TL: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
MUTANTS ON THE MENU. WHAT EASTERN EUROPEANS ARE FORCED TO EAT? 
SO: Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:34:18 +0100

Abstract

Having been poisoned with toxic chemicals, irradiated by the
Chernobyl meltdown, food in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) may
already be genetically engineered. The countries of this region
are faced with two threats: first, imports of genetically
engineered (GE) crops from the US and second, their own domestic
genetic experiments. 

All this is taking place with no legal controls, no procedures
for public consultation and no requirements for labelling of
foods already containing genetically engineered ingredients. A
public debate on genetic engineering is urgently needed in the
countries of CEE. This must be followed by strong legislation  
based on the precautionary principle.

The risks of genetic engineering to human and environmental
health cannot be justified. Moreover, the commercial production
and sale of genetically engineered 'super-crops' could have
important socio-economic impacts. CEE countries heavily
dependent on agricultural production should take the less  
damaging and more self-sustaining path of organic agriculture.
This would also provide them with a reliable market in Western
Europe. Countries, such as Austria, Sweden and Denmark which
actively promote organic farming, are having to first invest in
rehabilitating the soil, to purge it of agrochemical residues.
In many areas of CEE this is not necessary.

THE FIRST THREAT: IMPORTS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN AND
SOYBEAN

The first transports of genetically engineered (GE) soybean and 
corn from the United States arrived in Poland and the Czech
Republic in December 1996. They carried GE soybean and corn
harvested in the US in autumn 1996. Because the GE crops had
been mixed with traditional ones, all of the soya or corn
imports to CEE from the US after December 1996 are likely to be
contaminated with the GE crops.

Soybean and corn are used both for animal and human food. Soya
is used in some 30,000 processed foods including bread,
chocolate, margarine, ice cream, pasta, vegetable oil and baby
food. 

Soybeans are also used as a high protein food supplement for
animals, another route into our food chain. Most corn is
processed into gluten for animal feed, with some providing corn
starch for foods such as bread, cakes, baking powder, chewing
gum, soups and salad dressings.

People in Central in Eastern Europe may already be eating GE
foods, without even knowing it. There are no laws in CEE
countries requiring safety assessments for proposed imports of
GE foods, the results of which would determine whether GE foods
should be granted or denied an import permit. In the EU, Member
States can refuse to accept GE crops. For instance, France
decided to impound all shipments of GE corn from the US, based
on the outcome of the safety assessment, and later, banned the
growing of GE corn in France. In most CEE countries, foods
already containing GE ingredients do not even have to be
labelled. Only the Czech government has introduced any labelling
requirements. Since January 1997, meat from animals fed GE corn
or soya will have to be labelled.

-----START BOX------

WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING?

Genetic engineering (GE) is often called bio-engineering or
biotechnology in CEE. GE is a branch of biotechnology. However,
unlike traditional biotechnologies (technologies using living
organisms), which use selective breeding of plants and animals
to achieve the desired properties, genetic engineering involves
taking genes out of an organism's cells and transferring them
between different species to produce genetically engineered
organisms (GEOs) with new characteristics.

Genetic engineering has been seized upon by scientists and
industry as a way redesigning and 'improving' living organisms.

Genetic engineering in agriculture focuses on conferring new
properties on commercial crops, like herbicide resistance,
nutritional change, insect resistance or stress tolerance.
Industry claims that these 'improvements' will increase
efficiency and productivity, providing global food security. It
will certainly improve their profits.

-------END BOX--------


CONSUMERS IN WESTERN EUROPE SAY "NO!" TO GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
FOOD

Governments Take Action

In Western Europe growing public awareness and opposition to GE
food and agriculture is forcing governments and retailers to
act.

The Governments of Austria and Luxembourg have challenged the
European Commission's decision to allow the GE corn produced by
Ciba Geigy (now merged with Sandoz to Novartis) into the
European Union. They have banned the import of GE corn on health
and environmental grounds.  The government of Switzerland has
also not approved the import of GE corn. In February 1997,
France said that it would ban growing the corn. In March 1997,
the Italian Government followed the French in refusing to
allow GE corn to be grown. In Norway a panel composed of 18
scientist and 18 lay people discussed this issue and concluded
that genetically engineered food is not needed.

The EU legal systems allow the ban of imports or environmental
releases of GEOs. Unlike the members of the European Union, in
CEE there are no even legal mechanisms to allow GE food imports
to be banned. Conversely, it could be argued that in the present
legislative vacuum, there are no legal grounds for allowing the
import of GE crops into CEE. However, in the absence of
information available to the public and hence their low
awareness of the potential threats, and low purchase consumer
power there is little pressure on governments to introduce any
legislation, including labelling.

Retailers and Producers Take Action

As more and more consumers in Western Europe reject GE food, so
some retailers and food producers are also taking steps to hold
back the unnatural foodstuffs. The message from Western Europe
is clear - no-one wants genetically engineered food.

In Austria, Spar and Meinl, major supermarket chains, have
declared themselves completely free of GE foods. The biggest
Austrian dairy company Berglandmilch is going completely GE free
as well. In the UK, Tesco supermarket chain has announced that
it will label any animal product which has been fed with GE
corn. In Switzerland, Migros and Coop Schweiz, two of the
biggest food retailers, have called for GE soybeans to be
marketed separately and labelled. 

In Austria and Germany, Unilever and Nestle will not use GE soya
in their products. However, in Poland, the positions of these
same TNCs are supportive of GE foods, including soya.

The widening gap between public awareness of genetic engineering
in Western and Eastern Europe is a cause of grave concern. This
is a dangerous situation which potentially opens up CEE as a
dump for GE food which is unwanted in the West. It is a
situation ripe for exploitation by TNCs capitalising on public
ignorance. Just as the region is today targeted by the Western
nuclear industry, so CEE could become the haven for the Western
GE industry - banished from their home countries.

Parts of CEE are already heavily contaminated by toxic
substances and radioactivity. The new threat of genetic
contamination and its consequences could further effect people's
health and environment in the region as well as the agricultural
economies on which they depend.

----START BOX------

GE SOYBEAN - NO REAL BENEFITS

Monsanto's Soybean - the Roundup Ready - is the first crop to be
sold as a food ingredient which has been genetically
manipulated. 

Monsanto already produces the weed killer, glyphosate (brand
name Roundup); now they produce the only soybean (Roundup Ready)
that can be sprayed with it during growth. Normally, spraying
soybean with this weed killer after it has sprouted will kill
it. Since two of its products - the bean and the weedkiller -
are so closely linked, Monsanto gets to sell more of both. But
does anyone else benefit?

What are the risks?

* Creating "Super Weeds" and More Need for Toxic Herbicides

Herbicide tolerance could lead to a host of problems: increased
use of chemical herbicides; higher risk of triggering resistance
to herbicide; and the possibility that the soya itself,
unaffected by herbicide may get out of control and become a
weed, choking natural plants out of existence. In this case,
greater and stronger applications of chemicals might be needed
to deal with the new problem.

* More Allergies

The GE soybean contains gene sequences from bacteria, viruses
and petunia - none of which have ever formed part of the human
diet. This raises the possibility of an increased incidence of
allergies among consumers unaware of alien genes and proteins in
their food.

------END BOX--------

------START BOX-------

GE CORN

Ciba Geigy's corn has three foreign genes. It has been
genetically manipulated to be unaffected by weed killer, to be
resistant to an important antibiotic - ampicillin - and to be
capable of killing insects.

What are the dangers?

* Creating "Super Weeds" and More Need for Toxic Herbicides (see
box:
GE Soybean)

* Wasting Our Defence Against Disease

Ciba Geigy's corn contains an antibiotic resistance gene, used
as a marker in the early development of the corn. Now,
scientists fear that the antibiotic resistance gene, which
destroys ampicillin, could be passed to harmful bacteria, in the
gut of animals eating corn-based animal feed, for example.

Ampicillin is one of our most widely used defences against
harmful bacteria - both in animal and human health. If the
resistance gene is spread this vital protection could be
rendered useless.

* New Risk of Allergies

The GE corn contains bacteria and virus genes. No information
exists about the allergenic  properties of genes from these
organisms, so we don't know what to test for. Humans will be
used as guinea pigs to test both the allergenicity and toxicity
of their product.

* Killing Off Insect Life and Undermining Organic Farming

Taking a bacteria which is naturally found in soil, and adding
its poison gene to the corn has provided a built-in pesticide.
The bacteria, Bacillus thurigiensis (Bt), kills insects and is
widely used by organic farmers trying to avoid the use of
chemicals.  Now their natural pest controller has been hijacked
by genetic engineers and could be rendered useless because of
it.

Ciba Geigy inserted the Bt gene specifically to deal with one
bug - the European corn borer. However, it is generally
recognised by the EU and US authorities that the corn borer will
become resistant to the Bt gene in the corn. In the meantime, it
will have caused untold damage to the ecology of the environment
into which it has been released.

The bacteria toxin is likely to kill other insects - not just
the corn borer. It is already known that Bt corn is harmful to
beneficial soil organisms, such as springtails. And once the
gene is being grown in crops it might kill insects it is not
meant to kill and disturbing the natural balance of insect life
in the countryside. It may also make other bugs resistant to the
toxin, creating "superbugs" which could ultimately lead to lower
corn yields.

---------END BOX -----------


THE SECOND THREAT: GENETIC EXPERIMENTS AT HOME

Imports of GE crops from the United States are the threat from
outside. The threats from inside CEE are the genetic experiments
being conducted in some of the scientific institutes in the
region. Several countries in CEE are releasing genetically
engineered organisms (GEOs) into the environment, during
experimental field trials.

In POLAND, genetically engineered (GE) carp containing human
genes, to make them grow faster, have been swimming in ponds of
the Institute of Ichthyobiology and Aquaculture since 1994.
Following widespread media coverage of this carp story, the
Institute now claims to have killed all the GE fish. But who
really knows? 

In HUNGARY, field trials are underway with six GE crops: potato,
tobacco, corn, oilseed rape, tomato and alfalfa.

In BULGARIA, the Institute of Genetic Engineering has been
growing virus- and bacteria-resistant tobacco since 1991.

In UKRAINE, there is evidence that Monsanto is urging farmers to
grow its GE Bt corn

In RUSSIA, scientists have been doing field trials on
herbicide-resistant potatoes and hope to start commercial
production by 1997.

In Poland, most of the genetic experiments are paid for by the
taxpayer. In other countries of CEE, transnational corporations,
such as Sandoz and Rhone Poulenc, commission genetic research.

Where's the problem? After all, transnational corporations
(TNCs) in the US, like Monsanto and Ciba Geigy are already
growing and selling genetically engineered crops, such as
soybean and corn, on a commercial scale.

The key difference between genetic engineering activities in CEE
and those in Western Europe and North America, is that the
latter have some legal controls and a degree of public
consultation and participation. Citizen participation requires
awareness and a working participatory democracy. In CEE
countries, economic concerns outweigh environmental and health
ones and democracy is fragile.  As with imported GE food, the
countries of CEE have no legislation to control or restrict
genetic experiments. There are no laws laying down on what
conditions permits should be granted and who should give
permission for these experiments.

Internationally exists no liability regime for damages caused by
GEOs to human health or biodiversity. As the nature of the risk
is irreversible and is multiplying with each new release of
GEOs, it is crucial that a liability law is introduced
immediately, including mandatory financial deposits paid for
remediation.


------START BOX-------

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

At a time when an estimated 50,000 species are already expected
to become extinct every year, any further interference with the
natural balance of ecosystems could cause havoc.

Genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) with their completely
new and unnatural combinations of genes, have a unique power to
disrupt our environment. Since they are living, they are capable
of reproducing, mutating and moving within the environment. As
these new life forms move into existing habitats they could
destroy nature as we know it, causing long term and irreversible
changes to our natural world.

Genetic engineering and its products have only emerged over the
last 20 years. GEOs have no natural habitat since they do not
evolve in nature, but are designed in the laboratory. No one can
predict how GEOs will behave in the open environment. However,
based on what they have observed in similar situations with
naturally-occurring species, scientists have suggested the
following effects:

** CREATING NEW PESTS; 

** INCREASING THE EFFECTS OF EXISTING PESTS; 

** HARMING UNINTENDED SPECIES; 

** DISRUPTING NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES; 

** DESTROYING BIODIVERSITY BY REPLACING NATIVE SPECIES; 

** SQUANDERING VALUABLE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

------ END BOX --------


STRONG LEGISLATION NEEDED

In CEE, both the threat of imported GE food and the dangers of
domestic releases of GEOs need to be addressed by legislation.
For governments to feel a sense of urgency in drafting and
introducing strong legal controls, the public must be informed.

Future European Union (EU) membership is driving many countries
of CEE to draft genetic engineering regulations or guidelines
which will harmonise with the EU Directives on GEOs. However,
the fact that EU legislation on GE is legally binding is most
time ignored. Some governments in CEE, such as Ukraine and
Bulgaria, under pressure from genetic engineers, are considering
self-regulation supported by guidelines.

Poland, until recently, was also to introduce only guidelines.
Genetic engineers had persuaded officials that guidelines were
more flexible for a discipline undergoing such dynamic
development. Moreover, they argued that there was a lack of
expertise in the ministries in drafting appropriate legislation
and, that its enforcement is expensive and problematic.

In the countries of CEE, which have little or no tradition of
democracy, it is essential that governments ensure the rule of
law. They can do this by guaranteeing the public access to
information regarding genetic engineering activities and
introducing procedures to enable the public to participate in
decision-making.

Legislation should reflect a precautionary approach because the
release of GEOs into the environment presents unknown hazards.
For a truly preventative approach towards the potential threats
of GEOs, the public, workers, consumers, social, environmental
and religious groups, must all question the presumptions of
science and industry against societal needs. The best way to
achieve this is through the force of law.

Since the EU Directives are legally binding, guidelines will not
fulfill EU harmonisation requirements. Indeed, the EU Directives
are no models for CEE countries, e.g. given that they so far
failed to protect the environment and public health from GEOs
such as the GE soya, which is still allowed in EU member states
and they do not address liability for environment and human
health damages.

Of course, EU harmonisation does not mean that CEE countries
cannot have stronger laws than in the EU - if that is what
society there demands. Harmonisation means that laws in CEE must
not be weaker than those in the EU.


-------START BOX-----

ATTEMPTS AT REGULATING GENETIC ENGINEERING IN CEE

In HUNGARY, the National Committee for Technological Development
is preparing a proposal to the Government to regulate genetic
engineering in accordance with the EU. The ministries involved
are those responsible for health, agriculture, industry, and
environment. 

In the CZECH REPUBLIC, a National Biosafety Committee is
preparing guidelines jointly with the Environment Ministry. A
biosafety law is seen as a long-term goal. The purpose of the
Biosafety Committee is to create social awareness of genetic
engineering, organise training, co-operate with international
bodies and prepare legislation. In January 1997, the Government
introduced compulsory labelling of meat from animals fed on
feedstock with GE ingredients. In May, a law requiring labelling
of GE ingredients in food for human consumption is to be passed.

SLOVAKIA has no official body dealing with biosafety
regulations. Any problems are dealt with by the ministries of
health, agriculture and environment. 

In POLAND, public pressure has forced the government to abandon
plans for introducing only guidelines and three ministries -
agriculture, health and environment - are now drafting
legislation. Also, amendments are being proposed to existing
laws to take into account genetic engineering and GEOs. For
instance, there is a proposal to insert an additional article in
the new law to protect Animal Rights which would ban the cloning
of animals.

In SLOVENIA, a biosafety law is being prepared by the Office for
the Protection of Industrial Property in the Ministry of Science
and Technology. In June 1994, this ministry established a
Commission to supervise genetic engineering activities. 

In ROMANIA, the Ministry of Sciences is preparing an
environmental protection law which is to cover the hazards
associated with genetic engineering.  

The BALTIC STATES have no legal regulations concerning genetic
engineering, although they recognise the urgent need for legally
- binding regulations. However, they are waiting for assistance
and for the initiative to be taken by EU countries. These
countries also see a possibility of close co-operation with
RUSSIA on the drafting of legally binding standards. 

------END BOX-------


PRIVATISING NATURE

Besides the potential environmental and health impacts of the GE 
food and agriculture, the manipulation of life and ability to
patent the resulting 'creation' also raises ethical and social
questions. 

TNCs and research institutes based in North America and Western
Europe are rushing to patent their new biological 'creations' to
gain monopoly control over the genes, cells and organisms they
claim to have invented. In effect, they want to patent life
itself and thus privatise nature.

It is ironic that the priority in CEE regarding genetic
engineering activities has been to regulate its commercial
aspects. Most countries in CEE now have legislation allowing the
patenting of the products of genetic engineering. None has
legislation to protect the environment and public health from
the nasty surprises that genetically engineered organisms might
cause. 

-------START BOX-------

PATENTING LIFE

The patenting of living organisms turns living plants and
animals into commodities. 

The patenting of genes, plants, and animals is controversial
because:

* Monopoly control over the genetic composition of the world
should not be left to any individual or company. 

* The granting of patents rewards the recipient with a monopoly
to exploit the 'invention'. This is a privilege granted in the
public interest and should only be allowed for processes and
products that do, in fact, serve the public interest.

* Patenting was introduced to deal with technical inventions and
not with biological material and life forms. In other words,
patenting was designed for the invention of a mouse trap, not
for the mouse itself.

In 1996, Monsanto was granted a patent by the European Patent
Office (EPO) for its Roundup Ready Soybeans. However, a year
earlier, Greenpeace had won a legal case against the EPO which
clarified Article 53b of the European Patent Convention. This
article states that patents cannot be granted "for plant and
animal varieties and essential biological processes."

In granting Monsanto its patent for Roundup Ready Soybeans, the
EPO was in direct breach of its own treaty. Allowing patents on
our food crops encourages a new system of feudalism to take
hold, as TNCs can dictate where and under what conditions their
genetically engineered crops can be grown.

In the US, where patents on plants are allowed, this new central
control by industry, instead of government, is already a
reality.  Soybean farmers using Monsanto's patented Roundup
Ready Soybean have to sign a contract which gives Monsanto the
right to visit their farm any time over a three year period and
commits the farmer to using only the Roundup brand of the
herbicide glyphosate on the soybeans. In addition, farmers are
not allowed to use part of the harvest for next year's seed and
have to pay Monsanto a $5.00 technology fee per 50 lb (23 kg) of
Roundup Ready Soybean seed.  

-------END BOX-------

The commercialisation of GE 'super-crops' could have important
socio-economic consequences. Whole production chains may find
themselves under monopolistic control - from delivery of
agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers, chemicals, machinery
etc) via the growing of plants up to harvest and throughout
processing. Farmers may find themselves forced to use specific
agrochemicals necessary to grow specific genetically engineered
seeds, as is already the case with Monsanto's GE soybean (see
box: Patenting Life). They may be crushed by transnational
corporations supplying increasingly expensive inputs
and buying their agricultural produce at ever lower prices. 

Farmers may be played off against each other as large
corporations manipulate markets. Finally, production may shift
from small scale farms to large estates, and from large estates
to bio-reactors, resulting in job losses and poverty.

The use of GEOs in agriculture is yet another example of a
pseudo-fix which treats only the symptoms of much deeper
problems. It is, therefore, no solution. Indeed, the use of GEOs
in agriculture undermines the real path to health and
sustainability, which is organic farming.

ORGANIC FOOD AND AGRICULTURE - THE ONLY WAY FORWARD FOR CEE

The release of GEOs, in field trials and through imports of GE 
crops, could not only effect peoples' health and environment,
but also the agricultural economies on which they depend. If CEE
countries gamble on genetically engineered agriculture, they
could find themselves without customers in Western Europe for
their genetically altered food. This could damage the
agricultural economies of CEE countries, and increasing their
trade deficit.

Moreover, the introduction of GE crops would certainly destroy
efforts being made to produce organic food. GE crops growing
near fields of organic ones are likely to transfer their foreign
genes to the 'organic' plants via insect and wind pollination.
According to IFOAM (International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements), GE food cannot be considered organic.

But CEE countries do have the choice of opting for organic
agriculture. Most farmers in the region already use far fewer
chemicals and machinery in agriculture than their counterparts 
in northern Europe. Farmers in CEE should follow the example of
Austria, where today organic agriculture has an 8% share of the
market. Sweden is planning to have 10% of its agriculture
organic. With the increasing demand in Western Europe for
GE-free food, CEE countries could capture this growing market.

WHAT NEXT?

Governments in CEE should immediately undertake the following:

* Declare a total and unconditional moratorium on all imports,
environmental releases and commercial uses of GEOs;

* Ensure transparency and public participation by guaranteeing
citizens access to information on all genetic activities; and
their participation in decision making;

* Stimulate a demand for organic food through education, public
procurement policies and economic incentives, for example by
providing subsidies to organic farmers.

Transnational corporations rejecting or labelling GE in Western 
Europe, should do the same in CEE. Unilever, Danone, Nestle and
other food producers must go public and confirm in writing that
they will:

* Insist that suppliers of soya and corn in the US separate
genetically engineered (GE) products from natural ones;

* Refuse to buy any GE products to use in any of their foods;

* Source their raw materials from suppliers who can provide non
- GE products. For instance, switch to rape seed oil rather than
soya oil, if they cannot be assured that it is GE free;

* Provide consumers with a clear choice of foods which are GE
free. Foods that are not GE free should carry labels which state
specifically that they contain GEOs.

We call on all concerned social organisations - environmental,
consumer, church groups - to campaign to increase public
awareness of GE food and agriculture.

In 1997, Austria and Switzerland are planning public referendums
on genetic engineering, on environmental releases of GEOs and
their patenting. A lay people's conference made up of 18
scientists and 18 non-specialists held recently in Norway
concluded that society does not need GE food. 

A similar public debate on genetic engineering is urgently
needed in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Without
public awareness to stimulate government action, CEE will become
a dump for GE foods which are unwanted in Western Europe.

ENDS

ANNEX

List of food retailers and processors saying "NO" to Genetically
Engineered Food