GM Free Cymru

Ethics and the GM approval process for import and processing

Science in Wonderland

One of the most absurd and pathetic features of the EU assessment process for GM crops in Europe is that every now and then the Commission asks EFSA to assess the environmental impact of a GM crop which has a consent for food and feed uses and for import and processing, but not cultivation. Sometimes this request is triggered by the publication of a new paper which suggests environmental harm associated with a GM crop in the place where it is grown. Having gone through the motions, EFSA then -- invariably -- declares that "in terms of risk to the environment, no new scientific evidence has been provided that invalidates the previous environmental risk assessment evaluation of Variety X for its intended uses, which exclude cultivation".

The EFSA "scientific opinion" outlined below (for the GM rice variety known as LL62) is a classic of its kind. What it says, in effect, is this: "We are not in the least bit concerned about the environmental damage that might be done to wild relatives of the GM crop in question in the places where it is grown; that is not a part of our brief. What we are concerned about is damage that might be done as a result of seed spillages etc during the transport of a GM crop from the ports to the mills and other places of processing, if those happen to be in areas where wild or cultivated relatives are grown. If we think that "appropriate management measures" are in place, and if there are appropriate monitoring plans, then we assume that there will be no cross-contamination worth worrying about. So this ceases to be our problem."

So in cases like this, EFSA washes its hands of any responsibility for damage in the places where GM crops are grown. The attitude seems to be: "There may or may not be ecological damage in places where GM soy, GM canola, GM corn and GM rice are grown in large quantities. Such damage, where it is established in the scientific literature, is for those who give approvals in those countries to sort out for themselves. That is their problem............... and in the meantime we are quite happy to approve cheap GM exports from those countries so as to satisfy the needs of our farmers and food and feed processors."

So how ethical is that? "Ethics" is a word that probably doesn't exist in the EFSA lexicon.

---------------------------------------------

SCIENTIFIC OPINION
Statement on a scientific publication on vertical gene flow in rice and its potential ecological consequences by Lu & Yang (2009) EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

Ask for a PDF if you want it.

ABSTRACT
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms was asked to review the published scientific paper of Lu & Yang (2009) and to indicate whether this paper contains new information that would alter the previous EFSA GMO Panel environmental safety conclusions on the genetically modified rice event LLRice62. This scientific paper reviews vertical gene flow between cultivated GM rice and cross-compatible wild/weedy rice relatives and the potential ecological consequences thereof. In 2007, the EFSA GMO Panel issued a scientific opinion on the risk assessment evaluation of application EFSA/GMO/UK/2004/04 for the market authorisation of LLRice62 for food/feed uses, import and processing in the EU. In light of the new scientific paper provided by the European Commission and, having considered relevant scientific publications on vertical gene flow in rice, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that, in terms of risk to the environment, no new scientific evidence has been provided that invalidates the previous environmental risk assessment evaluation of LLRice62 for its intended uses, which exclude cultivation.

The paper: Lu BR, Yang C, 2009.
Gene flow from genetically modified rice to its wild relatives: Assessing potential ecological consequences. Biotechnology Advances, 27: 1083-1091.

Background:

On 30 October 2007, the EFSA GMO Panel issued a scientific opinion on the application EFSAGMO- UK-2004-04 for the market authorisation of LLRICE62 for food/feed uses, import and processing in the EU (EFSA, 2007). In its 2007 scientific opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel concluded that “there is no requirement for scientific information on possible environmental effects associated with cultivation. Accidental release of viable GM paddy rice into the environment is possible and GM seeds could be dispersed into land cultivating rice and establish GM populations, which could outcross with non-GM cultivated or weedy rice plants. The GMO Panel concluded that there is a possibility that small numbers of GM rice plants could enter cultivation and cross-pollinate with cultivated or weedy rice. However it is unlikely that spillage will result in feral plants establishing around ports, mills, and transit routes as there is no indication of changes in fitness or behaviour of this GM rice, except in the presence of glufosinate”. Hence, the EFSA GMO Panel advised that “appropriate management systems should be in place to prevent seeds of LLRICE62 entering cultivation” and concluded that “the monitoring plan provided by the applicant is in line with the intended uses of LLRICE62”.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In line with its previously published scientific opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel reiterates that appropriate management measures should be in place to restrict viable LLRice62 grains being spilled into EU rice growing areas. In addition, operators should report any grain spillage of GMHT rice in areas adjacent to cultivated land used for rice production, and report on the efficacy of measures to remove or destroy any subsequent escaped GMHT plants. The EFSA GMO Panel notes that the postmarket environmental monitoring plan provided by the applicant is in line with the intended uses of LLRice62.

In light of the new scientific paper provided by the European Commission and, having considered relevant scientific publications on vertical gene flow in rice, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that, in terms of risk to the environment, no new scientific evidence has been provided that invalidates the previous environmental risk assessment evaluation of LLRice62 for its intended uses, which exclude cultivation.