Transcript co-existence more politics than science

CO-EXISTENCE
MORE POLITICS THAN SCIENCE
Jaroslav Drobník
Faculty of Science, Charles University
Association BIOTRIN
Praha, Czech Republic
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
What is CO-EXISTENCE
„Let there be no mistake: Co-existence is about
economic and legal questions, not about risks
or food safety.“
Franz Fischler, Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural
Development and Fisheries
5 March 2003
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
CO-EXISTENCE – product of
Recent EU biosafety legislation
 Based on political situation of late eighties
 Designed in analogy to dangerous chemicals
 Political paradigm contradictory to science:
 risk follows from breeding method not from traits;
 only breeding based on recombinant DNA generates risk to
biosafety; all others are safe and need no regulation.
 Political target: to introduce fear in citizens and by
applying labelling to generate antiimport barrier.
 Political tool: labelling covering even products without
traces of material from GMO (eg. ethanol from GM potato).
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
What are facts:
 Radiation mutants are potentially more risky
Batista R., et al. PNAS 105 (9) 3640-3645
R-mutant rice after >10 generations showed 51
GM-rice after 3 generation showed only 25
alterations in gene expression.
This means that R-mutant contains twice as much
of altered proteins that can be, e.g. allergenes.
However European politicians say to public – they
are safe!
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
Driving force of CO-EXISTENCE
 Coexistence is a temporary issue based on GMOpsychosis in Europe (David Byrne).
 It is comparable to "cloning psychosis" (products of
cloned animals should be labelled)
or
 "radiation psychosis" (irradiated food products should
be labelled).
 Most important:
 “GM-free” label is good business.
 http://www.coextra.eu/
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
Populism – ground of CO-EXISTENCE
 WHAT EUROPEANS BELIEVE (%)
1996
1999
2002
2005
Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes; modified do
35
35
36
41
By eating GM fruit my genes may be modified
48
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
42
49
54
“GM-free” product is good business
 The claim of organic farmers „our products are
GMO-free“ have no basis in
 health crtiteria – they do not avoid R-mutants, they use
whole culture of Bac. thuringiensis
 ecology criteria – they use copper containing fungicides,
Bt crops eliminate insecticides
 „unnatural“ origin – they use triticale, R-mutants, gene
transfer occurs in nature
This claim is just advertising slogan to get the
market of those 54% misinformed and frightened
Europeans ready to pay for their superstition
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
CO-EXISTENCE – equal opportunity?
Ban, liability
Ban, no liability
No problem
Standard
Organic
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
Compulsory
Preventive
measures
GMO
CO-EXISTENCE – restraint of GMO
 Health damaging (pesticides) contamination of BIO must
be prevented on account of organic farmer.
 Business damaging of BIO contamination must be
prevented on account of farmer using GMO.
 Farmer using GMO must announce this including the
location to prevent business damage.
 Farmer using toxic chemical has no such duty.
 Co-existence sets liability for contamination neighbours
by GMO. No liability exits for contamination by pests,
diseases and chemicals.
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
CO-EXISTENCE – simple tool to ban GMO
 The decision to let Member State formulate their own
co-existence rules is rational, however opens the
opportunity to legally ban GMO.
 The prime minister of one MS said about GMO:
"According to EU law we cannot forbid it, but
we can make it as difficult as possible, setting
additional requirements, such as obtaining
permission by neighbours."
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
CO-EXISTENCE - gate to fakes
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/news/625.docu.html
 The state of Brandenburg proposed Bt corn separation
distances of 1000 metres from nature reserves. Why?
 about 10 grains of pollen/cm2 at a distance of 120 metres
 the diamond-back moth and the cabbage white and peacock
butterfly were susceptible to pollen from Bt176 maize
 However, the variety approved for cultivation Bt810 produces
significantly less Bt toxin in the pollen than Bt176.
 The diamond-back moth (the most sensitive
species) showed no indication of harm when
fed with pollen from the MON810 strain, even
at rates of 80 grains of pollen per caterpillar
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
Co-Extra - EU research programme on
co-existence and traceability
 Our goal is to support their implementation and to
foster a science-based debate among
stakeholders.
 http://www.coextra.eu/
 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
(INRA)
Phytopathologie et méthodologies de la détection
Versailles cedex
France
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008
Let the science-based debate among
stakeholders start soon before
Europe becomes an outdoor museum
of last-century agriculture
Thank you for your attention
TRANSCONTAINER - Plovdiv,
May 2008