Replies to post #98904 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

EU formally approves six varieties of GM corn for importation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE66R0P320100728

Two of these are MON products; the others are from SYT, DOW, and DD.

[DewDiligence]

In the Fields of Italy, a Conflict Over Corn

[GM crops in the EU remain a tough sell despite the recently changed EU regulation described in #msg-52340585. The investment thesis for MON assumes zero contribution from the EU (#msg-50939149), so if anything does happen there it’s all upside.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world/europe/24modify.html

›August 23, 2010
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

VIVARO, Italy — Giorgio Fidenato declared war on the Italian government and environmental groups in April with a news conference and a YouTube video, which showed him poking six genetically modified corn seeds into Italian soil.

In fact, said Mr. Fidenato, 49, an agronomist, he planted two fields of genetically modified corn. But since “corn looks like corn,” as he put it, it took his opponents weeks to find his crop.

The seeds, known as MON810, are modified so that the corn produces a chemical that kills the larvae of the corn borer, a devastating pest. Yet while European Union rules allow this particular seed to be planted, Italy requires farmers to get special permission for any genetically modified, or G.M., crop — and the Agriculture Ministry never said yes.

“We had no choice but to engage in civil disobedience — these seeds are legal in Europe,” said Mr. Fidenato, who has repeatedly applied for permission, adding that he drew more inspiration from Ron Paul than Gandhi.

The World Trade Organization says that general bans on genetically modified crops constitute an unfair trade barrier, because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. But four years after a W.T.O. panel ruled that European Union policies constituted an illegal “de facto moratorium” on the planting of genetically modified seeds, some farmers, like Mr. Fidenato, and seed producers like Monsanto complain that Europe still has not really opened its doors.

It is true that a small but growing number of European countries, including Spain, Portugal and Germany, now allow some cultivation of genetically modified crops. But only two genetically modified seeds, Monsanto’s MON810 and the Amflora potato seed [#msg-48575063], out of dozens on the global market have made it through the European Commission’s laborious approval process, a prerequisite for use.

What is more, some areas of Europe have declared themselves “G.M.O.-free zones,” or free of genetically modified organisms. France, Austria and Germany specifically ban MON810, saying they believe that it could harm local crops. In Italy, a Kafkaesque approval process in which the Agriculture Ministry has never established the requirements for success, makes genetically modified crops a nonstarter.

Such foot-dragging reflects passionate public opposition to the crops in many parts of Europe, even as more than three-quarters of corn, soybeans and sugar beets in the United States are genetically modified. Though the science is at best inconclusive, there is a widespread conviction in Italy that genetically altered foods and crops pose dangers to human health and ecosystems.

After Mr. Fidenato’s provocation, investigators did genetic testing to identify the locations of the offending stalks in the sea of cornfields that surround this tiny town. Officials seized two suspect fields — about 12 acres — and declared the plantings illegal. Greenpeace activists surreptitiously snipped off the stalks’ tassels in the hope of preventing pollen from being disseminated. [Amazing that some people have so much surplus time on their hands.]

On Aug. 9, 100 machete-wielding environmental activists from an antiglobalization group called Ya Basta descended on Vivaro and trampled the field before local police officers could intervene. They left behind placards with a skull and crossbones reading: “Danger — Contaminated — G.M.O.”

Giancarlo Galan, who became agriculture minister in April, called the protesters “vandals,” although he did not say he would allow genetically modified crops. But Luca Zaia, the previous agriculture minister and president of the nearby Veneto region, applauded the rampage, saying: “There is a need to show multinationals that they can’t introduce Frankenstein crops into our country without authorization.”

Over the past decade, genetically modified crops have been a major source of trade friction between Europe and the United States.

Both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Agency say that there is no scientific evidence that eating MON810 corn is dangerous. [If it were dangerous, there would presumably be some evidence of harm insofar as the gene in question has been widely used in the US for quite some time.] But there is greater disagreement on how genetically modified plants affect ecosystems and whether traditional and genetically modified crops can be kept apart to avoid what organic farmers call “contamination” of traditional crops by modified plants or genes. Seed or pollen can travel with the wind or on farm equipment or truck tires, sometimes for hundreds of miles.

This issue is particularly sensitive in Italy, whose farmers rely heavily on specialized organic and heritage crops, like hundreds of varieties of tomatoes. Crops contaminated with genetically modified material can lose its organic designation. Farmers worry that plants with tailor-made survival genes will over time displace tastier traditional varieties.

Greenpeace has called the European Union’s judgment to accept MON810 as safe “fundamentally flawed,” noting, for example, that the chemical that kills corn borer larvae could also harm butterflies that land on the plants. Even in the United States, reservations linger. This month, a federal judge in San Francisco revoked permission for further planting of genetically modified sugar beets, saying that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences; 95 percent of the sugar beets in the United States are genetically modified. [The case in question is entirely procedural—i.e. the judge ruled that the USDA had not done its statutory job, not that there was anything wrong with GM sugar beets.]

Faced with a W.T.O. judgment on the one hand and a reluctant public on the other, the European Commission has tried in recent years to walk a middle ground. It requires countries to establish procedures for separating traditional and modified crops, like maintaining certain distances between fields. Recent proposals give regions increasing latitude to deny entry to such plants if they provide scientific proof that the seeds could harm the environment, however.

But groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation say that studies used to justify excluding genetically modified crops do not pass muster.

Here in Vivaro, farmers are divided about the issue, said Luca Tornatore, Ya Basta spokesman and an astrophysicist from Trieste, Italy, noting that his group’s “blitz” did not allow much time for talking with local people.

Residents may not know much about the science of genetically modified crops, but they are quite familiar with the corn borer larvae; they tunnel into ears of corn, allowing funguses to fill the holes in their wake. Some of the funguses produce mycotoxins that can end up in places like the milk of corn-fed cows and have been associated with serious health problems, including cancers.

Some farmers spray insecticides on the crops to prevent the boring, but it must be applied at just the right moment and leaves chemical residues as well as an odor in the air. Others simply sell the corn in bulk, ignoring the problem, said Mr. Fidenato, displaying an ear from a field that was alive with worms and covered with patches of white fuzz.

If the Italian government does not relent on the genetically modified seeds, he warned, he commands an army of farmers across Italy who are prepared to plant MON810 to force its hand.

But it is not clear that the battle of Vivaro will have a quick victor. Jail time or at least fines are expected for Mr. Fidenato (illegal planting) and Mr. Tornatore (trespassing and destroying private property).‹

[DewDiligence]

Setback Seen for EU Plan on Biotech Crops

[It’s unclear if the setback described here will end up helping or hurting ag-biotech companies such as MON. When the plan for individual-country opt-outs of biotech crops was floated in July (#msg-52340585), it seemed that it might help more crops get approved at the EU level since the approvals would not be binding at the country level. However, the thrust of the article below from the NY Times is that the opposite result may occur as EU-level regulators reestablish decision-making based on science rather than emotion.

Whatever the outcome may be, MON does not have any contribution from GM seeds in Europe in its short-term or long-term sales forecasts, so any upside is all gravy.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/business/global/11biotech.html

›November 10, 2010
By JAMES KANTER

BRUSSELS — An effort by the European Union to give power over biotechnology crops back to local authorities has run into serious legal problems — but it could end up strengthening the central regulator’s hand by resulting in more genetically engineered products being approved, despite public opposition.

One of the first things that the E.U. commissioner for health and consumer affairs, John Dalli, did after taking office early this year was to approve the planting of a genetically modified potato in Europe [#msg-48575063]. That was the first approval of its kind for a decade, and it angered many environmentalists.

Mr. Dalli then proposed a radical overhaul of the existing rules that would allow E.U. member states to reject biotech foods, even after they win approval at the E.U. level [#msg-52340585]. His goal was to make future approvals of biotech crops swifter and less acrimonious by effectively allowing countries to opt out.

But on Thursday, lawyers working on behalf of E.U. governments in Brussels were expected to issue a legal opinion concluding that the plan would violate European law and global trade rules.

Frédéric Vincent, a spokesman for Mr. Dalli, said that the commission’s own lawyers had reached a different opinion, and that Mr. Dalli would continue to push his proposal.

But with France and Germany already signaling strong reservations, some experts said Mr. Dalli might have to withdraw the plan and stick with the current system. Ironically, that could turn out be the best outcome for biotech companies.

“Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Dalli showed with the potato that he had no qualms about approving new biotech crops for cultivation judged safe on the evidence,” said Thijs Etty of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and an expert in biotech regulation.

“With many crops ready, or nearly ready, for final approval, we could have what represents an unprecedented avalanche of new biotech varieties growing in Europe within the next couple of years,” said Mr. Etty, who also serves as an academic expert on a biotech panel at the European Economic and Social Committee, an E.U. advisory body.

Among the crops that already have received safety approval from the authorities at the European Food Safety Authority are varieties of corn by Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer, and Dow AgroSciences.

Companies have made more than a dozen other applications for biotech crops, including two more varieties of potato, a second engineered by BASF, and another by a Dutch company called Avebe, as well as a sugar beet, developed jointly by Monsanto and KWS, a Germany company.

The only other biotech crop grown in Europe besides the potato, which is used mainly to produce starch for the paper industry, is a type of corn produced by Monsanto, which was approved in 1998.

Austria, Greece and Italy have consistently blocked approvals of biotech crops at the E.U. level to avoid being required to allow them to be planted at home.

Mr. Dalli’s proposals were designed to avoid this problem, by allowing countries to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of biotech crops on their territory on ethical grounds.

But according to the opinion to be issued Thursday, there are “strong doubts about the compatibility” of the proposal with E.U. treaties concerning the single market, as well as global trade agreements.

The commission has been seeking for years to ease tensions with Argentina, Canada and the United States, where modified crops are grown. Those countries won a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization in 2006 obliging Europe to ease remaining bans on the import and cultivation of genetically modified products. The United States still could impose punitive duties on the Europeans for continuing to block trade.‹

[DewDiligence]

GMO’s in EU move a step closer (update on the 2010 story in #msg-52340585):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-12/biotech-planting-flexibility-backed-by-eu-parliament-committee.html

The European Parliament’s environment committee endorsed a draft law that would give national governments an opt-out from rules making the EU a single market for goods. The aim is to accelerate approvals at EU level of applications to plant gene-modified seeds made by companies such as Monsanto Co. (MON)… Under current practices, national authorities throughout the EU have a say over approvals because the bloc’s common-market rules require that a product sold in one member be allowed for sale in the others.

…In a case brought by the U.S., Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization ruled in 2006 that the European moratorium was illegal. Since 2004, the EU has let new gene-modified products be imported for food and feed uses while stopping short of endorsing any request for cultivation with the exception of one application for a potato developed by BASF to be grown for the production of industrial starch.