USDA Attache: 5 EU Member States Retain Bans On -4-

The industries fear that the importation of soybeans and soybean meal will become more difficult and more expensive when farmers in the U.S. begin to cultivate second generation biotech soybeans. Outreach activities continue to focus on providing farmers, processors and press contacts information about the practical experiences of U.S. farmers using agricultural biotechnology. These activities have been primarily funded through U.S. Department of State.

Hungary: Hungary has a mixed record with regard to agricultural biotechnology. The GOH introduced the first Act on Biotechnology in 1998. Since then the Act has been amended several times. In November 2006, the last time it was amended, the GOH approved a "Coexistence Regulation" (Act CVII. of 2006). The coexistence regulation is so stringent that it virtually prohibits biotech cultivation because of isolation distances, neighbor liability contracts, etc. The GOH is preparing another amendment to the Act under pressure from opponents of biotechnology in the Parliament. The amendment is to be filed for EU notification later this year. It is unclear what changes will be made.

Hungary's biotechnology legislation reflects the general thinking that the country's current "GM-free" status is a marketing boon. The country is a major seed and feed corn producer in Europe. The general public is rather pragmatic about biotechnology and scientists have a good reputation in Hungary. The country's life science institutes are active participants in international biotechnology research. For example in 2006, pro-biotech institutions and scientists from neighboring countries (with similar ecological conditions) established the "Pannonian" Plant Biotechnology Association to coordinate their activities. Environmental groups and the Ministry of Environment are trying to block the use of the new technology.

Since 2005, Hungary has maintained a moratorium on the planting of the biotech corn variety MON 810. The moratorium is not only inconsistent with EU regulations but is also controversial within the GOH. The Council of Environmental Ministers has voted down the proposal of the European Commission to lift the ban two times, last on February 20, 2007. EFSA evaluated Hungary's studies in support of its safeguard clause and issued an opinion in July 2008, finding "no new scientific evidence" that would invalidate the previous (EFSA) risk assessments (see at The EFSA Journal (2008) 756, 1-18). It is unclear if the Commission will place a new vote to the agenda and if so, when. It is possible that the 10- year re-evaluation for MON 810 within the EU regulatory regime will affect the Hungarian moratorium.

Ireland: While the Irish government has a policy of science-led decision making on the issue of agricultural biotechnology, a change of government in 2007 resulted in these decisions being changed at the political level. At that time, the Green Party entered the ruling coalition. As part of its Program for Government, the Green Party aspired for a "GM free" island of Ireland. This aspiration is undergoing refinement as the difficulties of the implementation of such a policy are now being slowly realized. Irish farmers rely on imported feedstuffs to supplement the diets of the mainly grass-fed animals.

Primary components of these diets are maize by-products such as corn gluten meal and distillers dried grains. However, most if not all of these products now contain genetically engineer derived crops and the implementation of a 'ban' on imports would cause untold economic hardship on Irish farming. With the arrival of new varieties of soybeans, Irish hog and poultry producers could face feed supply difficulties in 2009 and 2010 without EU approval of these new events. There is no doubt that the cultivation and field trials of biotechnology crops under the present government will not be allowed. Recently, opposition to biotechnology has waned from a media-driven frenzy in the late 1990's to general commentary editorials as the current food and fuel debate rages worldwide.

Italy: Since 2007, there have been no significant developments regarding biotechnology in Italy. However, there are signs that the new Berlusconi Government approach may differ from that of its predecessor.

After the Constitutional Court's decision of 2006, the responsibility for delineating coexistence regulations was mandated to the regions. In 2007 a special body (State-Regions Conference) established the guidelines, although not mandatory, that the regions would have to follow when establishing their own coexistence regulations. To date, no Italian region has taken such action. Until these guidelines are established, there will remain a de facto moratorium on planting biotech crops in Italy. Field trails are also blocked due to opposition from the Ministry of the Environment. The approval for field trials must come from a committee of ten (two from the Ministry of Agriculture, two from the Ministry of Environment, and six from the regions).

With regard to seeds for planting, Italy applies a "zero tolerance" for adventitious GM presence. The main authority is the Ministry of Agriculture, which also controls registration of seed varieties with the National Register. Italy has, except for limited cases last year, continued to vote no on the approval of biotech events with in the EU regulatory process. However, there are growing expectations of a possible change in this based upon statements recently made by the new government.

Poland: Since 2006, Poland has maintained an official anti-biotech position and consistently opposes EU approval of new biotech products, and has announced that Poland should be a "GM-free" country. The government banned the sale and registration of biotech seeds in mid-2006 and, passed legislation that was to prohibit import, production and use of animal feed derived from biotech crops by August 12, 2008. Cultivation is still possible, but not the sale of seeds. FAS Warsaw estimates there are about 300 hectares of biotech corn in Poland. EU officials have determined these bans are inconsistent with EU regulations. A new cultivation law is under preparation, but barriers may be set at 1 kilometer with neighbors approving planting. Corn producers lose an estimated $300 million in crop value each year due to losses caused by the European corn borer, which could be prevented by Bt corn.

Organic farmers and environmental groups are lobbying hard against relaxing restrictions.

On July 11, 2008, the Senate (upper house of the Polish Parliament) voted to delay introduction of a ban on biotech feed, which had been scheduled to enter into effect August 12, 2008, until Decemb er 31, 2012. The proposal was then signed by the Polish President and entered into force. The feed ban would have jeopardized roughly $6.4 billion in pork and poultry production, plus additional losses for feed compounders.

Poland has some of the highest feed prices in Europe and this is one significant reason why Polish pork, beef, and poultry imports are growing due to increasing competition from Western European countries. Many industry associations, scientists, producers, and regional political leaders are calling for changes to biotechnology policy in Poland; and played a key role in delaying the introduction of the proposed feed ban until January 2013.

Portugal: Total acreage for biotech corn in Portugal for 2008 is expected to reach about 4,700 hectares. This would represent a significant increase over 2007. Portugal was one of the first EU Member States to implement a coexistence regulation, to evaluate its effects, and to establish rules for declaring biotechnology-free zones. A firstyear coexistence compliance monitoring report indicated that currently required buffer zones kept the adventitious presence in surrounding corn crops well below the 0.9 percent threshold required to claim biotechnology-free status. While rootworm-resistant corn is the only agriculture biotechnology crop currently grown in Portugal, many Portuguese farmers are interested in additional biotech crops as potential solutions to other problems.

While root-worm resistant biotechnology corn production is making its mark, the Portuguese Farmers Association has indicated that corn farmers would be even more interested in herbicide resistant corn, as it could be grown on a wider range of Portugal's tillable acreage. Farmers are also looking at ethanol production from biotechnology corn, and other crops in response to Portugal's new biofuels initiative.

Romania: Romania continues to be part of the EU group using the opportunity of planting biotech seeds for commercial use. Prior to EU accession, Romania was the only country in Eastern Europe to plant biotech soybeans. The acreage grew 8 fold from 2001 through 2006, reaching 137,000 hectares. This was discontinued in 2007, when Romania acceded to the EU. In 2008, Romanian farmers planted biotech corn for commercial purposes on 7,500 hectares, up from 331 hectares in 2007.

Inspired by the movements of the EU countries opposing biotechnology, the Environment Minister announced in April 2008 that steps towards imposing a moratorium on biotech crops will be taken. In this regard, a new Biosafety Commission was established, with its first task being re-assessment MON 810.

The Environment Minister hoped to influence the members of the Biosafety Commission and receive an immediate unfavorable risk-assessment which might have blocked 2008 planting. Nevertheless, the Biosafety Commission proved to be an independent body with rules and organizational principles that led to a proper framework for conducting risk-assessments and taking decisions on biotech events. At the present, it is hard to predict when the Biosafety Commission will complete the risk-assessment (basically a review of the available scientific papers) and when a decision will be taken.