EU Parliament votes against the cultivation of genetically engineered maize

Reasons include the uncontrolled spread of teosinte, risks for protected species and the risk of resistance in pest insects

6 October 2016 / Today, the EU Parliament has adopted several resolutions tabled across the parties, and called for the EU Commission not to authorise genetically engineered maize for cultivation. The resolutions concerns three maize variants, all of which produce insecticides (MON810, Bt11 and Maize 1507); two are resistant to herbicides. So far, only one of these transgenic maize variants is allowed for cultivation in the EU (MON810).

Genetically engineered maize can give rise to superweeds

EFSA publishes hastily drawn up opinion to downplay the risks
Monday, 3 October 2016

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is backing Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta plans to extend the cultivation of genetically engineered maize in the EU. So far, only one transgenic maize is allowed for cultivation in the EU. The companies are waiting for a decision that would allow them to sell seeds for three variants of genetically engineered maize in 2017. These maize plants all produce insecticides, and two of them are resistant to herbicides. New environmental risks are emerging with the cultivation of the transgenic plants, in particular from teosinte.

EFSA caught up in massive conflicts of interest whilst at the same time dismissing scientific findings

European Food Safety Authority and EU Commission suspected of abusing their power to bolster their position at the EU Court of Justice
Thursday, 29 September 2016

Testbiotech has raised serious allegations against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), asserting that it is deeply entangled in conflicts of interest in its assessment of recent scientific findings. In July 2016, upon request of the EU Commission, EFSA claimed that a new scientific paper published by Norwegian scientists on the risks of genetically modified (GM) plants could not be used as a basis for drawing final conclusions, and would therefore not be relevant for risk assessment.


Subscribe to testbiotech RSS