyed by protesters - to be kept secret.
Instead of having to publish exact map references for fields, companies
would only have to name the county in which it was holding a trial.
The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment had said this vaguer
notification was Œacceptable in terms of risk assessment¹, while the police
have always complained that explicit disclosure of test site locations has
been a major factor in aiding Œcrop-trashers¹. But at the last minute the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told Bayer it
would not support this change in regulations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wir brauchen keine Bio-Terroristen, wenn wir Gentechniker haben."
Independent Science Panel (www.indsp.org)
-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde geschreddert...
URL: http://ilpostino.jpberlin.de/pipermail/info-mail/attachments/20030930/9f0240f6/attachment-0001.htm