Udvalget for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri 2006-07
KOM (2005) 0163 Bilag 2
Offentligt
370927_0001.png
April 2007
Genetically engineered maize: illegal, risky and out of control
Greenpeace detects illegal transgenic maize in US shipment to The Netherlands
On 10 April 2007 a Greenpeace biosafety patrol tested the Vessel Pakrac
1
in the
harbour of Rotterdam. The Pakrac was coming from the US (New Orleans, Port Davant)
with maisgluten for animal feed on board. The ship had left the US on the 11th of March
and offloaded part of its cargo on the 31st of March till the 5th of April in Dublin. Then it
came to Rotterdam harbour on 10 April where they started off loading again. Activists
from Greenpeace Netherlands were allowed on board the Pakrac and spoke to the
captain. The captain claimed that the maize cargo was free from genetic engineered
organisms. The captain agreed to give two samples to Greenpeace activists. The
samples, one maize meal and the other maize pellets, were sent to an accredited
laboratory for analysis.
On the 27
th
of April Greenpeace recieved the results of the laboratory testing showing
the presence of the illegal maize.
In the samples from the maize pellets 2.4 % percent of GE maize Pioneer/ DOW
Herculex RW (Das 59122-7) was demonstrated. This GE maize variety is not
approved for commercial use in the EU. Therefore the cargo of the Pakrac has
illegally entered the EU.
In adittion Monsanto GE maize MON863 was found to a percentage of 20 %. GE maize
MON 863 is under suspicion from posing significant health risks, after French scientsist
recently published a study which demonstrates that laboratory rats, fed with a genetically
engineered (GE) maize MON 863, have shown signs of toxicity in kidney and liver.
2
These results are highly alarming as it is proven once more that the existing
mechanisms of EU legislation concerning GMOs are not effective and cannot protect
consumers, farmers, companies and the environment from unwanted GE contamination.
The discovery of Pioneer’s Herculex maize is the fourth genetically engineered (GE)
product that was discovered to enter the EU illegally during last two years. Previously
EU consumers, businesses and authorities have been set in alarm when unapproved
1
The ship is owned by the Croatian shipping company 'Tankerska Plovidba' from Zadar, and is registered
at St. Vincent & The Grenadines.
2
G-E, Cellier, D. & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically
modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
i
Séralini,
PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
370927_0002.png
varieties of a Syngenta Genetically Engineered (GE) maize (BT10), a Bayer GE rice
(LL601), and a Chinese GE rice (Bt63) entered the EU illegally.
Herculex GE insect resistant maize (59122)
Herculex maize (59122) is a maize that is genetically engineered to resist the corn
rootworm. The fact that they are in animal feed being imported into the EU raises food
and feed safety issues. Although European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently gave
an opinion on this maize saying it was “unlikely to have any adverse effect on human
and animal health”, this is not a good indicator for the safety of Herculex maize. The
confidence in EFSA’s GMO opinions has been undermined by a series of incidents in
which EFSA has ignored scientific evidence (including evidence by EU member states)
pointing at negative effects (such as signs of toxicity) of GMOs on test animals.
Studies on test animals with Herculex maize show several adverse effects such as:
statistically significant decreases in absolute reticulocyte count
increases in mean corpuscular haemoglobin and mean corpuscular haemoglobin
concentration
3
The findings in the blood parameters in the 90 day feeding trial are of particular
importance because these effects are noticed after only a short time. They could give an
indication of toxicity in the longer term. This is similar to concerns expressed with
MON863. However, EFSA simply dismiss all these differences (as they did with
MON863) saying results are within historical or literature ranges or simply that they are
“unlikely to be of any biological significance”.
Monsanto MON 863: high- risk GE maize
A recently-published scientific study by French scientists, showed that MON863 has
significant health risks associated with it. Reviewing research data from Monsanto’s own
tests on Bt maize MON863, Dr. Seralini and his colleagues came to the conclusion that
evidence available to Monsanto and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) prior to
the authorisation of MON863 was clear: rats fed on MON863 during the 90 days trials
showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity and significant variations in growth. These data,
however, were disregarded in the authorisation process.
Clearly, the conclusions of Dr. Seralini’s and his team are another nail in the coffin for
the credibility of the EU authorisation system. These findings confirm that EFSA has
failed to conduct full environmental and health risk assessments, as required by EC
legislation. ESFA has not to date analysed the long-term effects of GMOs and has
ignored diverging scientific opinions voiced by the EU Member States´ competent
authorities.
A history of contamination in EU – a history of failure of EU mechanisms
3
EFSA 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application
(Reference EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-12) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified
maize 59122, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, from
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. and Mycogen Seeds, c/o Dow Agrosciences LLC. (Question No EFSA-Q-
2005-045) Opinion adopted on 23 March 2007.
The EFSA Journal
(2007) 470, 1-25
PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
370927_0003.png
The last two years the number of contamination incidents have been increasing around
the world. In the absence of an official register of these incidents Greenpeace and
Genewatch have launched a website which monitors all the contamination cases
4
The most significant contamination cases that EU has experienced recently are:
Syngenta’s GE Maize Bt10
5
On 22 March 2005, the science journal
Nature
revealed that a line of GE maize, Bt10,
that does not have regulatory approval anywhere in the world had been grown
accidentally for four years in the US and Canada.
6
The breach was reported by the
company to the US authorities in December 2004, but was not made public until three
months later. In response the European Commission demanded that the USA ensure
that shipments to Europe did not contain Bt10.
i
It also requested further information from
the company producing mazie Bt 10 –Syngenta- on the gene sequence and detection
methods. Emphasising the lack of information with which to determine a risk
assessment, the emergency measures to ensure that imports of maize products from the
USA were certified as free of Bt10 were formalised on 18 April 2005.
ii
Despite an illegal release of a GM organism having taken place in Europe, where all
releases require a licence, no further action is being taken against the company. The
angry press releases published by the Commission are belied by its apparent lack of
interest in holding the company to account in any meaningful way.
Recently, in 8 of March 2007, EU Commission (DG DANCO) decided to repeal its 2005
decision setting up emergency measures regarding Bt10 maize. The reason is that only
one case of products contaminated with bt10 has been found in the last two years.
However, EU should be more careful of repealing emergency measures as the lack of
strict and effective control mechanisms allows US contaminated commodities to enter
the EU market like in the case of Bayer’s GE rice (see below) and the present case of
Pioneers/Dow ge maize.
Bayer LL rice 601
On 18
th
of August 2006 US authorities announced that Bayer’s illegal LLRICE601 was
found on the market. As with Bt10, the variety had last been grown in field trials
in
2001,
yet it was found throughout the rice growing areas of the USA in 2006 in one of the most
commonly used varieties, Cheniere. LLRICE601 has not been approved for human
consumption anywhere in the world. Nevertheless, the product was exported widely from
the United States. How this contamination arose is still not known over a year after it
was first detected, and it has led to product withdrawals in a number of countries, further
damaging the confidence of consumers and food companies in the ability of the biotech
industry to control its products.
Rice contaminated with LLRICE601 has now been found across the world, including in
twenty European countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France,
4
www.gmcontaminationregister.org
See GM Contamination Register Report – special case study on BT10, 2005,
www.gmcontaminationregister,org
6
Macilwain C (2005) US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn.
Nature,
434,
423.
5
PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
370927_0004.png
Germany Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. LLRICE601contamination has also
been found in rice purchased in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Kuwait and the
Philippines, food aid in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and rice being imported into Russia.
On 23 of October EU decided to control every rice shipment. These measures are still in
place in EU.
Chinese Rice Br63
In September 2006, Greenpeace releases test results
7
showing Bt63 presence in rice
products imported from China into France and Germany. Friends of the Earth releases
similar information for the UK. In October 2006, France announces the discovery of
illegal Chinese rice on the EU’s Rapid Alert system. Subsequently the German and
Austrian Governments announce that additional Chinese foods contaminated with Bt63
were found
8
Later in October: European Commission receives official reply that the
Minister of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and
Quarantine of China is paying high attention to the contamination of food imported from
China.
Conclusions
In all the above cases, the official traceability mechanisms were unable to detect
the entrance of illegal unapproved varieties in the market.
In all cases, the information made known either from the biotech companies
themselves or by NGOs such as Greenpeace.
In the cases of Syngenta and Bayer there was a significant time delay between
the detection of contamination and the report to authorities
In all cases there was a delay of reaction from EU authorities to put emergency
measures and start controlling and recalling the contaminated unapproved
products.
As with Syngenta’s Bt10 contamination scandal in 2005, the cases of LLRICE601
and Bt63 show that field trials and GM crops not intended for commercialisation
are not being properly controlled
In all cases, no fines were put on biotech companies who cause the
contamination of the environment, agriculture and the food chain.
Authorities have been willing to bend the rules in the interests of the company
involved. The USA did not conduct an event-specific assessment of the BT10
crop; public consultation and publication of details required for a risk assessment
have been avoided. In Europe and Japan, despite an illegal act taking place, the
company has faced little more than stern requests for information which has then
been kept secret at the company’s insistence.
The potential for contamination with a plant modified to produce a drug, industrial
chemical or other biologically active protein can not be discounted and the
implications of such an accident are enormous. All indications are that the
biotech industry simply is not up to the task of managing its products safely and
responsibly..
7
8
See www.greenpeace.org
Greenpeace Market Report: the Collapse of GE Industry, www.greenpeace.org
PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
370927_0005.png
i
Commission seeks clarification on Bt10 from US authorities and Syngenta.
European Commission Press Release, 1 April 2005,
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/382
ii
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_101/l_10120050421en00140016.pdf.