Farmers protected against GM patent lawsuits

Background

The WHO suggests that GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is a perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer from these foods. This desired result is cheaper products that provide greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value). Consumer interests are said to be at the core.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. According to the WHO, the GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Nevertheless, there are concerns that the development of GMOs could have significant long-term impacts for human health. The WHO sets out on its website the three main areas where there are risks to human health:

Allergenicity : As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer : Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing : The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

In order to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in complete safety the WHO has committed to undertake a holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products that considers not only safety but also food security, social and ethical aspects, access and capacity building. The European Union has established a legal framework to protect its citizens’ health and the environment while simultaneously creating a unified market for biotechnology. EU legislation establishes rules of traceability and labelling of GMOs and procedures on how to get them approved.

Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice. At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected [1].

On 4 December 2008, the Environment Council concluded a six-month process launched by the French EU Presidency aimed at overcoming the Council’s inability to take authorisation decisions on new GM products for cultivation in the EU.

Ministers agreed to:

 improve evaluation of the medium and long-term environmental impacts of GM crops, in particular of pesticide-producing and herbicide-resistant GM crops;
 launch a joint European Commission and member-state reflection group in 2009 to define and consider socio-economic implications of placing GMOs on the market (such as cost-benefit analysis of the possible consequences of the entry of GMO seeds into the overall agricultural system);
 improve the use of member-state experts in the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) safety evaluation of GMOs
 fix Community thresholds for the presence of GMOs in conventional seeds;
 protect, on a case-by-case basis, sensitive and protected areas by establishing GMO-free zones.

Greenpeace welcomed the clear message sent from Member States addressing the need to improve the way we assess the impact of GM crops on the environment, on our health and on the livelihoods of farmers.

Members States remain divided on the issue, and as recently as the 17 February 2009 an expert committee on GMOs failed to reach agreement on lifting French and Greek national bans on GM crop cultivation. This leaves the EU Council of Ministers to take the decision, a body that has only once found a qualified majority on the issue so far.

National bans have previously been introduced by Hungary and Austria. In 2006, Austria introduced a ban on Monsanto’s genetically modified oilseed rape, GT73, citing the risk of genetic contamination, and the inadequate risk assessment carried out prior to the EU Commission’s authorisation.

Another aspect to the debate that must be highlighted is the push for competitiveness that has been enshrined in the Lisbon Agenda. As demonstrated in such arenas as the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry, certain Directorate Generals are pushing for increased ’expedience’ in the authorisation of GMOs, and are pressurising EFSA to process its opinions in a more ’efficient and timely’ banner. EPHA has expressed concerns that this agenda should not be pursued so long as the long-term impacts on public health are not yet clear.

Another main concern related to GMO crops is the dominance of patents within the food chain.

A case brought to court in California illustrates the nature of this concern, and marked a major step forward in the protection of farmers from crippling lawsuits and brings much-needed regulation to genetically modified crops.

The new legislation protects farmers from lawsuits brought against them by biotechnology patent holders, Monsanto being highlighted as a major offender. The beneficiaries of this legislation include farmers who have been unable to prevent the drift of GM pollen or see onto their land resulting in contamination. A broad coalition of organic and conventional farmers, food industry and environmental groups supported the legislation as a step towards the protection of farmers who lack resources from the biotech conglomerates.

For more information

 WHO Food Safety

 Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)

 Organic Consumers Association

For related articles

 Council rejects GMO approvals - again
 EPHA communicated position on GMOs to all Commissioners, May 2008
 *Update with the Environment Ministers Council* Agreement on GMO approval overhaul