Slashdot Mirror


EU Blocks France's Ban of Monsanto's GM Maize

redletterdave writes with an update to news from a few months ago that France had banned the growing of Monsanto's genetically modified corn. After reviewing the evidence France submitted in support of the ban, the European Food Safety Authority has now rejected it. An official opinion (PDF) stated that they "could not identify any new science-based evidence indicating that maize MON 810 cultivation in the EU poses a significant and imminent risk to the human and animal health or the environment."

8 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well, they couldn't prove... by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    The French are not big eaters of corn, anyways.

    Considering France is the 7th largerst producer of maize in the world that may not be true.

  2. Re:Well, they couldn't prove... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

    The French are not big eaters of corn, anyways.

    They may not enjoy corn on the cob, but they eat corn alright, as does most of the world, in the form of processed food. You find corn derivatives in a bewildering varieties of industrial foods.

    France also produces a lot of corn, amazingly, considering the problems they have with water table depletion every other summer.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. Re:Isn't that a rather low standard? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the actual conclusion;

    In conclusion, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that, based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment, that would support the notification of an emergency measure under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and that would invalidate its previous risk assessments of maize MON 810.

    Basically, the "significant imminent risk" standard is for the use of "emergency measure[s]". That does not mean that after study it will not be banned but that the emergency powers do not fit.

  4. Re:If I were french I'd be mad by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not because the EU overturned the ban, but because the EU can overrule national decisions in such important matters

    You obviously aren't aware of the French response to such interfering in their state affairs. Typically, they ask for the blessings of the EU as a formality; If they don't like the outcome, they don't pay any attention. If they're forced, the populace start setting fire to cars and breaking stuff, French media puts "EU Regulation Causing Riots Across Nation!" across the front pages, and everything goes back to normal.

    The French do love a good riot now and then.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  5. Inaccurate Summary, yet again. by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    The issue is that the ban in France was even overturned by their own courts as not being scientifically based. They then tried again to get it banned throughout the entire EU and failed again.

    Here is a quote;"

    EuropaBio, the European biotech industry group, urged French leaders to decide "whether they want to regain their position as a leader of agricultural innovation or support an anti-science agenda that weakens Europe's competitiveness" after a judgment on Monday from Paris's highest court.

    You might also want to check this out. Notice how many countries have approved the corn.

    Here is an interesting piece of information from this article;

    “The new ban is not justified by scientific evidence,” John Combest, a spokesman for Monsanto, said in a e-mail today. The company does not market MON810 in France because “we seek planting where we have broad farmer and government support,” Combest said.

    Now why would France want to ban something not even marketed in their country? Perhaps it is that they want to protect their own seed industry at the expense of growers in other EU countries.

    Take a look at this article. The EU has yet to order France to lift the ban and nothing will happen till after the election and any new government has shown its intentions. That has not happened.

    To summarize, the EU reviewed the corn last year and found no issues. France banned the corn, Their own courts overturned that ban. France banned it again. France applied to get the ban applied to all EU countries. The EU declined. That is where we stand today. The French ban is still in effect but there will be no EU ban.

  6. Re:HUH, so far i thought the EU is sane by hughbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, as an EU 'citizen' and someone who worked for the EEC for about ten years [as a consultant, to my shame] I agree with this. The apparatus of Brussels is divorced from the wishes of the great unwashed [us], non-transparent, mediocre, subject to continual lobbying [Axa, Microsoft, Monsanto], undemocratic [the votes 'for' the Euro were exceptionally thin, even in France, had to be 'done again' in Ireland] and unresponsive.

    This book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Democracy-Europe-Larry-Siedentop/dp/0140287930 deals with some of the arguments about drift, neo-liberalism and democratic deficit.

    Sanity is a relative thing, it's saner than Gadaffi's Libya and probably saner than the worst of corporate America, but not healthy in many other ways.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  7. Re:Well, they couldn't prove... by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Informative

    [...]a potentially malevolent vendor,[...]

    You suggest that Monsanto is only "potentially malevolent"? They make a business of killing small farm businesses. Their legal department is larger than their scientific department. They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds. What makes you still doubt?

  8. Re:Well, they couldn't prove... by sFurbo · · Score: 4, Informative

    They created life that cannot reproduce, so that farmers have to come to them each year to buy new seeds.

    The terminator genes were developed to limit the possibility of spreading traits, e.g. pesticide resistance, to weeds. It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.