ES spauda: Europa atveria duris genetiškai modifikuotiems organizmams

Siekdama išbristi iš aklavietės, susijusios su genetiškai modifikuotais organizmais (GMO), Europos Komisija pasiūlė šalims narėms pačioms nustatyti derliaus auginimo jų teritorijose taisykles, praneša AFP. Tačiau Europos spauda įsitikinusi, kad Briuselis vis dar planuoja atkakliai reikalauti plataus naujų produktų spektro įvedimo. „Ginčas dėl GMO Europoje baigsis derybomis“, – skelbiama Barselonos dienraščio „La Vanguardia“ antraštėje. Liepos 13 d. Europos Komisija pasiūlė suteikti valstybėms narėms teisę patvirtinti, apriboti ar uždrausti GMO auginimą visoje jų teritorijoje.

Plačiau apie tai skaitykite


2 Komentaras »

  1. Jose Bove apie galimas iš EK pasiūlymo kylančias problemas said

    Le Monde [France], 13 July 2010

    In a chat on, the Green MEP José Bové says that the proposals of John Dalli, the European Commissioner for health, create a framework to push GMOs inside European borders.

    (…) isabelle : What are you concerned about in the Commission’s proposal? After all, it looks as if it is returning their free choice in this dossier to the Member States?

    José Bové: There are two concerns in the Commission’s proposal. They both arise in a context where Commissioner Barroso clearly states that he himself favours the spread of GMOs inside the European frontiers. The proposals made this very day by Commissioner Dalli set the stage for the entry of these GMOs.

    There are a number of problems: the first is a weakening of the risk assessment unit of EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority), including notably the promotion of substantial equivalence, which is the Trojan horse that was used when GMOs were launched in the USA

    Second, Dalli’s proposal is a false correct answer, because the renationalisation of GMOs will create problems for intra-European trade. Since there are no state controls at their borders, GMO products will circulate in all directions and contaminate consumers’ food, to the extent that it will be impossible to organise segregated food chains.

    In this regard, Commissioner Dalli says that the measures taken by the Member States must conform with the treaty, particularly in relation to the principle of non-discrimination between national and non-national production.

    Another problem created by this re-nationalisation: the distortion of competition for organic farmers. Indeed, the selling capacity will be completely different for an organic farmer in a country where GMOs are banned, and an organic farmer where they are allowed.

    These two first reasons will clearly create a risk of conflicts between Member States, whose only solution will be to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

    Final problem: the WTO headache. Indeed, the 27 Member States are now represented by the European Commission when facing the WTO. And what will be the attitude of companies like Monsanto and others?

    Will they, for example the United States or Argentina, turn against the Member States? And how will the Commission react? Will it defend its own proposal to allow things to take their course, or will it support the countries which will decide to ban GMO varieties?

  2. Europe's new GM laws offer hope – but we must remain vigilant said

    Caroline Lucas
    The Guardian, Wednesday 14 July 2010

    *Devolving GM policy to member states away from centralised European control are steps in the right direction – but we need objective science, transparency and tough new laws

    GM food remains a hugely contentious issue. Despite more than 12 years of public resistance to GM, knowledge of its drawbacks – from the rampant growth of herbicide-resistant “superweeds,“ to the loss of insects vital to the food chain – and unknown long-term risks to humans, the debate keeps returning.

    Yesterday, the European commission (EC) approved changes to how GM food and organisms are regulated. The EC proposals aim to keep the current authorisation system for GM at EU-level, but would give member states the right to ban GM cultivation at a national level. This is something that the Greens/European Free Alliance group in the European parliament has campaigned in favour of for a long while, as it brings greater democratic control of GM cultivation. Once countries can decide for themselves whether or not to grow GM, it will be much easier for GM critics to make national politicians directly accountable for those decisions.

    The changes would also require that any deliberate release of GM organisms into the environment would have to be adopted in co-decision between member states and the commission. This is the normal legislative procedure in Europe, and it would be in contrast to the commission being able to make decisions purely through regulations.

    The flip side is that in countries with weak or non-existent legislation on GM, such as the Czech Republic, Spain and the Netherlands, seed and feed that is contaminated with GM will be able to spread around those countries more easily. Farmers that want to remain organic or farm conventionally, will find it harder to do so. It may also present a green-light to the rest of the world, including the US, and South America, to loosen GM regulation in their own jurisdictions. The explicit intent of the commission to bypass the “widespread opposition to the authorisation of [genetically modified organisms] for cultivation both at member states and citizen’s level.“ In its “roadmap“ for the legislation, and also in public, the EC wants to achieve quicker authorisations of GM trials, in exchange for member states being allowed to ban specific GM varieties afterwards.

    Some aspects of the commission’s proposals are still not clear. Would the UK be permitted to declare itself GMO-free? Will member states be able to reject GM that is authorised at the commission level, and not justify it to the EC?

    Now that the UK will have more control over GM, we need to use the precautionary principle in our assessment of the potential risks posted by GM crops.

    To do so, we need a series of measures:

    • Access to information currently being kept secret by biotechnology companies;

    • Independent scientific research on GM organisms;

    • Pesticide-producing GM crops should be treated in the same way as chemical pesticides;

    • Strict liability needs to be enforced, so that GM polluters pay for any damage; and,

    • Any food produced from GMOs (animals fed with GM-feed; ingredients with GM content) must be clearly labelled (the Co-Op is already doing this).

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Parašykite komentarą

Įveskite savo duomenis žemiau arba prisijunkite per socialinį tinklą: Logo

Jūs komentuojate naudodamiesi savo paskyra. Atsijungti /  Keisti )

Google+ photo

Jūs komentuojate naudodamiesi savo Google+ paskyra. Atsijungti /  Keisti )

Twitter picture

Jūs komentuojate naudodamiesi savo Twitter paskyra. Atsijungti /  Keisti )

Facebook photo

Jūs komentuojate naudodamiesi savo Facebook paskyra. Atsijungti /  Keisti )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: