Germany
September 14, 2005
By S. Hofmann,
Handelsblatt
Translated by Katharina Schoebi,
Checkbiotech
In mid-July, Monsanto Germany saw
no other option other than to go through the courts. The German
subsidiary of the US concern parent company filed suit at the
administration court in Hannover to finally force a decision
from the German Federal Cultivation Office on maize MON 810.
There have already been several
years of tug-of-war surrounding the issue of the genetically
altered maize variety. MON 810 is equipped with a gene that
renders the maize resistant against the European corn borer, a
dreaded pest.
Already in 1999, the EU approved the maize variety. However, in
Germany, approval from the Federal Cultivation Office is also
needed in order to commercialize the seeds.
The US seed company Pioneer made a first attempt as a Monsanto
licensee in 2002, but the Federal Cultivation Office has
repeatedly delayed their decision. At the end of 2004, Monsanto
finally brought a MON 18-based hybrid through the two year test
procedure as well. A decision was first expected in February
2005.
“And we were sure that our maize met the demands and would get
the license,” said Monsanto’s speaker Andreas Thierfelder.
However, the decision on MON 810 was postponed, after the German
Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture
(BMVEL) objected, based upon genetic law provisions.
Subsequently, Monsanto contacted BMVEL and finally came to an
agreement with the government office on a solution to the
problem. The representatives from the ministry made assurances
that no further legal concerns would be an issue for Monsanto’s
maize. In return, the seed company committed to present – no
later than at the start of commercial cultivation – a
monitoring-plan that closely oversees the maize crops.
Everything seemed to be again set for a decision.
However, at the end of May, a few days prior to the planned
meeting with the Federal Cultivation Office, another veto from
Berlin arrived. The office was instructed to postpone the
decision based on the advice that the EU-authorization only
applies to maize as animal feed and not to seeds. In discussions
with the Ministry, Monsanto – by its own account - tried another
time, even though it was futile, to clear up these concerns. In
mid-July, when the EU-commission finally clarified that the
permission for MON810 corresponded to the application of seeds,
as well, the company decided to sue.
This episode is – from the vantage point of researchers and
industry representatives – a typical example of the destiny of
green biotechnology in Germany.
Scarcely another research area in the past years has seen itself
so vigorously thwarted, delayed and constantly burdened with new
barriers as plant biotechnology. Industry representatives regard
the red-green government as seven lost years.
Dietmar Brauer, Director of the mid-sized seed company Northern
German Plant Breeding, talks about a really “devastating”
development. “Wherever the government established new rules, it
has significantly exceeded the EU guidelines.”
From the vantage point of the seed branch, there were some
positive developments. Particularly, the gene technology
initiative that was promoted by Federal Chancellor Schroeder
promised some progress. The moratorium on crop testing would
have been superceded with a requirement for a three year field
trial for transgenic seeds. However in Berlin, under the effect
of the BSE-crisis, the plans were already put aside 6 months
later. Then Renate Kuenast, a Green party and vocal opponent of
genetic engineering, took over the leadership of the newly
created Ministry of Consumer Protection and Agriculture.
Industry representatives regard as especially serious the fact
that the adjustment of the European release guidelines was first
delayed for years, and was then finally accepted in German
Genetic Engineering law with a really prohibitive liability
rule. “In the overall package, the legal regulations are so
prohibitive that it has made entry into several areas rather
impossible,” Ricardo Gent, director of the German Industry
Incorporation Biotechnology (BID), says.
For example, one serious hurdle is posed by the new German
Genetic Engineering Law, which established a form of joint, as
well as independent liability, for any varietly of genetically
engineered seeds, regardless of negligence. In addition,
out-crossings of permitted outdoor tests are classified as an
unapproved use of genetically modified seeds – which, from the
vantage point of the German Industry Incorporation
Biotechnology, implicates incalculable liability risks for
research.
“As a consequence of such liability risks, the number of outdoor
field tests has declined by about two thirds since1999. Despite
good basic research, Germany is losing their international
status in product development in the area of green
biotechnology,” DIB warns. “Scientific outdoor field trials
tests would be increasingly restricted to crops such as
potatoes, where no out-crossing is possible.”
However, research also perceives itself as being continually
slowed down by the blockade politics of the Ministry of Consumer
Protection and Agriculture. A few months ago, the fact that
minister Kuenast stopped a project on research safety with the
biological federal agency – under the control of to the BMVEL -
caused for international concern.
A research group, led by professor Joachim Schiemann of
Braunschweig, aimed to optimize the safety of genetically
engineered plants with the project and successfully applied for
federal grant money from the Federal Research Ministry. However,
they had to withdraw their application under pressure from
BMVEL.
Also on other occasions, researchers were apparently stopped. In
autumn 2003 for example, the BMVEL stopped a trial with apple
trees, whose release had already been approved by the German
Commission for Biological Safety. NPZ-director Brauer refers to
the publicly supported project Nanus 2000, where rape seed was
to have been enriched with a gene for the constitutional fatty
acid refiratol. When it came to the point where open field
trials would have been required, the BMVEL prohibited them.
© Verlagsgruppe
Handelsblatt GmbH - Economy.One 2005 |