Senate throws out moratorium on GM crops in Switzerland

Genetically modified products are viewed with suspicion by most Swiss consumers Keystone

The Senate has rejected a proposal to introduce a moratorium on the commercial use of genetically modified plants. However, it said strict scientific and environmental controls needed to be imposed. The House of Representatives has still to discuss the issue.

A majority of 23 against 16 votes in the Senate on Thursday threw out a proposal for a moratorium until 2008 for the release of GM crops in agriculture, forestry and horticulture.

Supporters of a moratorium had argued that more time was needed to assess the possible risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for the environment and mankind. They also denied that a ban would block research or hamper the pharmaceutical and the chemical industry.

The Senate agreed to impose a strict set of restrictions on genetic engineering in the non-human field. The commercial use of GM crops depends on the federal authorities giving their approval.

If the law takes effect, environmental groups will have the right to appeal, and foods containing GM ingredients will have to be clearly labelled. These safeguards, it was argued, took into account sufficiently the concerns of critics of genetic engineering.

Several speakers pointed out that Swiss law was in line with other European countries and in some cases even went further.

In other business, the Senate unanimously approved a ten-year ban on the commercial use of genetically engineered animals.

However, senators were unable to decide on who should be held legally responsible in cases where damage is caused by the use of GM medical products. This issue will be discussed again on committee level.

Among the main points of the two-day debate on genetic engineering were discussions on safety standards, legal responsibilities, biodiversity and ethical questions, including the dignity of creation.

The debate highlighted the dilemma facing many of the senators, which is to weigh up the advantages and potential dangers that could result from GMOs.

They underlined that the technique could help increase productivity of crops and alleviate hunger in the world. But they also drew attention to the possible risks of mutating organisms and consequences for the environment and nature.

Environmental groups have threatened to challenge a law that falls short of introducing a moratorium in a nationwide vote.

They say an overwhelming majority of consumers are against GM products. They won the support of the main farmers organisation and the main retailers in Switzerland.

In 1998, Swiss voters turned down a proposal to introduce a wide-ranging ban on GMOs, including a ban on the patenting of animals and plants.

by Urs Geiser