Public Comments from the Assessment Report of the Netherlands Competent Authority in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC – Notification C/NL/04/02 October 8th, 2009
Public comments
The Summary Notification Information Format (SNIF) was initially published on the Joint Research Center (JRC) website on September 29 (2004). Public comments were received during 30 days, and originated from the Netherlands (3), Italy (1), Ireland (1) and the UK (1). On December 2004, a revised SNIF was published on the JRC website due to the limitation of the scope, i.e. the withdrawal of line 123.2.2. Only public comments originating from Dutch persons are addressed by the Netherlands CA in this assessment report, and are summarized below, under points 1 to 3. Public comments originating from other member states are to be addressed by the relevant CA’s under the 2001/18/EC, during their national assessment in the 60-day period.
Public comments on the notification C/NL/04/02 and reaction of the Netherlands CA
Public comments which were addressed by the Netherlands CA were submitted by:
- Ms. Van Dort, Den Haag, The Netherlands;
- Mr. Schöttelndreier, Groenekan, The Netherlands;
- Mr. Stellingwerf, Ede, The Netherlands.
1. Ms. Van Dort is of the opinion that nature is beautiful enough and therefore sees no reason for colour modification.
Answer: Comments of an ideological nature fall outside the scope of the legal framework of Directive 2001/18/EC. A notification under Directive 2001/18/EC is assessed on possible risks for human health and the environment.
2. Mr. Schöttelndreier objects to the notification because the long term ecological consequences of introducing GMO’s in nature have not been fully assessed.
Answer: The scope of the notification is import only, so no cultivation will take place in the EU. Therefore, there is no reason to assess long term ecological effects as a result of cultivation of the colour modified carnation within the territory of the EU.
3. Mr. Stellingwerf is of the opinion that consents for the deliberate releases of GMO’s should be based on a ‘no, unless..’-basis and regards a colour modification of flowers not a legitimate ground. He also states that other alternatives are available.
Answer: A notification under Directive 2001/18/EC is assessed on possible risks for human health and the environment. If no risks are identified, there is no legal basis to withhold admission of GMO’s to the European market.
A consideration of alternatives is beyond the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC.
Any more comments? Any more questions?
Public Comments from the Assessment Report Notification C/NL/09/02 of the Dutch Competent Authority in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC October 7th, 2009
Public comments
The Summary Notification Information Format (SNIF) was initially published on the Joint Research Center (JRC) website on March 26 (2009). Public comments were received during 30 days, and originated from the Netherlands. One public comment is addressed by the Dutch CA in this assessment report, and is summarized below. No public comments originating from other member states were received during the abovementioned 30 days.
Public comments on the notification C/NL/09/02 and reaction of the Dutch CA
Public comments (anonymous) which were addressed by the Dutch CA were:
1. A member of the public asks what would happen if bees are attracted to the genetically modified carnation flowers and would carry away modified pollen. It is known that a German beekeeper could not sell its biological honey because of the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in the honey.
Answer: The scope of the notification is for import of cut flowers for ornamental use, and excludes cultivation. Therefore bees will not come in contact with the flowers. Even if they would come in contact, potential spread of pollen will be negligible since domesticated carnations produce only a few anthers and little pollen.
2. The person asks what would happen with butterflies that are mainly attracted to purple flowers. Purple flowers seem to carry much nectar, this seems to be important for the flower since butterflies are involved in pollination of flowers.
Answer: See also the reaction above.
Butterflies that are mostly attracted to purple flowers will not be affected by the ornamental use of the carnations, since there will be no direct contact. Even in case a butterfly will come in contact with a few purple carnations, this will have no effect on populations of butterflies.
3. A member of the public asks if as a result of the changed flower color the bees, butterflies and other useful insects still recognize the color. What do we know about the function of flower color anyway? According to this person a certain color represents a certain property or functionality, which is unknown.
Answer: See also the reaction above. The scope of the notification is for import of cut flowers for ornamental use, and excludes cultivation. Therefore bees or butterflies will not come in contact with the flowers. The question whether insects still recognize the color of the flower or the question what the function is of flower color is therefore not of relevance for this notification.
4. A member of the public notes that carnation flowers may form roots or may be otherwise propagated. Therefore it can not be ruled out that the material will be propagated by third parties.
Answer: The Committee on Genetic Modification (COGEM) has reviewed this aspect in her advice CGM/090429-01. Carnation is not able to spread vegetatively and cut flowers are not able to form roots. It cannot be completely ruled out that buyers will propagate material to plant in their gardens. However, carnation has no weedy characteristics. Although carnation has been cultivated for decades, it has never been found outside the cultivation areas. The introduced traits (modified flower color and herbicide tolerance) do not introduce a potential for weediness. It is therefore highly unlikely that the genetically modified carnation line IFD-26407-2 will spread in the environment after potential propagation by third parties.
5. A member of the public asks what happens with the function of the aromatic substances, flavorings and toxic substances when the flower color is changed?
Answer: Potential effects of color changed carnation lines on incidental human consumption, allergenicity and (soil) toxicity were assessed using several assays. The results of these assays did not indicate any differences in comparison with the parental strains and are sufficient to conclude on the environmental safety of the product (cut flowers). Potential effects on other aspects like aromatic substances and flavorings of these flowers are not considered to be of importance for the safety assessment since the notification only covers import of cut flowers and no cultivation.
6. A member of the public asks if Florigene also used human embryonic intestinal cells, just like the genetically engineered carnation C/NL/04/02, to determine the toxicity of the flower for humans.
Answer: No, an Ames/6DOPRQHOOD test was performed. The results of this test and all other assays performed with similar carnation lines are sufficient to conclude on the safety of cut flowers of this carnation line for human health and the environment.
7. A member of the public protests against this market approval on ethical grounds. This person requests to take into account ethical considerations of the European consumers. Respect for ethical principles recognized in a Member State is particularly important. According to this person, Member States may take into consideration ethical aspects when GMOs are deliberately released or placed on the market as or in products
Answer: According to Annex VI of Directive 2001/18/EC a notification has to be assessed on potential risks for human health and the environment only. Therefore comments not related to the environmental safety of the product are not taken into account in the assessment of this notification on genetically modified carnation.
8. A member of the public protests against the genetic manipulation of cut flowers (as well as all other forms of genetic manipulation) for ethical reasons. It is not necessary, undesirable and not entirely without risks.
Answer: Like stated before, according to Annex VI of Directive 2001/18/EC a notification has to be assessed on potential risks for human health and the environment only. Therefore comments not related to the environmental safety of the product are not taken into account in the assessment of this notification on genetically modified carnation.
Any more comments? Any more questions?
Public Comments from the Assessment Report of the Netherlands Competent Authority in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC – Notification C/NL/06/01 October 2nd, 2009
Public comments
The Summary Notification Information Format (SNIF) was initially published on the Joint Research Center (JRC) website on September 29 (2004). Public comments were received during 30 days, and originated from the Netherlands (3), Italy (1), Ireland (1) and the UK (1). On December 2004, a revised SNIF was published on the JRC website due to the limitation of the scope, i.e. the withdrawal of line 123.2.2. Only public comments originating from Dutch persons are addressed by the Netherlands CA in this assessment report, and are summarized below, under points 1 to 3. Public comments originating from other member states are to be addressed by the relevant CA’s under the 2001/18/EC, during their national assessment in the 60-day period.
Public comments on the notification C/NL/06/01 and reaction of the Netherlands CA
Public comments which were addressed by the Netherlands CA were submitted by:
- Ms. Bos, Lelystad, The Netherlands;
1. Ms. Bos notes that carnation may form roots or may be propagated by stem cuttings. Therefore it can not be ruled out that the material will be propagated to plants by third parties.
Answer: The Committee on Genetic Modification (COGEM) has reviewed this aspect in their advice CGM/070206-02. Carnation is not able to spread vegetatively and cut flowers are not able to form roots. Although the abovementioned aspect can not be ruled out, carnation has no weedy characteristics and the traits (blue pigmentation and herbicide tolerance) do not alter the biology of carnation. It is therefore highly unlikely that the genetically modified carnation line 123.8.12 will spread in the environment.
2. Ms. Bos states that the presence of CaMV 35S promoter in carnation line 123.8.12 may cause ‘genetic pollution’.
Answer: The scope of the notification is import only, so no cultivation will take place in the EU. Furthermore, both COGEM (CGM/050207-01 and CGM/070206-02) and EFSA (Question No EFSA-Q-2005-282) conclude in their opinions that carnation can only theoretically hybridize with wild relatives. Due to the intended use of cut flowers only, the likelihood of a successful hybridization with wild relatives is further drastically reduced. It is therefore highly unlikely, if not impossible, that CaMV 35S promoter sequences will be transferred to non-transgenic carnation.
3. Ms. Bos is of the opinion that all flower bunches sold to consumers should have attached a label mentioning that the flowers are transgenic.
Answer: The Netherlands CA proposes the condition that the product will be labeled or accompanied by a document showing the words ‘This product is a genetically modified organism’ or ‘This product is a genetically modified carnation’, and the words ‘not for human or animal consumption nor for cultivation’.
Any more comments? Any more questions?
Statement concerning the alleged release of Genetically Modified Blue Carnations in Linz/Austria during Ars Electronica 2009 September 17th, 2009
On the advice of our legal council, we hereby would like to make the following statement:
We, Georg Tremmel and Shiho Fukuhara, operating under the artist name BCL, would like to participate in explaining misunterstanding concerning our art work ‘Common Flowers – Flower Commons’ and its exhibition at the OK Center as part of the ‘CyberArs 09′ exhibition during the Ars Electronica festival in September 2009.
The work of prolonging the life of the cut flower carnations was carried out in the BioLab of the Ars Electronica Center in August 2009 by specially trained technicians working for the AEC. The lab currently operates on a S1 bio-security level, all precautions have been taken to prevent the risk of accidentical escape of blue carnation.
During the exhibtion ‘CyberArts’ at the OK Center in Linz further security measures have been implemented. The genetically modified plants were restricted to plant containers, which were further secured in plastic boxes to which access was only possible by breaking a lock. As a further security measures, the OK Center positioned an invigilator at all opening hours during the the Ars Electronica festival in our exhibitions space. After the Ars Electronica festival the Cyberarts 09 remained open for another 3 weeks. During this time it was not feasable to station a permanent guard in the exhibition space. Instead the door leading to the space was sealed with a plexi glass sheet, making entering the exhibition space all but impossible.
Flowers Commons refers to the imagined spaces that the genetically modified blue carnation are exhibition. Our project ‘Common Flowers – Flower Commons’ proposes to create ‘Flower Commons’ as an act of critically engaging in the emerging biosciences and questioning the role of genetically modified plants in society and their relation to the general public.
We would like to state, that we did not release genetically modified blue carnation in Linz/Austria during Ars Electronica 2009.
However we would also like to re-affirm a main point of our project: Genetically plants are easily available and anyone with the interest could easily clone and release the genetically modified blue carnation or any other similar plant.
We can not be held responsible if anyone else will clone and release Blue GM Carnations plants.
We confirm that the above statement is true.
Thank you for you attention.
For BCL: Georg Tremmel, Shiho Fukuhara.
Place: Tokyo, Japan
Date: 16. September 2009. 10.34h