GM crops:
On this page:
Latest news - EU consultation on seeds, GM
coexistence
Organic
Strategy Group approach to GM
Other
websites.
For GM information see:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/news.htm.
In Wales, GM Free Cymru distributes information by e-newsletter, to
subscribe, contact Tom
Latter.
|
The
Organic Strategy Group wishes to see Wales’ currently GM-free
status maintained.
If GM crops were grown in Wales, this would undermine the Welsh
Assembly Government’s policies to promote the development of the
organic sector as well as consumer confidence in the organic sector
in Wales.
The
Organic Strategy Group has already set out its policy on the growing
of genetically modified crops in Wales (click
here.) It is outlined in brief below.
Recommendations
- as set out in the Second
Organic Action Plan for Wales 2005 - 2010
51.
The Welsh
Assembly Government should seek to maintain the GMO-free
status of Wales and
if possible secure legal protection for this. The Organic Strategy
Group supports the GM-Free Cymru campaign and recent Welsh Assembly
Government initiatives to link Wales with other EU regions concerned
seeking to achieve similar status. Should GM-free status not be
achieved then the following recommendations apply:
52.
The most
stringent co-existence
mechanisms possible
should be enforced.
53.
New
regulations should be drafted to require a separation
distance between
GM and organic holdings, to be set at 4 kilometres (km) for beet
crops, 8 km for maize and 10 km for oil seed rape; these distances
to be updated as more evidence comes forward. Current Welsh Assembly
Government regulations are considered to be inadequate to prevent
contamination of organic and other non-GMO crops.
54.
All those
intending to plant GMOs should notify
all neighbours,
including organic producers, within a 10 km radius of the holding.
The Welsh Assembly Government should be responsible for making those
proposing to grow GM crops aware of any current or prospective
organic farmers or producers in the vicinity and should also
maintain a register of GM production sites.
55.
Where organic
farmers are growing the same crop as a GM crop within 10km, the
biotechnology company concerned should pay for testing
of the
organic crop to ensure that it is free of GM contamination to the
level of 0.1% - the level of detection - and should compensate
the farmer
for the loss of earnings if the crop is found to be contaminated.
Financial risks and liabilities must not be transferred to organic
and non-GM producers.
56.
The Welsh
Assembly Government should work with relevant agencies to enforce a
requirement that all seeds,
conventional or organic, should be subject to a maximum GMO
contamination threshold of 0.1%.
57.
A legal
liability system in
which the biotechnology industry is responsible for any negative
economic, health or environmental effects resulting from the
planting of GMOs should be put in place. This must be done before
any marketing consent is given.
58.
If at any
stage new evidence comes to light of negative effects of GM crops,
the Welsh Assembly Government should work with relevant agencies to
achieve rapid revocation of consent for the growing of the crop. |
back
to top
See:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/gm/ec-sounds-alarm-bells-over-gm-crops20080512
A Consultation on "Community labelling thresholds for the adventitious
or technically unavoidable presence of authorised genetically modified
(GM) seeds in conventional seeds" closed in June. See
here.
The SOS website gives
useful information:
http://www.saveourseeds.org/en/frame.php?page=consultation
The consultation was very unsatisfactory as the questions were poorly
written, and the same intention could result in opposite responses,
depending on the interpretation of the questions. With the help of
The Organic Research Centre Elm Farm, and Tom Latter member of the
Organic Strategy Group, OCW prepared a response on behalf of the sector.
See the response here.
Although Defra opened and closed their coexistence consultation during
2006, see:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/news.htm , Wales has yet to
issue a consultation. OCW have, however, sent in comments to Defra
to ensure the voice of Welsh producers was heard. The comments
came from discussion at a workshop held at the annual OCW producers
conference 19th October 2006 at Builth Wells.
Outcome of the Welsh Organic Producers Conference 2006 – GM workshop.
The
overwhelming view of the workshop was that GM has no place in organic
food and farming and should be kept out, which is consistent with NAW
position. However, it was accepted that the technology could not be
uninvented and that GM crops were being grown in other
parts of the world. It was also worryingly noted that the EU and UK
Government policy was such that it was likely that some form of GM
cropping would occur in the UK in the near future.
With these factors in mind it was grudgingly accepted that for
labelling purposes 0.9% contamination, due to truly adventitious
presence (accidental and something that cannot be avoided), was
acceptable in organic products. This was based on the principle that
coexistence regimes must be established to aim for lowest detectable
level (0.1%) of contamination. This would require seed contamination
levels no higher than lowest detectable level; separation distances to
be set to maintain lowest detectable level and that independently
arbitrated, binding and fully encompassing liability and compensation
regime was put in place (that covers direct and indirect costs/losses to
organic producers). These restrictions must not result in additional
costs to the organic farmer. The GM industry/farmer must be fully
liable for implementing and funding the coexistence, compensation and
liability regime.
The acceptance of 0.9% for labelling was based on the belief that with
the above coexistence regime in place contamination at the farm gate
would be usually lowest detectable level and that 0.9% contamination
would be a rarity. If the set coexistence regime was found not to be
adequate to maintain contamination at these levels then this regime will
be reviewed and strengthened (with the GM industry/farmer liable for
implementation and cost of the regime) to maintain the above levels.
There was a fear voiced within the workshop that the 0.9% was a moveable
target that with lax coexistence regulations and increased contamination
would creep up. This must not be allowed to happen.
The workshop would want clarification on whether >0.9% is regarded as
non-GM in respect to the EU regulation.
19th
October 2006.
Dr
Bruce D Pearce
Deputy Research Director
Elm Farm Organic Research Centre
There were three further points of substance which had
the agreement of all present:
i) it was regarded as unacceptable that
private growers for personal consumption should be excluded from
consideration. It is wrong to say that their production should be
regarded as of no commercial value and it is even more wrong to deny
those who are prepared to invest the effort the right to control the
quality of the food they produce
ii) it was also regarded as
unacceptable that there should be no register of GM production. Such a
register is an essential underpinning of (a) ensuring that GM growers
are complying with their legal requirements and (b) any sort of
subsequent evaluation programme
iii) notification to neighbours must be
mandatory even when there is a no-separation-distance-required
situation.
back to current issues page
back
to top
Back
to main policy page
|
