Instead of being a relevant analysis of the mass of scientific evidence available on the subject, the report is more like a catalogue of statements with some arguments more compelling than others.  The alleged doubts in the report had already been addressed in the course of other assessments of MON810, both in France and Europe, and which had all concluded that MON810 maize was not harmful to either health or the environment.
 
The fact is that this ruling has no new scientific data and contains no “serious doubts”;  the summary presented in the speech by Chairman Le Grand is deliberately incorrect and had quite obviously been “prefabricated” to order.

What is the mandate of the Committee?
 
It is quite simply to “reassess the risks and benefits to the environment and to public health that may arise with the intentional spreading of MON810 maize”.
 
What is MON810 maize?

 - It is maize that has been genetically modified to make it resistant to corn borer and stem borer (two serious maize pests in France and Europe);  this is done by inserting the gene of Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium commonly found in the soil.

 - In 1998, MON810 was given European Union approval for crops for human and animal consumption.  In 2007, it was grown over a total of 110 000 hectares in 8 EU-member countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain).  It has been farmed in Spain since 1998 and current acreage there is approximately 75 000 hectares.

 - In 2004, six years after the European assessment, MON810 was re-assessed in a new expert study by the French food safety agency, AFSSA.   This second assessment not only confirmed that the plant was harmless, but also highlighted the advantages of MON810 maize for public health, with lower levels of toxins produced by fungus found in grain grown on land planted with MON810.

 - In 2007, after reviewing the potential impact of MON810, Germany confirmed approval for MON810 crops for the next sowing season (2008).
 
 
What were the conclusions in the report by the Preliminary Committee?

  - First, it is surprising that the conclusions in the report by the Committee include four facts announced as new in relation to the 1998 European assessment, while the Chairman of the Committee, in his speech presenting the report, only drew attention to three of them, and largely underplayed the clear advantages for human and animal health which had been explicitly stated in the ruling.
The advantage is that MON810 maize can help reduce levels of certain toxins produced by fungi developing on maize plants as they grow.  These toxins, known as fuminosins, are classified as carcinogenic for humans and may be responsible for fertility problems observed in sows.  By using MON810 varieties of maize, toxin levels found with other types of protection for maize crops, either conventional or organic, can be cut by 90 to 95%, as was noted in the ruling.
So why should this health benefit be given so little attention when, at the same time, European regulations require these toxin levels to be reduced as part of a clear public health goal?

  - Aside from this obvious and deliberate attempt to minimise the argument, what are the other three pieces of scientific evidence uncovered by the Committee and which raise “questions” (not “serious doubts” as said by Chairman Le Grand) as to possible environmental, health and economic consequences of growing and marketing MON810?

 - First, the Committee noted that the dissemination of grains of pollen can extend to a distance a number of kilometres from the source field.  Yes!  What a scoop!  But what is the new element uncovered by the Committee?
Farming sectors managing arrangements for crop separation to preserve specificity have known about pollen flows for ages.  And anyone allergic to pollen also knows that pollen travels!  The Committee, however, does not appear to have taken the specificity of maize pollen flow into account, even though there is a great deal of data from a large number of scientific studies on dissemination and crop coexistence.
     * Maize has the heaviest pollen of any grass:  98% of maize pollen falls within a 10 metre radius of the plant, and while the remaining 2% (dried and therefore lighter) can cover quite long distances, in almost all cases it will not be viable.
     * With the adoption of European regulations on traceability and labelling of GMOs in the autumn of 2003, a large number of scientific investigations (e.g. in the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Italy) were conducted under real farming conditions so as to determine the requirements for GM and non-GM crop coexistence.  Do we need to repeat that coexistence applies to crops that have been assessed as safe on the basis of recognised scientific expert assessments?  Referring to the different publications and conferences on the subject (the most recent one being the conference organised by the European Union held in Seville in November 2007), there is clear evidence that while a few grains of pollen may travel a few hundred metres or more from the source field, the practice of coexistence is a feasible and reliable way of complying with European regulations on traceability and labelling.

 - The second doubt is on the issue of “resistance detected in certain secondary target pests”.
      * But the two lepidoptera species concerned are not pests that attack French maize;  they are the sugar cane borer and the African stem borer.  Their newly developed resistance to MON810 maize will have no impact on French maize crops and biodiversity, and that applies to any type of farming (conventional or organic).
      * Furthermore, the Committee has recognised, in the light of scientific studies, that large-scale farming of MON810 maize does not lead to the emergence of resistance in insects targeted by MON810, these being the main pests for maize crops, i.e. corn borer and pink stem borer.  Why was there no mention of this point in the speech summarising the report?
 
 - The third doubt relates to “new evidence of effects on non-target flora and fauna”.  The information included in the report by the Committee requires immediate clarification.
For invertebrates in the soil, e.g. earthworms, while a number of studies have shown that the Bt protein can be found in water, river sediment and soil, the most recent study, published in 2007, reported a smaller effect from MON810 maize than from current conventional maize crop protection methods.  Why should we be denied a farming method that is more environmentally friendly?
For bees (the ultimate insect icon), the Committee did not note any negative effect, even in studies conducted in apiaries with bees fed on high doses of MON810 pollen.  Once again, there was no mention of this by the Chairman of the Committee.

 - Another five points were presented as requiring further or new investigation.  But discussion on these points was not based on any new scientific evidence.  These points are nothing more than complementary methodological approaches to be implemented in the future for an assessment that is more general than those done to date.

 - It should be noted that most of the studies cited in the report (those conducted prior to 2007) had already been assessed as part of an expert report by the French Food Safety Agency, AFSSA, in 2004.  More recently, the equivalent European body, EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, carried out an expert assessment of the scientific bases for the safeguard clauses submitted by six European countries and was unable to find any fresh scientific evidence to justify such clauses.
  
Contacts :      Cédric POEYDOMENGE - Tél : 06.87.68.73.00
                     Pascal COQUIN - Tél : 06.80.31.50.94