# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  European Court of Justice banned Honey containing pollen from GMOs

## KMBonn

Good news from Bruxelles.  Today, the European Court of Justice issued a groundbreaking judgment (legal case C-442-09).

Have a look to [URL="http://bundesbienen.info/?p=1408[/URL]

Greetings, Klaus

----------


## Neils

Doesn't ban it as far a my understanding of it goes. It appears to require the beekeeper to obtain separate authorisation to sell honey containing pollen from (authorised) GM crops as the scope of the original authorisation to grow the stuff doesn't cover honey.

Not entirely sure how that can be regarded as good news either way. In the case of a ban I can't sell my honey full stop, in the case if having to seek authorisation to sell it that's an additional expense and waste of time getting round something that was nothing to do with me in the first place.

----------


## gavin

There is a scathing critique of the German approach to MON810 in a scientific paper here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/.../fulltext.html

It is surprising to see a scientific journal be so vituperative about political decisions.  Essentially, the German government was said to be hugely (and misleadingly) selective in the science it used to justify its position.

This particular type of maize was approved in the US in 1996, and shortly after in Canada, Argentina, Australia, Japan, South Africa and Switzerland, for human food and animal feed.  It was approved in the EU for animal feed in 1998 and is still grown on large areas in Spain.  Fifteen years of safe use ... and now we have a 'victory' that means that any marketing of honey in Germany is suspect because there *might* be a very very very small level of contamination of something grown in other EU countries (despite the ban in Germany), which disperses over huge distances on the wind, and is generally regarded as safe.  Nice one, well done, great service to humanity there!

Whatever you think of the company owning this line or the technology itself, the effect is to control European Pod Borer, a lepidopteran pest which otherwise would require insecticidal sprays.  Are beekeepers really against technology which can reduce insecticide use for no effect on the bees themselves?  If so, why?

Coexistence is about agreeing thresholds, keeping everybody safe, and allowing those who do see benefits in adopting the technology to be able to use it.  This decision is the result of political games to remove the technology from possible use, to drive a coach and horses through the possibility of coexistence.  So yes, it is a victory for those who have tried to engineer it.  But what about humanity in general?  Are we all now better off or worse off because of it?  Are we in a better or a worse position to keep the planet's food supply arriving in the shops?

Gavin

PS  The views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent the views of the SBA.  :-)  About time we had a proper debate on this though.

----------


## gavin

Apparently ..... 

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...cp110079en.pdf

Mr Bablok keeps bees near a GM trial site.  His pollen has GM maize pollen in it, and his honey too.  Now he can't sell his honey (with a 'very small amount of GM maize DNA') or his pollen (amount unspecified).  The argument seems to have been around whether the pollen was not an impurity by an ingredient.

----------


## Jon

> Whatever you think of the company owning this line or the technology itself, the effect is to control European Pod Borer, a lepidopteran pest which otherwise would require insecticidal sprays. Are beekeepers really against technology which can reduce insecticide use for no effect on the bees themselves? If so, why?


I take that point, and it is related to the neonicotinoid argument - as a ban on neonicotinoids is a de facto vote for the return of carbamates or pyrethroid pesticides which are much more dangerous for bees and the wider environment.

In the case of maize, is it not possible to work and develop some of the heritage varieties which may have some natural resistance to the pests you mention.
On a small scale, I used to grow maize in mexico, a variety called Tehuacanero (origin Tehuacan) and never had to spray with anything.
It had its defects such as growing to 12 feet high under good conditions and sometimes having cobs above head height.
Some of it could blow flat under windy conditions. No sprays though!
Commercial growers used imported seed from the US and used sprays at various points during the crop cycle. I don't know if it was GM maize or not but the seed was very expensive.
There is a lot of anger due to the contamination of heritage varieties with GM pollen. Grain which was sold into Mexico for use as animal feed was planted  by farmers and the GM pollen has now contaminated local stocks. There was a total lack of control and supervision.
Maybe there is a happy medium here whereby there is an effort made to preserve heritage varieties which may have useful genetics.
The way things are going there will be a limited amount of varieties on the market controlled by just a few companies.
I don't think roundup ready GM maize is dangerous or toxic per se but creating weed free sterile monocultures is bad for bees and other invertebrates which need food plants.

----------


## Jon

This was covered in the Guardian today as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...urope-honey-gm

----------


## gavin

Did anyone see these German judges the other night on the news?  Some very natty red dresses and funny hats there.  I don't think that they were pronouncing on biotechnology, but I was impressed by their sartorial uniqueness anyway.

Yes, the contamination of the genetic heritage of the crop plants grown by our forefathers is a big issue.  Always was, even if we didn't recognise it.  Technically rather than politically, is the issue much different whether that contamination comes from modern high-yielding non-GM varieties or GM varieties?  So what is the answer (I don't have one!)?  Should we stop Mexican peasants from growing the latest high yielding types, whether they are GM or not?

The Guardian article amazed me.  Not the article itself but the discussion which followed.  These newspaper article posting walls can be depressing places with much nuttiness on display.  They can leave you in despair of the human race or at least that part that has the time and the technology to write such stuff.  In this case the views on display were much more grown up and I was greatly cheered.

----------


## gavin

Something that popped up on Google's news gadget thingie today.  An opinion on the GM ruling from Die Welt.

http://www.worldcrunch.com/stung-aga...ture-risk/3741

----------


## The Drone Ranger

The heritage varieties of yesteryear were the modern varieties of their time.
3 cheers for sarpo mira I say  :Smile:  otherwise I have to buy spuds at the supermarket

----------


## Adam

*Essentially, the German government was said to be hugely (and misleadingly) selective in the science it used to justify its position.*

No change there for politicians then.

You could argue that if politicians did what the scientists said concerning our fisheries, we would have some fish left. We now have the situation that good fish are caught, killed and then thrown into the sea for seagulls to eat. It's just crackers. What pillock came up with that idea?


I was at a meeting a few months ago and finished up taking to a couple of Monsanto employees. Their argument was that you need less pesticides with their seeds which is good for benign insects in general, bees and beekeepers. As Jon writes, ban some pesticides and others will be used.


I THOUGHT that GM crops could not reproduce so therefore the pollen is a little protein pill for bees. Are there really any issues with it?

----------


## Jon

> 3 cheers for sarpo mira I say  otherwise I have to buy spuds at the supermarket


I put in a couple of rows of Sarpo Mira every year but what we really want is something like a Kerr's Pink with the blight resistance of the Sarpo. C'mon Gavin, get that spud on its way to us.




> I THOUGHT that GM crops could not reproduce ...


You are thinking of that terminator gene, another product Monsanto got its greasy paws on.

----------


## The Drone Ranger

> I put in a couple of rows of sarpo Mira every year but what we rteally want is something like a Kerr's Pink with the blight resistance of the Sarpo. C'mon Gavin, get that spud on its way to us.


Pinko mira ?? fantastic idea I'll be first in the queue

----------


## gavin

> C'mon Gavin, get that spud on its way to us.


I can confirm that the crosses have been made.  However if you'd like a Kerr's Pink with Sarpo Mira's resistance the best way would be via GM.  Maybe not though, who'd want to produce all those safety dossiers, trial results, risk assessments, approvals at so many levels, hostile public meetings and ... beekeepers!

----------


## The Drone Ranger

I'll test them even with a few jellyfish genes in them after all I'm 85% banana anyway  :Smile:

----------


## gavin

Time to add to this thread again I think.  Yesterday at the SBA Council meeting we heard a report on where beekeeping now stands after the momentous ECJ decision that pollen is now an 'ingredient' rather than a constituent (no matter what commonsense says) and that one pollen grain of a GM type which is not approved for food use in the EU means that the jar of honey cannot be sold. 

This leaves every beekeeper and everyone involved in the honey trade concerned that even infinitessimally low levels of contamination will prevent sale.  Testing honey for every possible GM event that is not approved for food use in the EU is a very expensive process, and from my own professional work I know that pollen can travel thousands of km in quantity in the right weather conditions.

Klauss, in the post starting this thread, *celebrated* the decision as some sort of victory.  That seems bizarre to me - how can a decision that causes such difficulty to beekeeping and honey marketing be regarded as a victory?

I made a comment at the SBA Council that aroused anger and challenge.  It was that the beekeeper at the centre of this had deliberately placed hives close to the trial site in order to bring about this action.  The challenger didn't seem to believe me.  You can read about it yourself at the website of Deutsche Welle, a highly respectable news organisation, where the report is very clear that this is exactly what happened:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14843153,00.html

We were also told that a member of the SBA Executive is going to Germany to talk to beekeeper groups there and that there will be a report published (SB, perhaps the website too) on his return explaining what was happening there.  I'll look forward to him covering this aspect of the affair too in his report. 

Beekeeping, as I've said before, is being used by people with their own agendas.  In this case, campaigning beekeepers have brought about a judicial decision that ends up with honey exporters outside Europe facing ruin, big extra costs for honey packers in the UK, and the possibility that even small-scale beekeepers such as SBA members may need to have their honey tested before they can sell it.  Like the sorcerer's apprentice, you need to be careful what you wish for.

----------


## Rosie

The jokes about the EU and straight cucumbers are now getting ridiculous.  The EU have banned conventional bettery cages for hens but are letting European produces off the hook after the UK farmers had completed their investment in expensive new equipment.  Now, it seems, we are powerless to restrict the importation of illegal EU eggs.  It's time we just started ignoring EU nonsense and got back to some common sense.

Rosie

----------


## Neils

It's been a little while since I read the details, but it seemed pretty clear at the time that the guy in question was playing "silly buggers" and, I thought, had his plan backfire on him so I'm scratching my head somewhat that anyone could see it as a "victory".

As for the eggs, don't buy them. We may be powerless to stop them being imported, but they're only being imported because people buy them, buy local and there's no demand to import eggs from wherever they come from.  I don't think I've ever seen an imported egg round here. Danish, full of water and suffering, bacon yes, but not imported eggs.

----------


## Trog

> I made a comment at the SBA Council that aroused anger and challenge.  It was that the beekeeper at the centre of this had deliberately placed hives close to the trial site in order to bring about this action.  The challenger didn't seem to believe me.  You can read about it yourself at the website of Deutsche Welle, a highly respectable news organisation, where the report is very clear that this is exactly what happened:


As far as I could see, the only anger exhibited at what was a very enjoyable and good-natured Council came from the person who had his motion voted out, having had his chance to speak for a full five minutes (mostly about the suicides of Indian cotton farmers and a general rant about GM).

As for small-scale beekeepers having to test for GM pollen, I suspect there will in the end be a common-sense approach similar to that which allows hobby beekeepers to sell their honey without having to invest in special stainless-steel surfaced extraction rooms and the like.

----------

