By Martha Moss - 3rd March 2009
It's completely unacceptable that essentially they keep trying to bulldoze through their pro-GM agenda in spite of public opposition
Caroline Lucas
Green MEP Caroline Lucas has accused commission president José Manuel Barroso of "foisting his pro-GM agenda" on the whole of the EU.
Lucas was speaking after EU environment ministers upheld a sovereign ban on the growing of genetically modified maize in Austria and Hungary.
It was the third and second time for Austria and Hungary respectively that the commission had attempted to get the ban on Monsanto's MON810 lifted.
Austria has also imposed a "safeguard" ban on the cultivation of T25 corn, made by the German Bayer group.
"I'm delighted that the environment ministers have basically defied president Barroso and upheld the rights of individual countries to maintain their GMO bans," Lucas told TheParliament.com.
Only four member states - the UK, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden - voted in favour of the proposals, and Lucas said it was "really significant" that 22 member states had voted against them.
"I just hope that Barroso will realise that the commission needs to change its position of GMOs," she added.
"It's completely unacceptable that essentially they keep trying to bulldoze through their pro-GM agenda in spite of public opposition and we know that a vast majority of citizens in just about all of the member states are not in favour of GMOs.
"It is rather extraordinary how the commission still tries to keep proposing that these kinds of bans are lifted.
"I think yesterday's vote was incredibly good news for the environment, for farmers and consumers and a shot in the arm for lots of regions in the EU that want to become GM-free."
Democracy
Lucas called on member states to "show a bit more muscle" by insisting that the commission follow council recommendations made in December 2008 to improve the long-term environmental risk assessment of GMOs.
She also criticised the decision-making process, under which the commission can only be outvoted with a two-third majority. "If you've got a majority of member states - albeit not the two thirds - wanting these bans to stay then the commission should follow that," she argued.
"The commission is not elected, the commission should be the servant of the member states and the citizens, not the master, and it worries me that they have their own very clear agenda.
"President Barroso certainly has a very pro-GM agenda and they seem to be looking at ways of foisting it upon the whole of the EU whenever they get the chance even though there is a growing majority now in the council who are against it."
A commission-funded study published in October 2008 found that European consumers do purchase GM foods, suggesting that people are not really concerned about the GM issue.
But Lucas said that this would change once the issue moves up the political agenda. "I think that people have perhaps a false sense of security because there have been some quite effective bans. We haven't seen new GM crops being planted on a widespread basis and there haven't been new GM products in the shops," she said.
"I do think there is still a bedrock majority against GMOs and I think that once they come up the political agenda more visibly and once there is more of a threat I think that opposition will grow.
"I think at the minute it's just fallen down peoples' list of priorities a little bit because it doesn't seem quite so topical and relevant and urgent."
Evidence
GMO lobby group EuropaBio accused member states of ignoring scientific evidence. Executive director Nathalie Moll said the vote was "a political sidestep that goes against the wishes of Europe's farmers who are increasingly demanding the choice to grow biotech crops".
"It is incomprehensible that some member states choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence as to the safety of these GM products and the commercial reality of their safe growth and consumption for more than a decade around the world," she added.
Describing the outcome of the vote as "even more worrying", she said that GM crops were needed to increase food production, offset potential food price rises and reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment.
However, Lucas insisted that ministers "have both public opinion and scientific fact on their side".
"It's very clear that the biotech industry is in a panic," she argued. "They are looking at ways of trying to promote their product in the face of public opposition, so they're coming up with arguments about needing GM food to feed the world.
"There have been a number of reports from scientists saying that if you're looking at maximising food production then GM isn't at all the best the way forward.
"There are much more sustainable ways forward, much more ways for poorer farmers to get access to better farming practices."
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.