GMO maize strains move closer to approval
EU scientists failed on Wednesday (26 February) to approve or reject a commission proposal to grant biotech companies a licence to produce two strains of genetically modified maize.
The two strains being considered by a European Commission scientific standing committee, Bt-11 maize produced by Swiss company Syngenta and 1507 maize produced jointly by Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroScience, however have both already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority.
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
"This decision only adds to our frustration with the lengthy and unscientific process to get our safe Bt11 maize product approved in Europe," Syngenta said in a statement.
However, European environmental groups who oppose the maize strains on ecological grounds fear EU voting systems will result in the licences being eventually granted anyway.
This is despite the fact that a majority of EU states currently oppose the cultivation of genetically modified crops.
"The commission is pushing forward with its completely pro-GMO agenda," Greenpeace activist Marta Vetier told EUobserver.
At Wednesday's expert meeting, six member states (with 91 votes) voted in favour of the proposal whereas 12 (with 127 votes) voted against it. Scientists from seven member states abstained, while those from Germany and Malta were not present for the vote.
The 127 votes against the proposal does not represent the qualified majority (255 votes) necessary to end the licence application so the decision will now go to the Council of Ministers - representing member-state governments - for a decision.
"All of the evidence before member states provides a firm basis for authorisation," said Syngenta.
"We hope that the council will seize the opportunity provided by the next vote to give EU farmers a choice to use a technology capable of making a significant contribution to sustainable agriculture."
Again here, a qualified majority is needed amongst ministers to either approve or reject the commission proposal to grant the 10-year licences to the two companies.
In the event that this qualified majority is not achieved, the commission may decide to go ahead and issue licences. Precedent suggests that it will.
To date only one GMO product, a maize strain produced by Monsanto, has been licensed for production in the EU and that was as far back as 1998 when rules governing such crops were different.
In recent years however, there has been an increase in the amount of GMO crops imported into the EU for both human and animal consumption.
Debate on GMO crops
Supporters of GMOs argue that they are a legitimate food source, with the potential to bring down food prices and greatly reduce world hunger. They point to countries such as Argentina and the US where such crops are grown successfully.
There is also extensive debate as to whether the EU's almost total ban on GMO production is in breech of WTO rules.
Additionally, advocates argue that genetic engineering of crops so that they resist common pests results in reduced levels of chemical spraying, something environmentalists should welcome, they say.
Environmental groups, however, point to a series of ecological concerns. The Bt-11 maize currently up for debate contains a gene normally found in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that causes the host species to produce a pest-killing toxin.
They point to US studies identifying extensive detrimental effects on insects that come into contact with such plants, whether they are considered pests or not.
There are also fears in the scientific community that bacteria can transfer such toxin-producing genes from one plant to another, thus transferring the pest immunity to other plant species that may not be considered beneficial to humans.
Likewise, new pests will frequently replace those avoided by genetic engineering of plants says Ms Vetier, so the argument for reduced spraying has little validity, she argues.