Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: European Court of Justice banned Honey containing pollen from GMOs

  1. #1

    Default European Court of Justice banned Honey containing pollen from GMOs

    Good news from Bruxelles. Today, the European Court of Justice issued a groundbreaking judgment (legal case C-442-09).

    Have a look to [URL="http://bundesbienen.info/?p=1408[/URL]

    Greetings, Klaus

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,884
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Doesn't ban it as far a my understanding of it goes. It appears to require the beekeeper to obtain separate authorisation to sell honey containing pollen from (authorised) GM crops as the scope of the original authorisation to grow the stuff doesn't cover honey.

    Not entirely sure how that can be regarded as good news either way. In the case of a ban I can't sell my honey full stop, in the case if having to seek authorisation to sell it that's an additional expense and waste of time getting round something that was nothing to do with me in the first place.

  3. #3
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    There is a scathing critique of the German approach to MON810 in a scientific paper here:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/.../fulltext.html

    It is surprising to see a scientific journal be so vituperative about political decisions. Essentially, the German government was said to be hugely (and misleadingly) selective in the science it used to justify its position.

    This particular type of maize was approved in the US in 1996, and shortly after in Canada, Argentina, Australia, Japan, South Africa and Switzerland, for human food and animal feed. It was approved in the EU for animal feed in 1998 and is still grown on large areas in Spain. Fifteen years of safe use ... and now we have a 'victory' that means that any marketing of honey in Germany is suspect because there *might* be a very very very small level of contamination of something grown in other EU countries (despite the ban in Germany), which disperses over huge distances on the wind, and is generally regarded as safe. Nice one, well done, great service to humanity there!

    Whatever you think of the company owning this line or the technology itself, the effect is to control European Pod Borer, a lepidopteran pest which otherwise would require insecticidal sprays. Are beekeepers really against technology which can reduce insecticide use for no effect on the bees themselves? If so, why?

    Coexistence is about agreeing thresholds, keeping everybody safe, and allowing those who do see benefits in adopting the technology to be able to use it. This decision is the result of political games to remove the technology from possible use, to drive a coach and horses through the possibility of coexistence. So yes, it is a victory for those who have tried to engineer it. But what about humanity in general? Are we all now better off or worse off because of it? Are we in a better or a worse position to keep the planet's food supply arriving in the shops?

    Gavin

    PS The views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent the views of the SBA. :-) About time we had a proper debate on this though.

  4. #4
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Apparently .....

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp110079en.pdf

    Mr Bablok keeps bees near a GM trial site. His pollen has GM maize pollen in it, and his honey too. Now he can't sell his honey (with a 'very small amount of GM maize DNA') or his pollen (amount unspecified). The argument seems to have been around whether the pollen was not an impurity by an ingredient.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Whatever you think of the company owning this line or the technology itself, the effect is to control European Pod Borer, a lepidopteran pest which otherwise would require insecticidal sprays. Are beekeepers really against technology which can reduce insecticide use for no effect on the bees themselves? If so, why?
    I take that point, and it is related to the neonicotinoid argument - as a ban on neonicotinoids is a de facto vote for the return of carbamates or pyrethroid pesticides which are much more dangerous for bees and the wider environment.

    In the case of maize, is it not possible to work and develop some of the heritage varieties which may have some natural resistance to the pests you mention.
    On a small scale, I used to grow maize in mexico, a variety called Tehuacanero (origin Tehuacan) and never had to spray with anything.
    It had its defects such as growing to 12 feet high under good conditions and sometimes having cobs above head height.
    Some of it could blow flat under windy conditions. No sprays though!
    Commercial growers used imported seed from the US and used sprays at various points during the crop cycle. I don't know if it was GM maize or not but the seed was very expensive.
    There is a lot of anger due to the contamination of heritage varieties with GM pollen. Grain which was sold into Mexico for use as animal feed was planted by farmers and the GM pollen has now contaminated local stocks. There was a total lack of control and supervision.
    Maybe there is a happy medium here whereby there is an effort made to preserve heritage varieties which may have useful genetics.
    The way things are going there will be a limited amount of varieties on the market controlled by just a few companies.
    I don't think roundup ready GM maize is dangerous or toxic per se but creating weed free sterile monocultures is bad for bees and other invertebrates which need food plants.
    Last edited by Jon; 07-09-2011 at 12:27 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    This was covered in the Guardian today as well.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...urope-honey-gm

  7. #7
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Did anyone see these German judges the other night on the news? Some very natty red dresses and funny hats there. I don't think that they were pronouncing on biotechnology, but I was impressed by their sartorial uniqueness anyway.

    Yes, the contamination of the genetic heritage of the crop plants grown by our forefathers is a big issue. Always was, even if we didn't recognise it. Technically rather than politically, is the issue much different whether that contamination comes from modern high-yielding non-GM varieties or GM varieties? So what is the answer (I don't have one!)? Should we stop Mexican peasants from growing the latest high yielding types, whether they are GM or not?

    The Guardian article amazed me. Not the article itself but the discussion which followed. These newspaper article posting walls can be depressing places with much nuttiness on display. They can leave you in despair of the human race or at least that part that has the time and the technology to write such stuff. In this case the views on display were much more grown up and I was greatly cheered.

  8. #8
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Something that popped up on Google's news gadget thingie today. An opinion on the GM ruling from Die Welt.

    http://www.worldcrunch.com/stung-aga...ture-risk/3741

  9. #9

    Default

    The heritage varieties of yesteryear were the modern varieties of their time.
    3 cheers for sarpo mira I say otherwise I have to buy spuds at the supermarket

  10. #10
    Senior Member Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Norfolk East Anglia, South Scotland
    Posts
    962

    Default

    Essentially, the German government was said to be hugely (and misleadingly) selective in the science it used to justify its position.

    No change there for politicians then.

    You could argue that if politicians did what the scientists said concerning our fisheries, we would have some fish left. We now have the situation that good fish are caught, killed and then thrown into the sea for seagulls to eat. It's just crackers. What pillock came up with that idea?


    I was at a meeting a few months ago and finished up taking to a couple of Monsanto employees. Their argument was that you need less pesticides with their seeds which is good for benign insects in general, bees and beekeepers. As Jon writes, ban some pesticides and others will be used.


    I THOUGHT that GM crops could not reproduce so therefore the pollen is a little protein pill for bees. Are there really any issues with it?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •