Growing EU-approved cornborer resistant genetically modified maize/corn forbidden in Germany
16 April 2009
After quite a while an article on genetically modified plants made frontpage headlines again in the Dutch NRC daily newspaper. Germany's federal minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner (of the CSU party, the Bavarian sister-party of the ruling Christian Democratic Union CDU) has decided to forbid growing transgenic maize/corn of the 'Mon 810' type. This maize is the first and only genetically modified crop variety to be allowed to be cultivated in the EU since its approval in 1998. In Germany it was sown on an area of around 4.000 hectares. This can be compared to the world wide gmo cultivation area of well over 100.000.000 hectares.
The German ban is the sixth within the EU: France, Hungary, Luxemburg, Greece and Austria took that step earlier. According to the newspaper these decisions were taken on the basis of political or ecological concerns. Currently, the German minister is referring to new EU-studies that would show the crop to be detrimental to, among others, ladybugs.
Larvae of the cornborer, like the name suggests, shortly after hatching from the egg, eat their way through the inside of the plants. Thus they create tunnels where conventional insecticides can't reach them. To reach hatched larvae before they are inside the plant, farmers have to spray very frequently to protect their crop. In corn cobs, the tunnels are infested by fungi, also difficult to reach with fungicides. These fungi may produce mycotoxins detrimental to animal and human health. In other words, having to rely on insecticides again will also have conseqences for the environment and health. The decision by the German authorities, the newspaper notes, may have consequences in other countries.
According to the second part of the article on page 15, the denial by the minister that her decision is politically motivated is 'not shared' by the political establishment in Berlin. Electional motives of the CSU party, aiming at European elections, are mentioned. CSU party leader Horst Seehofer is currently referred to in Germany as 'Horst Genehofer', so there seems to be some political pressure.
Not in the article, but listed in our news overview earlier, this aspect seems to fit the pattern as well: Following the French ban, it was suggested that president Sarkozy banned gmo's in order to have the environmentalists refraining from critisizing France's energy policy, that to a large extend depends on nuclear energy.
Back to the article, and Germany, in the 'land' Brandenburg, disappointment is prominent. This part of former Eastern Germany lags behind agriculturally and economically. They hoped to keep their vast acres and economy afloat by employing modern techniques. German federal minister for Science, Annette Schavan, CDU, has, in contrast to the minister of Agriculture from her small Bavarian sister party CSU, pointed out that European studies have indicated that there are no detrimental effects of growing Mon 810.
American multinational Monsanto, owner of MON 810, has announced to consider legal steps, but this has failed to impress Germany. According to the newspaper article the company is referred to by a CSU parlementarian as "Gene-monopolist" and enjoys little sympathy in large circles within Europe.
Beside: Monsanto also benefits from opposition, the threshold for other companies to enter this market become ever higher, thus strenthening Monsanto's position more and more. In this way activists, unwittingly, aid the very company they are protesting against (see for instance the letter by Hidde Boersma, published in NRC of April 17th 2009).
Another article, again in the April 16th edition of NRC, written by Hans van der Lugt, is in line with the line of reasoning presented above. Stefan Marcinowski, within the Board of BASF responsible for genetic modification, declared just days ago in Amsterdam that: "The EU no longer has a position when planning our activities". Where genetic modification is concerned, BASF withdraws from "Island Europe" and addresses the rest of the world from now on. Outside Europe, the acreage of genetically modified crops is increasing year upon year. Marcinowski reminded his audience that, after the first approval to grow a genetically modified crop in 1998, no new approvals were issued in the European Union. Since 1998 in the US, however, no less than 70 new GMO varieties had been approved for cultivation.
Furthermore, the article mentions how BASF's transgenic starch potato 'Amflora' still isn't approved in the EU. This potato variety produces an amylose free amylopectin starch that is much better suited for technical purposes. Despite years of effort, the EU member states are and remain hopelesly divided over approving this variety to be cultivated. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been asked for yet a new advice by April 1st 2009, but all parties involved are still waiting. BASF will continue the Amflora project in the EU, but new projects are cancelled or moved to serve other parts of the world. BASF cooperates with Monsanto in developing a drought resistant maize which is due to reach the market, but not the European market, by 2012. BASF can't keep from mentioning how investment in modern technology is shifting to the Unites States as well. Clearly reluctantly, the company leaves the knowledge base in Europe largely unused from now on.
It came as a shock to this trained scientist (chemistry) that a new technology is kept out of use because of ideological bickering.
Although facts and science quite rarely attain their proper place in ideology spiced debates, it is at least remarkable the German minister refers to ladybugs as useful creatures being threatened by genetically modified crops. The Dutch Foundation Bio-Wetenschappen en Maatschappij last year published (4, 2008) a cahier about "Nature as ally". In his contribution, ïn translation entitled "Side effects of biological control agents", Antoon Loomans explains how, specifically in the case of ladybugs, the generally positive strategy of biological control backfired quite dramatically in both America and Europe.
To control aphids, the article mentions how cars parked under aphid-infested trees get covered by sticky stuff, the 'multi-coloured Asian ladybug' (Harmonia axyridis), was imported and bred. Between 1995 and 2003 these Asian ladybugs were released in public green areas and in horticultural and agricultural settings. Found for the first time in the wild in 2002, this species has become one of the most predominant ladybugs in the Netherlands by 2009. The spread in the US, where Harmonia was used in biological aphid control as well, started in 1984 already. According to Antoon Loomans, by now Harmonia has "in some areas outcompeted other ladybug species to dwindling numbers".
- Biological control that
a) reduces pesticide use considerably, but
b) causes considerable harm some of the time (Out of 5000 introductions of in all 2000 species, 75 introductions, involving 60 species went out of control); - DDT that
a) weakened the eggs of birds of prey and had their populations reduced dramatically
b) safes a great many human lives in malaria-prone areas; - Genetical modification that
a) is mainly introduced by a single American multinational company, but
b) cuts back on pesticide use, reduces waste in starch production and delivers countless resistances against biological attackers and a-biotic stresses, threatening food security...
'Debate' within society, suffers when reality refuses to match the dominant ideological thinking in extremes of 'good' and 'bad', 'black' and 'white'. As long as Europe fails to keep ideology away from societal and political debate, genetic modification will serve as a 'scape goat' on 'Island Europe' for quite some time to come, we fear.
source: Joost van der Vaart in NRC 15 april 2009; Hans van der Lugt, NRC 15 april 2009; Antoon Loomans in: Cahier Bio-Wetenschappen en Maatschappij (4, 2008); webmaster's own background information