Forgot your password?
Register Now
Document Actions
EU delays ruling on GM products
(BRUSSELS) - The European Commission on Wednesday ordered more tests on whether several genetically modified products should be allowed in Europe, putting back a decision on whether to give approval.
Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger put the new delay down to divisions within the European Union's executive arm, pitting environmentalists against the biotech industry.
"There were doubts and it was decided to seek more clarification," he said. "If the scientific evidence confirm that the product is safe, then it will be allowed."
Laitenberger said the European Food Safety Authority, which has never rejected a GM product, had been ordered to carry out more scientific analysis of the products.
EU member states hold responsibility for jointly deciding whether GM products should be allowed on the market but frequently are unable to make a decision because they are divided on the subject.
As a result, the decision reverts to the European Commission, which usually follows the advice of EFSA, which itself has so far always given favourable opinions towards GM products.
The GM products with pending applications for authorisation are potato strain made by German group BASF to be resistant to antibiotics and several strains of pesticide resistant maize strains.
The European Commission, which has not authorised a GM crop in the EU since 1998, faces growing pressure to resolve the matter.
The delay comes amid a growing storm over how Europe decides whether to allow GM products or not. Environmentalists and some governments, such as Germany and France, say that the current procedure ultimately leaves the decision with EFSA.
With EU governments deeply divided over GM technology, environmental groups seized on the move as proof that the European Union's complicated procedures for assessing such products was in shambles
Greenpeace GM campaigner Marco Contiero said: "Today's decisions are a huge vote of no confidence in the EU food authority and vindicate Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas' concerns about scientific inconsistencies in the EU GMO assessment."
Although GM products are common in other parts of the world, they remain fiercely debated in Europe where a recent EU survey found that about 58 percent of European citizens are apprehensive about their use and only 21 were in favour.
Separately, the commission called on Austria to lift import bans on two GM maize strains which Vienna has kept in place even though the EU has lost an WTO a challenge against them.
Text and Picture Copyright 2008 AFP. All other Copyright 2008 EUbusiness Ltd. All rights reserved. This material is intended solely for personal use. Any other reproduction, publication or redistribution of this material without the written agreement of the copyright owner is strictly forbidden and any breach of copyright will be considered actionable.
UN's Ban encouraged by EU dialogue with Iran
Regulatory Affairs Advisor - Internal Electricity Market and grids, European Wind Energy Association
Nuclear Issues - Emergency Preparedness
Knowledge for growth
GMOs & Future Possibilities
Openess and transparency
Excellence in science
Independence
Responsiveness
In line with its policy on engaging with organisations with a legitimate interest in EFSA’s work, EFSA has invited scientists from environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to share views on scientific and procedural issues related to the Authority’s work and advice in this field.
The purpose of this meeting was to exchange views on scientific issues related to EFSA’s opinions on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and, in general, on EFSA’s work in this area. This meeting provided an opportunity for NGOs to further elaborate their scientific concerns, expressed at various occasions and to substantiate these concerns with scientific reasoning. Equally, EFSA took this opportunity to explain fundamental concepts of hazard characterisation and risk assessment.
Other scientific issues of importance (2):
Expert judgement and evidence: evidence is a less sensitive tool and is not always possible. Expert judgement is based on profound scientific knowledge, familiarity and experience, but need more detailed explanation;
Assessing human health risks and environmental safety are rather different concepts: human health risk assessment is a well established scientific discipline. Environmental assessment is a much younger science, still very much in development.
Managers face a range of options to diffuse innovative practices within their organizations. This paper focuses on one such technique: providing practice-specific information through mechanisms such as internal seminars, demonstrations, knowledge management systems, and promotional brochures. In contrast to corporate mandates, this "information provision" approach empowers facility managers to decide which practices to actually implement. The authors examine how corporate managers diffused advanced environmental management practices within technology manufacturing firms in the United States. The study identifies several factors that encourage corporate managers to employ information provision, including subsidiaries' related expertise, the extent to which the subsidiaries were diversified or concentrated in similar businesses, and the geographic dispersion of their employees. Key concepts include:
This research can help managers better understand when to employ an "information provision" approach to facilitate knowledge transfer within their organizations.
Corporate managers in the information and communication technology sector were more likely to use information provision to diffuse advanced environmental management practices when their subsidiaries on average possessed modest levels of related expertise, and when the levels of expertise varied greatly between subsidiaries.
An information provision diffusion strategy was used more heavily by corporate managers of firms that were more diversified and where employees dispersed across more facilities (Michael J. Lenox and Michael W. Toffel Self-Regulatory Institutions for Solving Environmental Problems: Perspectives and Contributions from the Management Literature)