On March 2, 2010, after a 12-year unofficial moratorium on the production of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union, the European Commission (EC) gave the green light to the cultivation of the Amflora starch potato and three kinds of pest-resistant corn. Purportedly, the Amflora potato, produced by the German multinational Basf, is intended for industrial uses, like paper and plastic manufacturing, and as animal feed, while the corn varieties are also used for human consumption.
Under current European legislation, a GMO is defined as any organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination.
Italy is the second-largest producer of high-quality organic crops in Europe and the fourth largest in the world. Following the EC’s recent move to allow new GMO crops, many fear that the contamination of crops could greatly damage the Italian economy and agricultural sector. This is why Luca Zia, the Italian minister of agriculture, food and forestry policy, quickly reacted to the issue, claiming the EC’s decision to suddenly abandon its prudent policy towards GMOs was ‘singular.’ He reiterated Italy’s total opposition to this ‘attack’ on its ‘national sovereignty’ and declared that the country would enforce its ban on GMOs. He said ‘we will move in all directions at our disposal to make sure that GMOs do not endanger our agricultural identity. To do this we will begin a procedure seeking a conservation restriction to block the cultivation and marketing of these products in our territory.’ He added that Italy would join other EU member states, France, Greece and Hungary, to demand the decision be overturned.
The Tuscan Region holds a similar view. Since 2000, the region has a law prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs within its territory. In 2003, it also became a founding member of a network of 50 GMO-free zones that now exist in Europe.
Opponents and supporters of GMO crops fall into two diametrically opposing camps, as with so many other issues involving the environment, such as climate change or nuclear energy. In this specific case, opponents of the German super-potato argue that although it has not been approved for human consumption, it would enter the food chain because it can be used as animal feed, even without sufficient evidence about possible long-term health risks to consumers. They see it as yet another example of ‘frankenfood’ (named after the Doctor Frankenstein of fiction, who created a monstrous being), and they are particularly concerned about its effects because the Amflora potato carries an antibiotic resistance marker (ARM) gene.
Backed by the European Food and Safety Authority (ESFA), supporters counter that the amount of the ARM gene is too tiny to interfere with antibiotics and that Amflora potatoes, therefore, pose no risk for humans. They also contend that the benefits of GMOs far outweigh their risks. After all, they argue, almost 80 percent of corn and 90 percent of soy grown in the United States, the world’s biggest GMO producer and consumer, is genetically modified without the catastrophic results predicted by detractors. In addition to this are economic advantages as well as the gains derived from using GMOs in combating world hunger. In the end, according to GMO supporters, such possibilities prevail over any gloom and doom predictions.
Regardless, it is important to note that unease over the contamination of native and traditional species cannot be underestimated, especially where, as in Italy, there is rich biodiversity. Furthermore, we, as consumers, want to be sure our food is healthy and safe. According to the farmers’ union, Coldiretti, Italians have a negative perception of GMO foods with 7 out of 10 people believing they are less healthy than traditional foods. It would seem, therefore, that the EU needs to do a better job in convincing us to change our minds.
