GM-Free Milk A Success

The Minister of Agriculture in Hesse, Wilhelm Dietzel/CDU (picture), was surprised: “I am amazed that the consumer is prepared to pay an extra 5 cents for fair trade milk because in the run-up to this campaign the marketing experts predicted it would fail.” He wished the Upländer Dairy success in the coming decades, but he was of the opinion that genetic engineering had to be given a chance.

Picture: Minister Wilhelm Dietzel speaking at the anniversary of the Upländer Dairy

At the event to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Upländer Farmers’ Dairy there was no common ground between the public and the minister on the subject of genetic engineering. He said that he was indeed fully aware that the majority of consumers, and probably most farmers, were against genetic modification but he was nevertheless of the opinion that people had to give the new technology a chance. He added that illegal cropping in China and unauthorised cropping in the USA were unacceptable. A pensive minister stated: “I take the misgivings regarding genetic modification very seriously but we have to follow both paths and be on the side of coexistence.” He concluded by saying that GM-free zones were not being planned by the state.

Karin Artzt-Steinbrink, the Managing Director of Upländer Farmers’ Dairy, gave a detailed account of the difficulties encountered in putting milk labelled “GM-free” on the market (picture). Therefore, she explained, four million litres a year of conventional milk came from a group of producers located an hour’s journey by car from Usseln. First, there were problems in getting GM-free fodder, and the medications and additives used in animal keeping had to be GM-free, too. Whilst the Milk Industry Association wanted the company to abandon the project, it was supported wholeheartedly by Tegut. For the Managing Director with many years of service it was important to have the prospect of good marketing and in the meantime conventional milk is sold under the brand name “Bergweide” in Tegut stores, in three Lidl central warehouses in North Rhine-Westphalia  and in a number of Rewe stores. A lack of marketing support led to the experiment being suspended at Globus. To make sure that customers in the wholefood specialist trade are fully aware that they are purchasing freedom from genetic modification with their organic products, all packaging is labelled accordingly.

Alexander Hissting from Greenpeace (www.greenpeace.de) explained  how hugely successful his environmental association had been: 2.3 million copies of the handy little shopper’s guide ‘GM-free Food’ had been distributed. The tenth edition would be appearing shortly. But he went on to give details of the considerable resistance to the GM-free milk project. The message from the Milk Industry Association was “milk production without GM is an impossibility”. No one was interested in cooperation. Greenpeace held discussions with individual dairies but quite a few had said: “We are having a meeting with you but don’t tell anybody”. However, the supermarkets and dairies were put under increasing pressure by Greenpeace’s public campaigns at the point of sale. In Hissting’s words: “Today 34 groups are again at work in 140 supermarkets identifying products that have been genetically modified.” Whereas in other European countries a number of companies have given up using GM fodder for cows, Germany obviously finds this a step too far. “The big dairies are playing ‘wait and see’. The leaders are 300 Lidl stores and some Rewe stores. Partial conversion to GM-free exists only at the dairies in Schrozberg and at Breisgaumilch. Since only 0.06 % of maize cropping in Germany is contaminated with GM, it would be a simple solution to exclude this land area and to use a GM-free label.”

(Picture: GM-free milk from the tap)

Annemarie Volling (on the left in the picture) warned about rape pollen that can fly 27 km and super weeds with multiple resistance. Some farmers in the USA were finding they could only combat these weeds mechanically because they had become resistant to all the usual pesticides. She summed it up as follows: the use of genetic modification leads to a decline in bio-diversity, it cannot be controlled and the consequences cannot be calculated. Frau Volling is the coordinator of the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bäuerliche Landwirtschaft” (ABL), the working party for the association “GM-free Regions in Germany” (www.gentechnikfreie-regionen.de).  She went on to say that 90 million ha of genetically modified plants had been grown in 2005. The USA, Brazil and Argentina were the principal countries involved. The main products were soya (60 %), maize (24 %), cotton (11 %) and rape (5 %). Although 6 % of agricultural land worldwide had already been cropped with GM-plants that obviously left 94 % still free of GM. She regarded the American farmers’ refusal on a grand scale to grow GM wheat as a positive development. She stated that they had already suffered a loss in turnover in the case of maize and soya and were experiencing increasing problems in exporting their crops.

(Picture: Annemarie Volling/left, Josef Jakobi, Karin Artzt-Steinbrink, Georg Jansen, Benny Härlin)

This year 950 ha of GM maize is being grown in Germany, with 90 % of the GM cropped land located in East Germany. Mrs. Volling was optimistic: “There are now 94 GM-free regions in Germany. 26,500 farmers have stated that they don’t want genetic modification on their land, and that gives us hope for the future. More and more communities, such as Munich and Dortmund, and 14 regional churches, are opposing genetic engineering in agriculture.” Her summary of the state of affairs: “We are in for the long haul but it will be worth it in the end.”

Benny Härlin (on the left in the picture) from the foundation “Save our Seeds” (www.saveourseeds.org) regretted the fact that the invited representative of the Ministry of Agriculture had not come but found this understandable bearing in mind that the Ministry had still not finalised its position. He explained that the Government was working on a clear list of what farmers using GM would be responsible for in the event of claims for damages. Current good practice was expected to be supplemented by a new passage stating that the distance between GM and conventional fields had to be 150 m. Contamination with 0.5 % GM plants had to be tolerated in future. Mr. Härlin expressed his fear: “The result will be that there is no legal guarantee of freedom from genetic engineering.” He went on to say that he could not understand the CDU that was determined to implement genetic engineering. The state of affairs in other European countries was quite different (for example, Italy), with all political parties coming out against GM. There was also strong resistance to implementing genetic engineering in France, Austria, Ireland, Bulgaria and Poland.

The fact that resistance can be worthwhile was proved by Josef Jakobi of Upländer Dairy with the following example: in the USA the growth hormone rBST had been used for years in cows in order to increase their milk yield by around 20 %. “rBST would be permitted in Germany today if the ABL had not vigorously opposed it,” he stated to the applause of all present.

Markus Schröpf from the working party on non-GM food (Arbeitsgemeinschaft gentechnikfrei erzeugte Lebensmittel - http://www.gentechnikfrei.at/start.html) explained how Austria had converted to almost totally GM-free milk production. After the second biggest dairy had decided against genetic engineering, the market leader Berglandmilch had to follow in its footsteps. Schröpf explained that practically all the dairies then followed suit, partly out of conviction but also partly for reasons of image. The stamp ‘Arge GM-free’ (‘Arge gentechnikfrei’) is found on 250 products. So is Austria free of GM animal feed? Unfortunately this is not the case since it is still being given to chickens and pigs. Moreover, he was sometimes worried by another issue: “When you don’t look too closely, it may be that everything is as it should be - or is it that you simply don’t notice what is going on?” The problem for him was the fact that there were verification methods in the case of GM processes but that manufacturing companies were still not obliged to make known these methods of verifying the presence of GM.