Pages

▼

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The vexing issue of honey containing GM pollen in Europe

Photo: Andreas Praefcke / Wikipedia Creative Commons
In 2011, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued an opinion in Bablok v. Freistaat Bayern (1). The ECJ ruled that pollen, under EU law, must be considered an “ingredient” rather than a “constituent” of honey. As a consequence of this ECJ ruling, European honey producers and their international counterparts faced many complications in complying with ingredient labelling regulations and with international standards defining honey as a single ingredient, all-natural substance, i.e., simply honey. The ECJ ruling had the potential of destroying the European honey industry and to block imports from third countries (2, 3). Although urgent European Commission (EC) action was thus required, it took more than 2 years before it happened.

In January 2014, the European Parliament (EP) voted 430 to 224 to adopt an EC proposal amending the EU Honey Directive 2001/110/EC so that pollen is a constituent, not an ingredient, of honey (4). According to EU legislation, there is a huge difference between an ingredient and a constituent. An ingredient is part of a mixture and, as far as GMOs are concerned, would be subject to GMO labelling regulations. Thus, GMO maize pollen, as an ingredient, would require labelling if present at greater than 0.9% of the total maize pollen. In contrast, if honey is a natural entity – and pollen is a constituent of honey – then the GMO labelling requirement is calculated as a % of total honey. Pollen comprises between 0.005 and 0.05% of honey and thus labelling would never be required. After this vote, the EC still must take additional steps to finalize their proposal, now endorsed by the Parliament, into EU law. Assuredly the EC will take these additional steps. Thus, the EJC decision has been overturned by statutory and regulatory revision. The European honey industry has been saved from most legal complications and from potential destruction.

Despite the clarification that, in the EU, pollen is a constituent of honey, not an ingredient, there are several issues that remain unresolved about honey and pollen. This article identifies and discusses these unresolved issues...Continues @ article_513.html:


But we also have an excellent discussion at Epso blog:

GM-POLLEN IN HONEY: A CONSTITUENT OR AN INGREDIENT? 

Post by John Davison, Research Director (retired), INRA Versailles, France.

In 2011, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a judgement regarding the case Bablok and Others v. Freistaat Bayern(1). Honey produced on Bablok’s farm was supposedly found to contain pollen from genetically modified MON810 maize(2, 3). It should be noted that no accredited scientific evidence regarding quantification  of MON810 pollen in Bablok’s honey was ever published.
Based upon these ‘facts’, and with reference to Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, the ECJ concluded Bablok’s honey contained ingredients produced from GMOs within the meaning of the regulation. The situation was further complicated by the fact that MON810 maize was authorized for cultivation and consumption but, at that time,  MON810 pollen was not authorized as food (this has now been rectified). The threshold for unauthorized GM-pollen is 0%.
The ECJ decision was taken without regard for the economic situation or the social consequences. Europe produces 200,000 tonnes per year and must import an additional 140,000 tonnes mainly from South America and China.  The ECJ decision was also taken without consideration for the safety of the honey since EFSA had long stated that pollen from maize MON810 is as safe as non-GM maize.
Under the  ECJ decision all honey produced in the EU would require GMO quantification. The costs would be which will be particularly high due to the 0% tolerance imposed by the ECJ and would be unsupportable by amateur EU beekeepers.  A European Parliament Report (EP)(4) stated‘ The cost of the tests might even exceed current production costs per hive. It may even be that the introduction of the new requirements will prompt some amateur beekeepers to stop making honey’. As regards imported honey, which comes mainly from South America and China which are GMO producers, the honey would again require extensive and expensive quantification, since according to the ECJ decision, the EC authorizations are necessary irrespective of the proportion of GM material in the honey.
The result of the 2011 ECJ judgement was to spread confusion in the honey market, and as a result no decisions being taken for more than 2 years. Recently, the EC has attempted to defuse the situation by proposing that pollen in honey is not an ingredient but a natural constituent(4). The European Parliament (EP)(15/01/2014) has now agreed with this position(5). This would have the effect that labelling would be required only if the pollen in the honey exceeded 0.9% of the total honey. Since the % of pollen in honey is between 0.005 and 0.05 %, the 0.9% threshold would never be exceeded and labelling would never be required.
Unfortunately, as with most things European, ‘the show is not over until the fat lady sings’. The decision now passes from the European Parliament to the European Council and, even after that, it could be challenged in European courts (which was where it all started).
MON810 is the now only GM-plant commercially cultivated in the EU. On the other hand, non-EU countries, from which the EU imports honey, grow a variety of GM-crops that are not authorized in the EU. In the event that pollen from these crops found its way into honey then the tolerance threshold would be 0% (despite the fact that 0% cannot be measured by present scientific methods (6)). This would then block honey export and create a honey shortage in the EU.
To terminate, one must ask what the ECJ, the EC and the EP believe that they are achieving. The ECJ and the EP make decisions where they have no competence and without regard, or knowledge, for the economic or social consequences. The EC, in contrast, has the expertise but suffers from constant political interference and compromise. Surely Europe is a better place with honey than without it and surely the life-style of bees and beekeepers is worth maintaining since it brings enormous benefits other than honey. A similar point has been raised by the EP rapporteur Julie Girling(7) ‘ I ask you this: do we really want to base legislation on a false premise and then subsequently force small-scale beekeepers out of business?’ Since Girling’s report was adopted by 430 votes to 224, with 19 abstentions, It seems that 36% of EMPs truly did prefer to destroy the European honey industry in deference to their anti-GMO sentiments.
Finally, to avoid polemic, it should be reiterated that this discussion is not about food safety (EFSA long ago made their recommendation on MON810 pollen). This discussion is only about the meanings of the words ‘ingredient’ and ‘constituent’ and the consequences of these meanings.“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” (Lewis Carrol, 1871).

1) Decision of the ECJ of 6 September 2011 (Case C-442/09) Karl Heinz Bablok v Freistaat Bayern.http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-09/cp110079en.pdf
2) Davison J. Honey-free Europe. November (2011)http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-honey-free-europe-88522965.html
3) Davison John. The imaginary EU GM-Honey crisis is resolved (2012).http://www.euractiv.com/cap/imaginary-eu-gm-honey-crisis-res-analysis-515735
4) Gabriel Mariya. (2012) Draft Opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey.




at

No comments:

Post a Comment