Nexus - 1803 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Spain, to keep agricultural biotechnology an option for genetically modified crops brought before the EU member states. Supreme Court, and the ruling means that the selling In May 2009, during a meeting with Monsanto's and planting of RRA is illegal in the US." Director for Biotechnology in Spain and Portugal, The Court recognised that the threat of transgenic Spanish Embassy officials were told that "Spain is | contamination is harmful to organic and conventional increasingly becoming a target of anti-biotechnology farmers and that any injury would allow them to orces within Europe" and that "Spain's cultivation of | challenge future biotech crop commercialisations in MON810 corn was under serious threat". The — court.'” sentiment echoed by agricultural biotech supporters The legal disputes have been taking place since on a ban on MON810 cultivation is that "[iJf Spain 2006, when the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit alls, the rest of Europe will follow".'” against US Department of Agriculture (USDA) which The cable highlights that the bans against was planning to commercialise alfalfa seed designed Monsanto GM maize in Germany, France, Austria, | to tolerate Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, despite Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg, despite EU concerns over environmental, health, cultural and approval of MON810, are due to anti-biotechnology economic impacts on farmers and consumers. GM sentiment in the EU, where there is increasing alfalfa can spread uncontrollably through the cross- momentum and strong political support to stop GM pollination of plants by bees, contaminating non-GM cultivation. alfalfa fields.” A recently released cable, sent from the US On 30 November 2010, the District Court for the Embassy in Paris in December 2007, outlined northern district of California demanded the first-ever concerns over GMOs: "...Europe is moving backwards destruction of a GMO crop when hundreds of acres 0 not forwards on this issue GM sugar beet seedlings, with France playing a leading planted in September 2010, role, along with Austria, Italy were ordered to be removed.'* ihe US response isto propose | Me District Court ruled Fe ese Court ruled "retaliation" in collaboration that "farmers and that "farmers and consumers with "the pro-biotech side in France". France is seen as a consumers would likely would likely suffer harm from cross-contamination", and key player in “renewed suffer harm from stated that pas cross-contamination"... contamination incidents were "too numerous" to allow the crop to remain in the ground.'” Yet, the USDA is proposing to commercialise 127 European consideration of the acceptance of agricultural biotechnology". France is deemed a lynchpin for changing EU policy on GMOs: "Our contacts have made clear that they will seek to | GM sugar beet despite this ruling. expand French national policy to a EU-wide level and they believe that they are in the vanguard of Bayer Losing Cases over GM Rice Contamination European public opinion in turning back GMOs."!"” The year 2010 was a bad one for the US biotech In a separate Paris cable, such a change of heart is industry, which was hauled through the US legal deemed challenging as GMOs are "a subject of | system. In October 2010, the German corporation considerable domestic concern in France" and the _ Bayer was taken to court by three Texas rice growers intentions of France to implement a moratorium on and forced to settle over the contamination of their biotech planting in 2007 "would significantly rice crops by Bayer's Liberty Link® rice.’ This is the undermine US agricultural exports to Europe".' seventh trial that Bayer has lost in succession, A cable from November 2007 reveals that gathering spanning five US states and all related to claims information on "[g]overnment acceptance of concerning contamination leading to export genetically modified food and propagation of _ restrictions and economic losses.'” genetically modified crops"'” is among the top In August 2006, the USDA announced that Bayer's priorities for intelligence officials in Burundi, the genetically modified seed had been found in Congo and Rwanda. commercial] y grown long-grain rice in Louisiana, Relea aan an TN Ata anced 10 ek genetically modified crops brought before the Supreme Court, and the ruling means that the selling and planting of RRA is illegal in the US." The Court recognised that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful to organic and conventional farmers and that any injury would allow them to challenge future biotech crop commercialisations in court.'” The legal disputes have been taking place since 2006, when the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against US Department of Agriculture (USDA) which was planning to commercialise alfalfa seed designed to tolerate Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, despite concerns over environmental, health, cultural and economic impacts on farmers and consumers. GM alfalfa can spread uncontrollably through the cross- pollination of plants by bees, contaminating non-GM alfalfa fields.” Bayer Losing Cases over GM Rice Contamination The year 2010 was a bad one for the US biotech industry, which was hauled through the US legal system. In October 2010, the German corporation Bayer was taken to court by three Texas rice growers and forced to settle over the contamination of their rice crops by Bayer's Liberty Link® rice.'* This is the seventh trial that Bayer has lost in succession, spanning five US states and all related to claims concerning contamination leading to export restrictions and economic losses.'” In August 2006, the USDA announced that Bayer's genetically modified seed had been found in commercially grown long-grain rice in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and Missouri.'” Five days later, the European Union banned US imports to its 27 member countries; this was followed by Japan and Russia. This sudden loss of a key export market had devastating socio-economic impacts for US rice farmers whose crops were contaminated. Legal Rulings on GM Alfalfa and Sugar Beet Seed On 21 June 2010, in the case of Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms,” the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of a ban on Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA). This was the first-ever case on 24 * NEXUS APRIL - MAY 2011 The District Court ruled that "farmers and consumers would likely suffer harm from cross-contamination"... www.nexusmagazine.com