|
|
Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs
As concerns grow over the environmental and human and animal health effects of genetic engineering, governments in some countries are taking action to protect their people and territory.
Chee Yoke Heong
WHILE the biotechnology train continues to move forward, more and more countries and provinces, especially in the developed world, are adopting GM-free zones or putting in place bans on GM crops, an indication that resistance towards GMOs remains strong in these countries.
In February, a group of European regional governments got together in Tuscany, Italy to discuss measures for protecting conventional and organic agriculture from the risk of genetic modification. They issued a charter which aims to safeguard genuine and high-quality products and to preserve agricultural biodiversity from contamination by GMO seeds.
The charter was undersigned by the network of 20 Europe-wide regional governments, namely those of Emilia Romagna, Marche, Lazio, Sardinia, Autonomous Province of Bolzano and Tuscany (Italy); the Salzburg region, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria (Austria); the Highlands & Islands Region of Scotland and Wales (UK); Schleswig-Holstein (Germany); l’Ile de France, Brittany, Aquitaine, Limousin and Poitou-Charentes (France); Basque (Spain); and Drama-Xavala-Xanthi (Greece).
The regional governments are committed to devising specific projects to support traditional agriculture and organic farming, anti-GMO measures, safeguarding certified quality products and biodiversity by preventing contamination by external genotypes, including genetically modified ones.
They also discussed possible sanctions to apply against environmental damage, as well as levying a tax on farmers in order to ensure that regional governments will have the necessary funds to cover all costs.
Member regions also pledged to favour ‘safe research’, i.e. research which observes strict safety protocols and that is exclusively carried out at authorised sites, and to promote and assure technically the use of GMO-free seeds.
They agreed to safeguard agricultural areas, such as those practising organic farming, from possible genetic contamination, by preventing or discouraging the growing of GM crops in those areas. They also pledged to push for international agreements that guarantee stocks of raw materials certified ‘GMO-free’ for the future.
This charter is perhaps the most comprehensive initiative by a group of regional governments to address the GMO issue and to take action to safeguard their lands from the intrusion of GMOs.
‘Co-existence’ law
At the country level, the higher chamber (Senate) of the Italian parliament, in January, gave its final approval to a law that will enable the Italian regions and autonomous provinces to adopt so-called ‘co-existence’ measures in order to avoid the presence of GMOs in other products. This means that as long as the regions and provinces have not adopted such co-existence rules, the cultivation of transgenic crops is prohibited. According to the new law, violation of this temporary ban (or ‘moratorium’) can be punished with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of 50,000 euros.
Currently, there is an absence of co-existence legislation in the EU to protect organic and conventional production from the risk of contamination by GMOs even though the European Commission in May 2004 lifted its then six-year-old EU-wide de facto moratorium on GMOs.
Important developments have also taken place in the UK of late which affect the adoption of GM products. In an unprecedented move, the South West Regional Assembly of the UK became the first regional authority to adopt a position on GM.
It issued a statement of principles which, among others, calls for the protection of food and farming from GM crops, a strict liability mechanism on GM companies and the strict testing of GM crops to prove that they do not have a negative impact on society, the economy and the environment.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has also come up with a proposal to set up an online GMO land register which would provide a mechanism to trace GM planting, providing choice and traceability for producers and consumers alike. This move comes in light of growing public concern regarding GM and a growing sentiment that the public has the right to know where crops are coming from and whether or not they are GM-free.
GMO bans
Some countries in Europe have also taken it upon themselves to ban particular GMOs, in this case the GE maize MON810 engineered for pest resistance. Under EU law, the GMO is approved for cultivation across the EU but countries have the discretion on whether to allow it on their national territory based on a safeguard provision in the EU law.
Both Poland and Hungary invoked this provision when they announced that they plan to ban the import and planting of maize seeds containing the GM event MON810. Austria has also earlier banned MON810, due to concerns about the effects of the insecticidal maize on non-target organisms. The European Commission has attempted to overturn the ban but was unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, over in the US, lawmakers in the state of Oregon are considering a temporary ban on growing food crops that are biologically engineered to produce drugs or chemicals such as vaccines. The bill, which was brought up for its first hearing in April in the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee, would mark the first time that a state has taken a decision to ban these ‘biopharm crops’.
Elsewhere, in California a number of counties, namely, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin County, have declared themselves GMO-free zones.
Now cities have also joined in the anti-GMO movement. In November 2004, the Arcata City Council adopted an anti-GMO ordinance which declares the sale, distribution, propagation, cultivation, raising or growing of genetically engineered organisms as a public nuisance and subject to criminal enforcement.
While more and more regions are putting in place legislation to ban GMOs on their territories, there is a simultaneous action that is aimed at preventing such moves from gaining ground.
Nine states in the US – namely, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Dakota, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia – have either passed or introduced legislation that would prevent local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds.
In March, Iowa’s House of Representatives passed a bill, House File 642, which would pre-empt ‘a local governmental entity.from adopting or enforcing legislation which relates to the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labelling, certification, or registration of agricultural seed’.
In February, Georgia passed Senate Bill 87 that prohibits local governments from regulating seeds. In early March, the North Dakota legislature passed a similar bill, Senate Bill 2277, by a 69-to-25 vote.
Similar seed bills have been introduced and are working their way through legislatures in Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia.
The bills are viewed as a nationally coordinated attempt to block GMO-free ordinances similar to those approved by citizens in Mendocino and Marin counties in California last year.
Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs
As concerns grow over the environmental and human and animal health effects of genetic engineering, governments in some countries are taking action to protect their people and territory.
Chee Yoke Heong
WHILE the biotechnology train continues to move forward, more and more countries and provinces, especially in the developed world, are adopting GM-free zones or putting in place bans on GM crops, an indication that resistance towards GMOs remains strong in these countries.
In February, a group of European regional governments got together in Tuscany, Italy to discuss measures for protecting conventional and organic agriculture from the risk of genetic modification. They issued a charter which aims to safeguard genuine and high-quality products and to preserve agricultural biodiversity from contamination by GMO seeds.
The charter was undersigned by the network of 20 Europe-wide regional governments, namely those of Emilia Romagna, Marche, Lazio, Sardinia, Autonomous Province of Bolzano and Tuscany (Italy); the Salzburg region, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria (Austria); the Highlands & Islands Region of Scotland and Wales (UK); Schleswig-Holstein (Germany); l’Ile de France, Brittany, Aquitaine, Limousin and Poitou-Charentes (France); Basque (Spain); and Drama-Xavala-Xanthi (Greece).
The regional governments are committed to devising specific projects to support traditional agriculture and organic farming, anti-GMO measures, safeguarding certified quality products and biodiversity by preventing contamination by external genotypes, including genetically modified ones.
They also discussed possible sanctions to apply against environmental damage, as well as levying a tax on farmers in order to ensure that regional governments will have the necessary funds to cover all costs.
Member regions also pledged to favour ‘safe research’, i.e. research which observes strict safety protocols and that is exclusively carried out at authorised sites, and to promote and assure technically the use of GMO-free seeds.
They agreed to safeguard agricultural areas, such as those practising organic farming, from possible genetic contamination, by preventing or discouraging the growing of GM crops in those areas. They also pledged to push for international agreements that guarantee stocks of raw materials certified ‘GMO-free’ for the future.
This charter is perhaps the most comprehensive initiative by a group of regional governments to address the GMO issue and to take action to safeguard their lands from the intrusion of GMOs.
‘Co-existence’ law
At the country level, the higher chamber (Senate) of the Italian parliament, in January, gave its final approval to a law that will enable the Italian regions and autonomous provinces to adopt so-called ‘co-existence’ measures in order to avoid the presence of GMOs in other products. This means that as long as the regions and provinces have not adopted such co-existence rules, the cultivation of transgenic crops is prohibited. According to the new law, violation of this temporary ban (or ‘moratorium’) can be punished with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of 50,000 euros.
Currently, there is an absence of co-existence legislation in the EU to protect organic and conventional production from the risk of contamination by GMOs even though the European Commission in May 2004 lifted its then six-year-old EU-wide de facto moratorium on GMOs.
Important developments have also taken place in the UK of late which affect the adoption of GM products. In an unprecedented move, the South West Regional Assembly of the UK became the first regional authority to adopt a position on GM.
It issued a statement of principles which, among others, calls for the protection of food and farming from GM crops, a strict liability mechanism on GM companies and the strict testing of GM crops to prove that they do not have a negative impact on society, the economy and the environment.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has also come up with a proposal to set up an online GMO land register which would provide a mechanism to trace GM planting, providing choice and traceability for producers and consumers alike. This move comes in light of growing public concern regarding GM and a growing sentiment that the public has the right to know where crops are coming from and whether or not they are GM-free.
GMO bans
Some countries in Europe have also taken it upon themselves to ban particular GMOs, in this case the GE maize MON810 engineered for pest resistance. Under EU law, the GMO is approved for cultivation across the EU but countries have the discretion on whether to allow it on their national territory based on a safeguard provision in the EU law.
Both Poland and Hungary invoked this provision when they announced that they plan to ban the import and planting of maize seeds containing the GM event MON810. Austria has also earlier banned MON810, due to concerns about the effects of the insecticidal maize on non-target organisms. The European Commission has attempted to overturn the ban but was unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, over in the US, lawmakers in the state of Oregon are considering a temporary ban on growing food crops that are biologically engineered to produce drugs or chemicals such as vaccines. The bill, which was brought up for its first hearing in April in the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee, would mark the first time that a state has taken a decision to ban these ‘biopharm crops’.
Elsewhere, in California a number of counties, namely, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin County, have declared themselves GMO-free zones.
Now cities have also joined in the anti-GMO movement. In November 2004, the Arcata City Council adopted an anti-GMO ordinance which declares the sale, distribution, propagation, cultivation, raising or growing of genetically engineered organisms as a public nuisance and subject to criminal enforcement.
While more and more regions are putting in place legislation to ban GMOs on their territories, there is a simultaneous action that is aimed at preventing such moves from gaining ground.
Nine states in the US – namely, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Dakota, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia – have either passed or introduced legislation that would prevent local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds.
In March, Iowa’s House of Representatives passed a bill, House File 642, which would pre-empt ‘a local governmental entity.from adopting or enforcing legislation which relates to the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labelling, certification, or registration of agricultural seed’.
In February, Georgia passed Senate Bill 87 that prohibits local governments from regulating seeds. In early March, the North Dakota legislature passed a similar bill, Senate Bill 2277, by a 69-to-25 vote.
Similar seed bills have been introduced and are working their way through legislatures in Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia.
The bills are viewed as a nationally coordinated attempt to block GMO-free ordinances similar to those approved by citizens in Mendocino and Marin counties in California last year.
Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs Governments form GM-free zones, ban GMOs
As concerns grow over the environmental and human and animal health effects of genetic engineering, governments in some countries are taking action to protect their people and territory.
Chee Yoke Heong
WHILE the biotechnology train continues to move forward, more and more countries and provinces, especially in the developed world, are adopting GM-free zones or putting in place bans on GM crops, an indication that resistance towards GMOs remains strong in these countries.
In February, a group of European regional governments got together in Tuscany, Italy to discuss measures for protecting conventional and organic agriculture from the risk of genetic modification. They issued a charter which aims to safeguard genuine and high-quality products and to preserve agricultural biodiversity from contamination by GMO seeds.
The charter was undersigned by the network of 20 Europe-wide regional governments, namely those of Emilia Romagna, Marche, Lazio, Sardinia, Autonomous Province of Bolzano and Tuscany (Italy); the Salzburg region, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria (Austria); the Highlands & Islands Region of Scotland and Wales (UK); Schleswig-Holstein (Germany); l’Ile de France, Brittany, Aquitaine, Limousin and Poitou-Charentes (France); Basque (Spain); and Drama-Xavala-Xanthi (Greece).
The regional governments are committed to devising specific projects to support traditional agriculture and organic farming, anti-GMO measures, safeguarding certified quality products and biodiversity by preventing contamination by external genotypes, including genetically modified ones.
They also discussed possible sanctions to apply against environmental damage, as well as levying a tax on farmers in order to ensure that regional governments will have the necessary funds to cover all costs.
Member regions also pledged to favour ‘safe research’, i.e. research which observes strict safety protocols and that is exclusively carried out at authorised sites, and to promote and assure technically the use of GMO-free seeds.
They agreed to safeguard agricultural areas, such as those practising organic farming, from possible genetic contamination, by preventing or discouraging the growing of GM crops in those areas. They also pledged to push for international agreements that guarantee stocks of raw materials certified ‘GMO-free’ for the future.
This charter is perhaps the most comprehensive initiative by a group of regional governments to address the GMO issue and to take action to safeguard their lands from the intrusion of GMOs.
‘Co-existence’ law
At the country level, the higher chamber (Senate) of the Italian parliament, in January, gave its final approval to a law that will enable the Italian regions and autonomous provinces to adopt so-called ‘co-existence’ measures in order to avoid the presence of GMOs in other products. This means that as long as the regions and provinces have not adopted such co-existence rules, the cultivation of transgenic crops is prohibited. According to the new law, violation of this temporary ban (or ‘moratorium’) can be punished with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of 50,000 euros.
Currently, there is an absence of co-existence legislation in the EU to protect organic and conventional production from the risk of contamination by GMOs even though the European Commission in May 2004 lifted its then six-year-old EU-wide de facto moratorium on GMOs.
Important developments have also taken place in the UK of late which affect the adoption of GM products. In an unprecedented move, the South West Regional Assembly of the UK became the first regional authority to adopt a position on GM.
It issued a statement of principles which, among others, calls for the protection of food and farming from GM crops, a strict liability mechanism on GM companies and the strict testing of GM crops to prove that they do not have a negative impact on society, the economy and the environment.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has also come up with a proposal to set up an online GMO land register which would provide a mechanism to trace GM planting, providing choice and traceability for producers and consumers alike. This move comes in light of growing public concern regarding GM and a growing sentiment that the public has the right to know where crops are coming from and whether or not they are GM-free.
GMO bans
Some countries in Europe have also taken it upon themselves to ban particular GMOs, in this case the GE maize MON810 engineered for pest resistance. Under EU law, the GMO is approved for cultivation across the EU but countries have the discretion on whether to allow it on their national territory based on a safeguard provision in the EU law.
Both Poland and Hungary invoked this provision when they announced that they plan to ban the import and planting of maize seeds containing the GM event MON810. Austria has also earlier banned MON810, due to concerns about the effects of the insecticidal maize on non-target organisms. The European Commission has attempted to overturn the ban but was unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, over in the US, lawmakers in the state of Oregon are considering a temporary ban on growing food crops that are biologically engineered to produce drugs or chemicals such as vaccines. The bill, which was brought up for its first hearing in April in the Senate Environment and Land Use Committee, would mark the first time that a state has taken a decision to ban these ‘biopharm crops’.
Elsewhere, in California a number of counties, namely, Mendocino, Trinity and Marin County, have declared themselves GMO-free zones.
Now cities have also joined in the anti-GMO movement. In November 2004, the Arcata City Council adopted an anti-GMO ordinance which declares the sale, distribution, propagation, cultivation, raising or growing of genetically engineered organisms as a public nuisance and subject to criminal enforcement.
While more and more regions are putting in place legislation to ban GMOs on their territories, there is a simultaneous action that is aimed at preventing such moves from gaining ground.
Nine states in the US – namely, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Dakota, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia – have either passed or introduced legislation that would prevent local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds.
In March, Iowa’s House of Representatives passed a bill, House File 642, which would pre-empt ‘a local governmental entity.from adopting or enforcing legislation which relates to the production, use, advertising, sale, distribution, storage, transportation, formulation, packaging, labelling, certification, or registration of agricultural seed’.
In February, Georgia passed Senate Bill 87 that prohibits local governments from regulating seeds. In early March, the North Dakota legislature passed a similar bill, Senate Bill 2277, by a 69-to-25 vote.
Similar seed bills have been introduced and are working their way through legislatures in Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona and West Virginia.
The bills are viewed as a nationally coordinated attempt to block GMO-free ordinances similar to those approved by citizens in Mendocino and Marin counties in California last year.
|
|
