SCIENTISTS PETITION SUPPORTING MON810

UNCLAS PARIS 004731 SIPDIS SIPDIS BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA(GRAY); EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; OCRA/CURTIS; STA/SIMMONS/JONES/HENNEY/SISSON; EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR SENV ECON ETRD EU FR SUBJECT: SCIENTISTS PETITION SUPPORTING MON810 REF: PARIS 4660 ¶1. On December 7, more than 300 scientists (from France and world-wide) publicly stated in French and English their opposition to France's MON810 suspension. See http://nonaumoratoire.free.fr/english.htm ¶2. The petition was initiated by members of the French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS),the National Research Institute on Agronomy (INRA),the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS),and by the former President of the Biomolecular Engineering Committee, which used to be the French competent authority assessing biotech products. ¶3. The text of the petition states that "the cohabitation of conventional, GM and organic corn cultivation is possible... and has a negligible chance of creating varieties containing substances deleterious for consumer health and no such event has been ever observed." Additionally, the petition states that "available studies indicate that GM Bt corn has a lesser environmental impact than the authorized insecticide treatments." ¶4. Finally, the petitioners opine that "a moratorium on the cultivation of approved GM corn by the EU is therefore not scientifically justified, as it would be based only on imaginary or false uncertainties concerning food environmental safety;" and that such ban "would bring no new knowledge that could reduce hypothetical risks that could be generated by the cultivation and consumption of GM Bt corn." Therefore such a moratorium would be "in contradiction with the precautionary principle." ¶5. Comment: That so many respected scientists from France's most prestigious research institutions have spoken together for the first time on this issue is significant. At the same time, we do not know what influence, if any, this may have on the legislative debate and deliberations of the interim authority on GMOs. End Comment. STAPLETON