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

The Environment Minister's initiative to restrict access to biotech crops angered many farmers, who view this as a violation of their right to use any approved technology on their farms. Unlike the Environment Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry has been very supportive of farmers' complaints, claiming that farmers should have access to all three types of agriculture: conventional, organic, biotech. Green organizations continued to be very active, trying to slow or reverse biotech crop expansion and in misleading consumer groups regarding biotech derived food-products. Their public campaigns have not only targeted crops, but also food, such as soy-based products.

In June 2008, FAS/Bucharest organized a series of events promoting agricultural biotechnology. These were attended mainly by Government officials, members of Parliament, scientists, and media, creating an atmosphere for lively discussions about the current state and future perspectives of agricultural biotechnology in Romania. In the countryside, farmers were the main target and their number and active participation exceeded expectations.

Slovakia : Slovak farmers started growing Bt corn in 2006 on 30 hectares. The acreage has been gradually growing, exceeding 1,500 hectares in 2008. Slovakia has fully implemented all EU regulations on biotechnology. The decree administering coexistence came into force in February 2007.

The competent authority under Directive 2001/18/EC is the Ministry of Environment (MoE). The competencies of the MoE include responsibility to:

- issue consents for the contained use of genetic technologies and GE products; the introduction of GE products into the environment; and the placing of the product on the market

- receive and assess notifications

- receive notices on accidents and on detected changes on deliberate releases

- receive applications for contained uses of genetic technologies and GE products; the introduction of GE products into the environment; and the placing of the product on the market

- keep a record of used genetic techniques

- keep a register of the facilities including the records of users of biotechnologies or GE products, safety committees and heads of the projects

For matters regarding genetic technologies and modern biotechnology, the MoE is the national point of notification to the bodies of the European Union and the national centre for the safety of genetic engineering and modern biotechnology. Other competencies are covered by the Ministry of Agriculture (food, feed, seed) and the Ministry of Health (community feeding). Inspection and control authorities include the State Veterinary and Food Administration (food control and inspection) and Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (seeds, coexistence).

Slovenia: In Slovenia, agricultural biotechnology is confined to laboratories and to production facilities. So far, there have not been biotech field trials in Slovenia and there is no commercial production. This might change after the adoption of the Act on Co-existence of Genetically Modified Plants with Other Agricultural Plants in the near future. In general, Slovenians have a negative opinion of biotech products and, if possible, they would avoid consuming them.

The legislative and administrative framework of biosafety in Slovenia is established in accordance with the legal order of the EU and the international Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Special regulations, within the competency of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food regulate following issues: medicinal products for the use in human and veterinary medicine, which contain biotech products or are composed of biotech products or their combinations; biotech products used for food, which contains or are composed of biotech products; food made from GE products or containing ingredients made from GE products; GE products used for feed which contains or is composed of GE products, and fodder made from GE products.

Spain: Spain has been and remains the biotechnology "powerhouse" of Europe. In Spain, biotech maize has been commercially grown since 1998, giving it the longest practical experience in cultivating biotech events in the EU. Spanish corn farmers increased biotechnology corn plantings during marketing year 2007 at a near record-setting pace, while total corn planted increased (first time in recent history) only slightly. In 2008, due to excessive rain, farmers experienced some difficulties in corn planting. Initial estimates expect reduction in total acreage, however Bt corn area is expect to remain stable.

Spanish farmers in regions with known corn borer infestations increasingly planted biotechnology corn, while corn farmers in regions where infestations are more inconsistent (weather dependent) are also turning to MON 810 varieties as a means of minimizing risk, increasing productivity and quality, reducing their environmental footprint, and maximizing profit. The biotechnology corn planted and harvested in Spain is used exclusively in the production of domestic compound feeds where it is labeled as containing "genetically modified organisms."

The debate continues on a GOS coexistence decree, the first draft of which was made public in 2004. Spanish corn farmers continue growing biotechnology corn without environmental incident and without a Decree to "protect" organic farmers as demanded by the antibiotechnology lobby. With each successive successful year the "case" for a Governmentimposed national decree becomes increasingly more difficult. However over the years, the terms and conditions of potential co-existence regulations, particularly regarding buffer zones and isolation distances have become more imposing. While nothing has been finalized, it is widely understood that the Environment Ministry is holding out for even more severe conditions that would likely eliminate the possibility of agriculture biotechnology production in Spain.

Sweden: There is no commercial production of biotech crops in Sweden. Several seed companies have, however, developed their own GE varieties, including herbicide tolerant rapeseed, herbicide tolerant sugar beet and starch potatoes. According to the Swedish Institute for Food and Agricultural Economics (SLI), growing biotech crops in Sweden would be economically beneficial for Swedish farmers. SLI has concluded that growing biotech crops instead of conventional crops would result in a 4-12% profitability increase. The largest potential benefit is noted for potatoes. Possible costs for co-existence measures such as safety distances between biotech and conventional fields are not considered in the analyses.

Prior to 2006, Sweden did not import biotech products or crops. However since January 2006, when the meat industry lifted its ban on biotech feed, small quantities of biotech soy products have been imported into Sweden. While demand for this product has been limited, there has reportedly been no negative reaction from the Swedish trade. The food processing and retail sectors remain concerned about the possibility of negative consumer reaction and anti-biotech demonstrations.

United Kingdom: The UK government is one of the strongest advocates of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union. Indeed, in June 2008 the UK Environment Minister reignited the agriculture biotech debate by suggesting that biotech crops could play a positive role in alleviating global food price rises.

In addition, the British Prime Minister is reported to have urged fellow EU leaders to look again at biotech as a way of reducing the cost of food for the world's poorest countries. This action is likely triggered by the current world attention on finding solutions to the global food price issue, sustained pressure from industry for the government to take action over animal feed prices and the recent publication of UK research findings showing positive socio-economic and environmental impacts of GE crops over the last ten years (PG Economics).

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC which comprised of UK representatives from the major technology providers) provides supporting evidence to the UK government. ABC is calling for an end to the requirement to make biotech crop trials public, a faster regulatory framework and a de-politicization of the genetically engineer crop approval process. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are opposed to any such changes, touting their efforts through "GM Freeze".

NGOs question the argument for biotechnology as part of the solution to the food price crisis, drawing on the negative findings in the recently published report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development (ISAASTD). In 2004, the UK government declared that there was no scientific case for a blanket ban on the cultivation of biotech crops in the UK, but that proposed uses needed to be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis. There is still no commercial production of biotech crops in the UK as varieties that are currently approved within the EU are not suited to the growing conditions in the UK. A consultation exercise opened in July 2006 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) looked at options for managing the coexistence of biotech, conventional and organic crops. The results of the exercise reflected the polarization of the debate with anti-biotech against coexistence in any form, while advocates were largely supportive of the measures proposed.

In response to consumers' lack of enthusiasm for the technology and to avoid EU labeling rules, UK supermarkets and big brand food manufacturers have reformulated their food products to remove biotech ingredients. The number of products that are labeled is very limited. The effective de facto ban on biotech food in the UK, and consequent lack of consumer choice, will remain until supermarkets start to stock more products with a biotech content.

Member States

Field Registry