EU proposes farmer liability for GMO hazards
Friends of the Earth 12nov00

It is understood that for the first time a proposed new EU directive will impose "strict liability" on primary agricultural products which prove to be unsafe, including GMOs. This means it will not be necessary to prove negligence for farmers to be on the receiving end of claims for damages if GMO products turn out to be toxic, even after they have received Government safety clearance.

In this context farmers are advised to speak to their insurers before growing GMO crops. There are indications that the insurance industry may not be prepared to cover this type of risk because of its essentially unknown nature.

Farmers growing GMO crops may therefore be exposing themselves to unlimited liability.

To put this in perspective the manufacturers of a food supplement (Tryptophan) sold in the US, which utilised a genetically modified bacteria in its production process, have been on the receiving end of two billion dollars worth of claims. The genetically engineered bacteria generated a new toxin (whose nature is such that it would still not be picked up under current testing procedures) which killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1500 more. (More information on the Tryptophan incident available from our web site at www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex )

How many uninsured farmers could survive that type of claim?

(Natural Law Party Wessex)

COMMISSIONER WARNS OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO GM FOODS

Speaking at the opening session of the recent annual congress of biotech industries "EuropaBio '98", held in Brussels on October 27-30th, Emma Bonino, EU Commissioner in charge of Consumer Policy and Health Protection, reminded participants that a Euro-barometer survey last year revealed that more than two thirds of consumers (68 %) were worried about the safety of their food. Referring to the fact that the relevant existing EU Directive for product liability includes processed food but does not cover primary agricultural products such as meat, fruit and vegetables, she said that this loophole became only too evident with the BSE crisis, and is also obvious with regard to genetically modified organisms. For example, while possible risks arising from ketchup produced from genetically modified tomatoes are covered because it is processed food, the producer of the GM tomato itself is not liable. It was in this context, she said, that on 1st October 1997 the Commission made a proposal to extend the existing product liability rules to include primary agricultural products. If the amendment is adopted (the amended proposal is now in its first reading in Council and

Parliament and may be approved next year), producers, farmers and merchants will be liable if a GMO or any other primary agricultural product which they have developed, planted, commercialized or processed turns out to be unsafe, even if it has been approved by the authorities.

Indicating her support for some medical applications of biotechnology, Bonino told the audience that, on the other hand, she is sympathetic to the fact that, for some products, the benefit to man may not be so obvious. As far as genetically modified plants are concerned, Mrs. Bonino said that she could "fully understand that in some Member States there is no great enthusiasm for such plants. Recent cases give indications that public authorities are more sensitive to the concern of population regarding GMOs, a concern which is not always based on pure science. This could be seen as a move to a more precautionary approach in this field. We cannot hide to ourselves that we are facing a very difficult moment for the progress of GMO products. A public acceptance, which one could have reasonably expected to occur, is very far from being reached".