c

Danger of GMOfor integrity of organic farming

Dorota Metera

EESC Public HearingAgricultural biotechnology:

genetically modified food and feed in the EUBrussels, October 20 th 2011

c

The Organic sector in the EU and Europe

Graphs: Organic market and organic land area in EuropeSources : EU Commission (2010) and data Compiled by FiBL, AMI and ORC 2011, based on national sources (2011)

• 9.2 Mio ha in 2009 under organic certification in the Europe

• Ca. 5% managed organically (EU-27 UAA in 2009)

• Average annual growth rate 2000-2008:6.7% in EU-15 and 20.0% in EU-12

• Organic sales in Europe approximately 20 Billion € in 2010; experts estimate market will double till 2020

c

(9) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products produced from or by GMOs areincompatible with the concept of organic production and consumers' perception of organicproducts. They should therefore not be used in organic farming or in the processing oforganic products.

(10) The aim is to have the lowest possible presence of GMOs in organic products. The existing labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are exclusively linked to the adventitiousand technically unavoidable presence of GMOs.

Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007on organic production and labelling of organic products

Dangers: • adventitious polution by not identified GM-varieties cultivation –2003 – 2005: several GM contamination cases in Spain with Bt176 and MON810 (up to 34%). Organic certificates and premium prices lost. Loss of local varieties of seeds.

• not identified GM-varieties cultivation in Poland - according ISAAA -International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications –3 000 ha of maize in unknown locations, because of the Directive2001/18/EC on deliberate release of GMOs is not implemented* Data of 2010

c

(30) The use of GMOs in organic production is prohibited. For the sake of clarity and coherence, it should not be possible to label a product as organic where it has to be labelled as containing GMOs, consisting of GMOs or produced from

GMOs.

Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007on organic production and labelling of organic products

Coexistence is too expensive for organic and traditional producers!

Danger: adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs - thecase of Polish animal feed processing plant in 2010, who produced for many yearsorganic and conventional animal feed formulas on the same line. Although proper cleaning and separation measures were in place, it was not possible to avoid contamination and the company stopped the production oforganic feed formulas. Since 2010 Polish organic egg producers are buing organicfeed by Dutch and German companies, the price is 50% higher than Polishproducts.

c

Organic production shall be based on the following principles:

(a) the appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems using natural resources which are internal to the system by methods that:

(iii) exclude the use of GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs with the exception of veterinary medicinal products;

Regulation 834/2007Article 4General rules

cRegulation 834/2007Article 9Prohibition on the use of GMOs

1. GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs shall not be used as food, feed, processing aids, plant protection products, fertilisers, soil conditioners, seeds, vegetative propagating material, micro-organisms and animals in organic production.

2. For the purpose of the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 concerning GMOs or products produced from GMOs for food and feed, operators may rely on the labels accompanying a product or any other accompanying document,

3. …. with regard to products not being food or feed, or products produced by GMOs, operators using such non-organic products purchased from third parties shall require the vendor to confirm that the products supplied have not been produced from or by GMOs.

Danger: credibility of the vendor

cRegulation 834/2007Art. 22Exceptional production rules

(g) where it is necessary to use food additives and other substances as set out in Article 19(2)(b) or feed additives and other substances as set out in Article 16(1)(d) and such substances are not available on the market other thanproduced by GMOs;

Danger: possible change of production method of vitamin B 2 to GMO.

Traditionally produced vitamin B 2 not avaiable ?

cCOMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control

Article 69Vendor declaration

For the purpose of the application of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 the vendor declaration that products supplied have not beenproduced from or by GMOs may follow the model set out in Annex XIII to this Regulation.

Danger: credibility of the vendor

c

Correct labelling of products containing GMO

c

Chicken feed formulaEKOKURCZAK 1(Eko-chicken)

containing soy bean MON 40-3-2

Misleading labelling of products containing GMOby the use of EKO

cPrivate labels of GMO-free products

„Free soup”

• GM free

• egg free

• colouring free

• phosphate free

• emulsifier free

• stabiliser free

• artificial flavouring free

• and hardly any fat

c

Labelling of GMO-free products

Austria since 6.03.2008 Germany since 1.05.2008

cCampaigns against GMO

cConsumerattitudes- GMOs

EU consumers

• 66 % are worried about GMO in food (Eurobarometer 354; 2010)

EU Organic consumers

• name freedom of GMOs amongstimportant reasons to buy organic

food

14

... not only in Europe....

GM foods is not good for you and your family(Source: Eurobarometer, Biotechnology report, October 2010)

cPolish experience:Campaing against seed law proposal introducing GM varieties withoutimplementation of the directive 2001/18/EC on deliberate release of GMOs

1.07.2011 – Sejm (Lawer Chamber of Polish Parliament) decided theproposal od seed law introducing GM varieties

30.07.2011 – Senat approved the proposal

Social and media campaign againts GMO (over 6000 votes on the web site ofPolish President were collected asking to vetoe the seed law)

24.08.2011 – Bronisław Komorowski, President of Poland vetoed the seedlaw

Problem not solved:• theoretical ban of GM plant varieties,• no monitoring and control mechanisms, • no information about the cultivation of GM crops,• practically – not identified GM fields

cPolish experience:more facts:

2010 – complainst of Foundation Institute of Civil Affairs to the DG Health & Consumers that Poland does not fulfilling the obligation of monitoring and controlling GMO as it is reguired by the Directive 2001/18/EC

8.08.2011 – reply of DG Health & Consumers:

• no obligation of taking appropiarte measures by the Member States to avoid theunintended presence of GMO in other products,

• no detailed obligation in regard of informing the landowners in case of land leaseand the neighbours about GMO cultivation,

• formal request to the Polish government how the Directive 2001/18/EC istransposed to Polosh legislation and executed.

26.08.2011 – Wikileaks on influences of American diplomates on Polish ministerialofficials

cOrganic sector demands regardingsocio-economic impacts

• Socio-economic impacts of placing on the market and the cultivation of GMOs for the non-GMO sector must be considered before any authorisation, societal benefits and costs must be considered

• Precautionary principle must apply, also regarding socio-economic impacts

• An EU wide liability system must ensure that costs for prevention of contamination, testing and social and economic damages in case of contamination are covered by those companies that benefit from GMOs placing on the market

• EU wide legally binding rules for co-existence have to be established that guarantee food and farming can stay GMO free

(The whole food production chain, different regional structures, costs for the prevention of contamination and mitigation measures in case of contamination in: seed production, on the field; cleaning of commonly used machinery, transport and storage facilities; sampling, testing, segregation systems, compensation for damage and loss of reputation must be considered.)

17