Transcript The History and Background of the
The History and Background of the Hungarian Moratorium Veronika Móra
1996/LIII 1998/XXVII 82, 128/2003
The evolution of the Hungarian GMO regulation
Framework Act on Nature Conservation – call for relevant regulation Act on Gene technologies – amended in 2002 (transposing EU 2001/18) - amended in 2006 (including a new chapter on co-existence regulations) Implementation decrees by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Main regulatory issues ALL activities related to gene technologies (establishment of laboratories, filed trials, marketing, transport) require approval, except for contained experiments of a purely scientific nature (but these should also be announced).
Permission request (dossier) Pre-evaluation
Authorities at relevant ministries depending on the type of use (agriculture, medicine etc.)
Expert opinion and recommendation
Gene Tecnology Advisory Committee Ministry of Environment and Waters – binding opinion
Votes by simple majority, except for marketing decisions, when a qualified majority is needed. The negative opinion of the Committee cannot be overturned by the authority.
Composition: 6 representatives of the Academy of Sciences (different fields of expertise) 5 representatives of various ministries (Agriculture, Environment, Health, Education, Economy) – NOT civil servants!
1 representative of health protection NGOs 1 representative of consumer NGOs 4 representatives environmental NGOs
Experience since 1999
1+3 years of field trials required before seed registration.
App. 55 field trials (varieties):
species: corn, sugar beet, rape seed, tobacco, potato, (experiments discontinued in 2001), wheat, poplar trees (latter ones don’t aim at direct commercialisation); traits: glyphosate tolerance (RR), gluphosinate tolerance, pest resistance (Bt), virus resistance (against Y virus); area never exceeded 12 ha altogether all around the country; First request for marketing approval was filed and deferred in 2004.
Implementation and administrative oversight:
field trials: regular control during the vegetation period of the isolation distances, protection against theft and animals, eventual destruction of the harvest (burning); seeds: control for the adventitious presence of GMOs in imported seed stocks. Many elevators also require certification!
food: agency to randomly control imports – necessary laboratory background only built up last year – MAIN SHORTCOMING, labelling is thus not really implemented yet.
The moratorium
Announced by the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development on 20 January 2005, using the
‘safeguard clause’
(Art 23.) of the 2001/18/EC Directive - such a measure must be based on new scientific information on health or the environment!
Main arguments: 1.) Preliminary results of the independent risk assessment research carried out by the Plant Protection Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the St. István University 2.) Lack of testing under the circumstances of the Pannonian biogeographic region
Scientific arguments I.
Research started in 2001 and was officially commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Waters is 2005 – results: I./ Extremely high production of ~Cry1A-toxin per hectare
Measurements have revealed that the
DK-440-BTY Bt-maize produces
, through its organic matter production per hectare,
about 1500-2000 times more
(!) ~Cry1A-
toxin, than is permitted in Hungary
to be used for the treatment of a hectare of crop in the form of DIPEL [1] .
II./ Very slow decomposition of ~Cry1A-toxin in stubble residues
8% of the
~Cry1A-toxin
measured in the stubble residues of the DK-440-BTY Bt-maize
was still a detectable quantity after
the passage of
11 months
.
III./ Decreased activity of organisms living in soil containing Bt-stubble residues
During two years scientists carried out testing directly after harvest (September 2001 and August 2002) and then more than half a year after harvest (April 2003). On each occasion
significantly lower activity levels in the soil under maize producing Cry1A-toxin was found
than in the soil under the isogenic maize.
Rearrangement of the soil nematode community (change in the composition of species).
Some springtail species (Folsomia candida) differentiate between conventional and Bt corn, and avoid the consumption of the latter of offered the choice.
[1] DIPEL is an insecticide produced by Bacillus thuringiensis
Scientific arguments II.
IV./ High mortality of hatching caterpillars of protected butterflies exposed to MON810 pollen
Some 16% of the 186 protected butterfly species in Hungary live in ruderal areas and during the period of pollen shedding they may come into contact with Bt-containing pollen. This includes in particular the first stage larvae of the protected butterflies feeding on nettle species such as
Inachis io
peacock) and
Vanessa atalanta
(European (Red Admiral) along with the also rare species
Polygonia c-album
(Comma).
Scientists have discovered that on nettle plants within 5 metres of the MON810 event maize field a critical quantity of
~Cry1A-toxin
can occur which
may kill some 20 % of the
Inachis io
population hatching there
.
V./ Resistance of pests evolves relatively fast
Lepidopteran pests fed with ~Cry1A-toxin containing corn develop resistance in 10 generations.
The Pannonian biogeographic region
Legal arguments
When the MON810 was tested and approved in the EU (1998), Hungary hasn’t yet been a member – MON810 wasn’t tested under the ecological conditions of the Pannonian region as prescribed by the Directive.
The application of the
precautionary principle
: EFSA consistently refuses findings and arguments challenging authorisation vs.
competent authorities have an obligation to halt the proceedings and investigate the matter in depth until they can fully make sure that negative impacts on the environment and human health can be excluded.
Political arguments
Hungary is a significant Euro pean exporter of corn, including seeds! – 1,5 million ha area European public opinion refuses GMOs (Eurobarometer: 58%) – Hungary is among the top five countries Buyers request GMO free certificates – this status provides Hungary a competitive advantage Corn borer is not a significant pest in Hungary MON810 does not offer any advantage to farmers The 10-year authorisation of MON810 is currently being re-evaluated With the new, stricter environmental risk assessment criteria, it is questionable whether it can remain on the market
Parliamentary Decision
Adopted – with consensus of all of the five parties of the Parliament (rare case in Hungary) – on 27 November 2006, same day when the amendment of the GMO Act.
The Decision declares that there is a need for further research regarding environmental impacts on the Pannonian biogeographical region of genetically modified plant species which already have a consent within the EC scientific research on environmental impacts of the maize line MON810 has to be continued in the future as well the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming must be strictly regulated in a way which ensures that the crop production can be supervised and traced effectively
Hungary has to use every effort in order to achieve that the European regulation on gene technological activities reflects the interests of the European citizens and local communities in a better way;
expenses.
–
strong mandate
minimizes the environmental and social risks of GMOs; and creates conditions for covering the extra costs of the society connected with the application of the gene technology by those who are responsible for creating such the Hungarian Government has to carry out an effective and well balanced mass communication campaign on the impacts of growing genetically modified seeds the Hungarian Government has to increase the severity of the national supervision system, has to ensure the effective operation of the monitoring system as well as to strenghten its institutional background the Hungarian Parliament calls upon the civil society, parties and media in order to help that the Hungarian society become acquainted with the above mentioned questions.
The process of Hungarian co-existence approval
Produce r Licence Preliminary approval Public register Authority Final approval Record Neighbours agree Seed purchase Planting Practical application is questionable!
Seed distributors keep record Control
The history of the moratorium since 2005
EFSA opinion issued in summer 2006 – but not distributed it among member states Commission proposal to lift the moratorium Voting in the Regulatory Committee – 18 September 2006: no qualified majority Voting in the Environmental Council – 20 February 2007: qualified majority rejected the Commission proposal to lift the moratorium (FIN, NL, SE & UK in favour of the proposal, RO abstained)
An issue of national sovereignity
Meeting between the EFSA and the Hungarian authority and experts 11 June 2008 – no questions were raised regarding the Hungarian arguments presented there EFSA opinion issued 2 July 2008 – ‘no new scientific data had been presented ’, lack of dialogue with Hungarian scientists Renewed Commission proposal – upcoming voting the the
Environmental Council scheduled for the 2nd of March 2009