By Tito Drago
MADRID, Feb 12 1999 (IPS)

Greenpeace International commended a European Parliament decision on the need to warn of the potential dangers to human health or the environment posed by the genetic manipulation of crops.

Benny Haerlin with the international environmental watchdog Greenpeace applauded the European Parliament’s decision, which he said sent a clear signal to the 175 countries meeting next week in Colombia to agree on a Protocol on Biosecurity to regulate the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The decision approved by a plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg Thursday by 230 to 177 votes, with 32 abstentions, stated that the absence of scientific proof of negative effects of GMOs could not be used as an excuse to delay the adoption of preventive measures.

But the Parliament also stated that it was necessary to guarantee the continued development of genetically-engineered crops in Europe.

Greenpeace director of Biodiversity Ricardo Aguilar said that “at least Europe has realised that free trade cannot be put above public health or the environment.”

“Now this example must be reproduced at an international level,” he added.

However, the position of the European Parliament was far from emphatic. The Parliament also made concessions toward those who defend genetic manipulation as a means of improving crop quality and yields.

One of the European Parliament’s demands, aimed at biotechnology giants like the U.S. transnational corporation Monsanto, was that GMOs must contain no antibiotic-resistant genes or traces of toxic or pathogenic substances.

According to Spain’s environmental umbrella ‘Ecologistas en Accion’, Monsanto markets genetically treated “terminator seeds” that produce sterile plants and, furthermore, include pesticides that hurt other produce.

The European Parliament pronounced itself in favour of the drafting of a list of GMOs which are not to be sold in the European Union due to risks to the environment, human health or diversity.

Those which could be marketed would be authorised only after the proper authorities were presented with a detailed description of the methods by which the plants could be identified, and thus traced and monitored. A complete registry and database are to be made available to the public.

That proposal was designed to strike a balance between the need to protect human health and the environment, and the benefits of developing an industry that has much to offer, parliamentarians pointed out.

Speaking for the research commission, Finnish parliamentarian Marjo Tuulevi Matikainen-Kallstrom, of the European Popular Party, admitted that scientific evidence was not yet clear, which meant consumers must be allowed to choose.

He stressed that to enable them to make their own choices, labels on food produced with GMOs must be clear.

Parliamentarian Lone Dybkjaer from Denmark pointed to the competition between the United States and the European Union, and argued that the principle of precaution should be enforced through a practical approach, rather than simply by saying “no” to GMOs.

Christian Cabrol, a right-wing parliamentarian from France, said GMOs were designed to improve quality, and were only marketed once they had passed strict controls. He urged that the market not be left in the hands of U.S. companies, “whose products are flooding European supermarkets.”

In the name of Belgium’s Green Party, Paul Lannoye said there was scientific evidence of the risks. He berated the European Commission, the EU executive organ, for failing to take such risks into account on time.

The European Parliament’s approval of the obligation that all countries must give their explicit consent before importing transgenic products was described by Greenpeace as a major stride forward.

Excerpt: