Food industry warned on potential costs arising from GM honey
ruling<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Food-industry-warned-on-potential-costs-arising-from-GM-honey-ruling?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright>

A recent GM honey ruling could have huge cost implications for the European
food industry, with the UK’s food safety agency calling for greater clarity
from Brussels on the interpretation of the European Court of Justice’s
decision.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Food-industry-warned-on-potential-costs-arising-from-GM-honey-ruling<http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Food-industry-warned-on-potential-costs-arising-from-GM-honey-ruling?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright>


*The European Commission's reputation for neutrality and impartiality is at
risk following rulings on GM honey and battery hen cages*
Let us be clear - for a number of reasons, I am fundamentally opposed to the
cultivation of GM crops in Europe. First, consumers have made it plain time
and time again that they don't want the products on their supermarket
shelves. Second, the potential of GM crops is one of the most over-hyped
corporate propaganda campaigns in existence today. Study after study shows
that GM crops do not lead to improved yields compared to conventional crops.
And commercial GM crops only really exist for soy, maize and cotton. What GM
crops do is trap farmers into crippling intellectual property agreements,
high seed prices with no possibility to save seed and dependence on related
products produced by the same multinational agri-business - such as
pesticides.
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/963/commission-in-a-sticky-situation-over-gm-honey

7 Oct 2011GMO fears lead to astounding Court ruling, with backlash expected
on imports of honey from mainland China

There is a strong likelihood that the decision will affect imports of honey,
and potentially other agricultural products, originating in countries that
have authorised the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Imported honey
with GMO traces could face *de facto* import restrictions, for instance in
the form of further non-tariff barriers and technical barriers to trade. In
any event, imported honey will face the same obligation of market approval
as honey originating in Europe.

The current authorisation scheme will, it is expected, be subject to
modifications. It is indeed clearly not adapted to deal with the huge
amounts of market approval requests that may arise following the ECJ’s
decision, as every batch of honey will have to be analysed for the presence
of pollen. The Commission has already started discussions on the
implementation of the ruling.

In the meantime, environmental NGOs are already calling the ruling a
victory, both for consumers and for the “GM-free” movement in Europe. There
is a strong expectation that the EU’s rules against GMOs will henceforth
become even tougher. A spokesperson from Greenpeace EU claimed that the
ECJ’s ruling “highlights how conventional and genetically modified
agriculture cannot co-exist. When a GM crop is grown in open fields,
contamination is impossible to stop. It’s a scandal there’s no Europe-wide
liability regime to protect beekeepers or farmers affected by GM crops”.

http://www.hktdc.com/info/mi/a/baeu/en/1X07NGF9/1/Business-Alert-EU/GMO-Fears-Lead-To-Astounding-Court-Ruling-With-Backlash-Expected-On-Imports-Of-Honey-From-Mainland-China.htm


*Honey on dispute : The conflict on GMOs continues*

**



*A recent verdict from the Court of Justice of the European Union draw
attention to the real difficulties of co-existence between genetically
modified and non-modified products.*

... so that the assumption that GMO and non-GMO products can coexist is
shown to be flawed.

The case raises questions in three sensitive areas: the application of the
precautionary principle, the role of scientific assessment, and the entire
biological context of food production.

The Precautionary Principle requires that, where there are reasonable
doubts, protection takes precedence over risk-taking: therefore risks must
be carefully evaluated and tests must be carried out. In this way the
precautionary principle requires the assessment of potential damage. This is
the reason for field trials. Scientific assessment is crucial, but in this
case it cannot be limited merely to confirming the presence or absence of
genetically modified proteins. It must also clarify what levels are
considered as adventitious, unintended.

It must always be remembered that food production takes place in open fields
not in laboratories, and such open-air conditions cannot be fully
controlled. It is this natural context that makes scientific assessment more
difficult and renders due precaution more essential.

http://europe-infos.eu/europeinfos/en/archive/issue142/article/4219.html



Juanse Barros J.
APIZUR S.A.
Carrera 695
Gorbea - CHILE
+56-45-271693
08-3613310
http://apiaraucania.blogspot.com/
[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm