London (December
22nd, 2005) – The European Commission’s perverse decision to endorse
Denmark’s plans for dealing with GM crop co-existence and liability
has a distinctly political whiff about it. We should not be surprised –
EU Farm Commissioner Marian Fischer Boel was previously Denmark’s Agriculture
Minister and in her present role has frequently championed the Danish approach
as a blueprint for the rest of Europe.
In rubber-stamping the Danish model, however, the Commission appears to have
lost sight of the guiding principles it set out for Member States to follow
back in 2003. At the very heart of these recommendations was a requirement
for arrangements to be proportionate and non-discriminatory.
Some practical aspects of the Danish co-existence measures have been well
thought-out and reflect the guidance that Member States should build on existing
arrangements at the farm level. But how on earth can it be considered proportionate
and non-discriminatory for Danish farmers wishing to adopt GM crops to be
forced to pay an arbitrary tax of €13.40 per hectare to do so? How has
that particular figure been arrived at – why not €134.00 or €1.34?
What level of price differential does it anticipate between GM and non-GM
crops? More importantly, what if there is no price differential?
These are extremely dangerous questions for Government regulators –
normally concerned with issues such as protecting human health or food safety
– to get themselves embroiled in. Worse still, it sends a green light
for other Member States to erect further political barriers to the development
of GM technology by imposing an arbitrary tax on its adoption by growers.
Co-existence is essentially an economic and market-related issue. It is not
about safety. Quite rightly, all GM crops must undergo rigorous, science-based
safety assessment on a case by case basis. Once approved, however, there is
no basis to suggest they should be treated any differently from other products.
Where GM crops are being grown on a large scale in other parts of the world
we do not see farmers routinely suing each other or claiming compensation.
This is because farming takes place in the open air and co-existence is a
fact of life.
In Europe, Spain is growing more than 60,000 ha of GM maize without any specific
provision for compensation, nor any evidence over the past five or six years
to suggest such a regime is necessary.
Within the UK, co-existence in agriculture is not a new concept. Arrangements
are in place to support the co-existence of:
• crops for industrial and human food use (e.g. High Erucic Oilseed
Rape and food grade oilseed rape);
• certified seed and non-seed crops;
• human food and animal feed crops (e.g. sweet corn & forage maize).
Co-existence between GM and non-GM crops can be delivered through proven systems
such as these, which involve mutual co-operation and communication between
farmers who share a vested interest in delivering products to meet their customers'
requirements. There are no compensation schemes operating in relation to these
crops, nor any basis (i.e. farmers routinely taking each other to court) over
more than 40 years to suggest any such arrangements would be necessary.
The key to effective co-existence is a sensible, agreed definition of good
practice. Such an approach would help to define the boundaries of reasonable
and unreasonable behaviour, negligence and due diligence in respect of GM
and non-GM crop production. This is the framework for existing principles
of liability, and we should not seek to undermine or overturn such important
legal precedents to satisfy the whim of prejudice or political expediency.
Source:
EC allows Danes to compensate for GM crop mixing. EU News (23.11.05)
(http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11706&start=1&control=203&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1)
<<<back
