contamination

For an overview over contamination events check www.gmcontaminationregister.org
Regulation 1829/2003 - Section 2 Labelling, Article 12:
"1. This Section shall apply to foods which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer or mass caterers in the Community and which:
(a) contain or consist of GMOs; or
(b) are produced from or contain ingredients produced from GMOs.
2. This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 per cent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
3. In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable, operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of such material."

[img_assist|nid=109|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=43]Once again, Greenpeace found GM contamintion in random samples from supermarkets - in pet food in the Netherlands this time. What's amazing are the high percentages of contamination that were found. Nine of the 17 samples contained up to 40 and 60% of GM maize or soy (see list.

[img_assist|nid=107|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=43]After years of arguments the German government finally decided on changes on a number of regulations for GM crops. What's hailed as an improvement in fact makes matters worse and some of the pressing issues have still not been tackled. What made it to the main TV news was that GM maize now should be planted 150 m away from conventional maize, or 300 m from organic maize. Or less if the GM farmer makes an agreement with his neighbours.

[img_assist|nid=107|title=|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=150|height=65]After years of arguments the German government finally decided on changes on a number of regulations for GM crops. What's hailed as an improvement in fact makes matters worse and some of the pressing issues have still not been tackled. What made it to the main TV news was that GM maize now should be planted 150 m away from conventional maize, or 300 m from organic maize. Or less if the GM farmer makes an agreement with his neighbours. It doesn't take much imagination to picture the pressure that can mount in a village if one farmer wants to grow GM maize... But it also means that their neighbours will have to label any kind of GM contamination, even below 0.9% because agreeing to a lesser safety distance clearly could technically been avoided. >>>

And then there is a longer distance for organic farmers. Why would that be needed if 150 m are considered far enough to avoid contamination. The answer is simply that in fact it is not considered enough to avoid any contamination, but those wanting to grow GM crops simply bank on the labelling regulation that allows contamination below 0.9% to stay unlabelled, claiming that there would be no damage to non-GM farmers if contamination would be lower then that. But in fact processors and other customers are likely to only purchase GM maize with lower contamination, just to stay on the safe side.

Other changes are equally bad: Specific groups of plants might be taken out of the regulation, even if the the so-called "closed system" in which they are grown would be open fields. Field trials would thereby by less regulated then crops approved for cultivation, food and feed by the EU.

[img_assist|nid=141|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=99|height=43]Only less than two months after Greenpeace had detected illegal contamination of maize pellets in the harbour of Rotterdam, the EU commission tried to solve the problem by approving the maize Herculex RW (59122) as feed and food. The Standing Committee however did not agree with that on Monday.

[img_assist|nid=115|title=|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=100|height=43]Gentechnisch veränderter Reis ist in den Handel gelangt, obgleich er weder in den Vereinigten Staaten noch in der Europäischen Union eine Zulassung besitzt. Wie es dazu kommen konnte, ist derzeit noch nicht geklärt.

A. Lorch, GID 178 Oktober 2006

[img_assist|nid=170|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=43]Food in the EU doesn't have to be labeled as containing GM ingredients if it contains material of less than 0.9% content as long as it is "adventitious" or "technically unavoidable". But companies have to label it, if they have done nothing to avoid the contamination. The clause "adventitious" or "technically unavoidable" in the EU Regulation 1829/2003 on GM labelling is not a simple threshold.

[img_assist|nid=143|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=43]Since their introduction in 1996, GM crops have contaminated food, feed, seed and the environment right across the globe. Over 60 have been documented in 27 countries on 5 continents. In June 2005, GeneWatch and Greenpeace launched the GM Contamination Registerto record them.

[img_assist|nid=21|title=|desc=|link=none|align=right|width=150|height=65]Since their introduction in 1996, GM crops have contaminated food, feed, seed and the environment right across the globe. Over 60 have been documented in 27 countries on 5 continents. In June 2005, GeneWatch and Greenpeace launched the GM Contamination Registerto record them.

Pages