Futuragra is a cultural association composed of agricultural entrepreneurs, which promotes a model of agricultural production based on technology, competition and farmers’ freedom to operate on the market.

1. WHO WE ARE

Futuragra is a cultural association composed of agricultural entrepreneurs, which promotes a model of agricultural production based on technology, competition and farmers’ freedom to operate on the market. Futuragra was founded in the Friuli region, where 88% of the land planted with grain is dedicated to corn and where the lack of innovation in agriculture is threatening the entire agricultural production chain. Futuragra is a member of SAgRI, SAlute, Agricoltura, Ricerca (Health, Agriculture, Research), the umbrella group composed of scientific associations and companies that provide documentation and data regarding the GMO issue. Futuragra believes that biotechnology is essential to improve the competitiveness and quality of agro-food production and it strongly supports the introduction of GM crops in Italy.

2.WHY WE SUPPORT BIOTECHNOLOGY

Economic gains: Since 2004 only one experimental GMO field trial has been carried out in Italy. In 2005 INRAN (National research Institute for Food and Nutrition-Public Institute) compared a conventional corn variety with two different varieties of GM Bt corn featuring MON 810 event. The two GM varieties have been duly listed in the common catalogue of varieties. The trial showed that GM Bt corn varieties performed better than the conventional one. In fact, GM varieties allowed yield increases varying from +28% up to + 43%. The variation in yield increases depends on the reproductive rate of a pathogenic insect known as a corn borer, to which GM Bt corn varieties were resistant (source: Nature Biotechnology,2007 ). According to other studies since 2000 in Italy the impossibility to use GM Bt corn varieties has produced an overall 1 billion euro loss (Tabella Marchesini, Citabile?). Furthermore from 1996 to 2007 in Europe Bt corn economic benefits worth €34 billion with farmers earning an additional €186 per hectare.(FBN)

GM imports dependency: The amount of corn produced in Italy is no longer sufficient to satisfy internal needs, so that extra European imports are rising steadily. By one side GM corn is necessary to increase yields and meet the agro-food production overall needs, on the other side a GMOs free agro-food chain is unsustainable due to the high costs caused by the increasing scarcity of GMO-free corn. (source: Brookes, Craddock, Kniel, 2005).

Currently the 90% of the animal feed used in Italy contains GMOs. The production chains of PGIs (Protected Geographical Indication) and PDOs (Protected Designation of Origin), which are supposed to be GMOs free, utilise GM animal feed. Also if they can not openly admit it, PGIs and PDOs producers are aware that any development without the assistance of GMO crops would not be feasible.(source: Nomisma, 2007) Besides, in 2009 the value of imported corn in Italy was half of the value represented by exports of products labelled as PGI or PDO, excluding wine. This data shows that the competitiveness of PGI and PDO in the near future is based on the adoption of GM crops technology in Italy and in Europe in order to reduce production costs related to the extra European importation.

Health risks. The presence of mycotoxins in corn is a health risk for consumers. Fumonisins are mycotoxins that are harmful to human health, causing esophageal cancer in humans and malformations of the central nervous system of foetuses, leading to pathologies such as spina bifida, cleft palate, anencephaly and a number of cardiovascular diseases. The incidence of these defects in pregnancy in Europe is around one case per thousand. Fumonisins are present in corn plants, generally around the edible part — the grains — as a result of the growth of fungi caused by attacks from corn borer. The aforementioned INRAN study noted that the fumonisin content of the GM varieties on trial was between three and ten times lower than that of their conventional counterpart. Infestations of corn borer have been increasing for years in northern and central Italy and the safety of the corn production has been always more at risk. Data related to 2005 show that in Italy 54 % of the corn produced had a fumonisin content which exceeded the limits laid down by Community legislation for the placing of such products on the market (Regulation 1126/2007/EC).

Less environmental impact: In the case of Bt corn GM technology makes it unnecessary to take measures to protect the crops, with the resultant elimination of two or three applications of insecticide, of evident benefit to both the environment and consumers. In general the environmental benefits of using biotechnology also include: less tillage, more efficient crop protection, mitigating climate change impact by growing more with less, more reliably and in harsher conditions, protection from soil erosion through less ploughing and increased water efficiency. (FBN)

3. FUTURAGRA ENGAGMENT FOR FARMERS’RIGHT TO PLANT GM CROP IN ITALY

Futuragra is firmly convinced that the current European law-framework on GMOs guarantees the highest level of protection of environment and health. Futuragra considers that the GMOs authorised on the market in the EU are totally safe because of the strict precautionary assessment of GMOs products, which is carried out case by case and on the basis of sound scientific knowledge. The strictness of the assessment is guaranteed by the independency and the high qualification of the EFSA’s experts. For these reasons Futuragra has been fighting for six years to defend the European law framework and clarify farmers’ legitimate right to plant GM crops authorised at European level and listed in the Common Catalogue of Varieties.

Italy blanket ban: The EU has formally authorised the cultivation of GM corn since 1998. In September 2004, the European Commission entered in the European common catalogue of plant varieties certain hybrid varieties of genetically modified corn which, following their registration, can legally be grown anywhere in the Community. In Italy, however, unlike other EU countries, where those hybrids have been grown for some time, a blanket ban on the growing of GMOs has been in place countrywide. In fact, Italy implemented the EU Directive 2001/18 with Decree 224/2003 and since 2001 provided for a national authorisation to cultivate GMOs, which was added to the one issued by the EU (Decree 201/2001). After the adoption of the Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on coexistence among organic, conventional and transgenic crops, the circular letter by the Agricultural Ministry dated 21/03/2006 established a moratorium on GM crops planting until the definition of the Regional coexistence plans, which have never been formally adopted.

EU reactions: Italy has never informed the European Commission before passing any measure concerning GMO experimentation, cultivation and marketing. Neither Italian decrees nor technical guidelines have never been notified under the procedure set by the directive 98/34, which covers also the so called coexistence regulation, or under the article 114 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As a result the EC has not carried out any assessment of the consistency of Italian legislation on GMOs with the EC law. In March 2007, Futuragra directly asked the EC to assess whether the Italian blanket ban could be considered an infringement of two directives regarding GMOs and consequently the existence of the legal requirements to launch a procedure of infraction ex art 258 of the Treaty. The European Commission has never formally answered to Futuragra about the appeal presented but in February 2009, the European Commission's Directorate General Enterprise and Industry wrote a letter to the Italian Government, where compliance with the notification procedure provided for by Directive 98/34 was encouraged. Eventually in June 2009 Commissioner Dimas answered to a written question by MEP Cappato and clarified that GMOs authorised under the Directive 2001/18 could be used throughout the Community in so far as the specific conditions of use stipulated in the consent were strictly adhered to. So that the free circulation of authorised GMOs could have been provisionally restricted or prohibited only on the basis of new or additional scientific knowledge indicating risks to human health or the environment as provided for by article 23 of the aforementioned directive. Both the two initiatives implicitly acknowledged that Futuragra’s remarks on the inconsistencies of the Italian law framework with the EC law were founded.

Italian lawsuit: In October 2006 according to Legislative Decree n.212/2001 Futuragra supporters sent 400 letters of sowing to the MoAg (Italian Ministry of agriculture), in which they requested authorisation to plant GM corn varieties listed in the EU Common Catalogue. In March 2007 MoAg denied the authorisation pleading the lack of coexistence measures, which should have been adopted by regions. Afterwards the Futuragra Vice-president Mr. Silvano Dalla Libera filed an appeal against the MoAg denial at the Administrative Tribunal of Roma (TAR), which declined to hear the case for the lack of formal requirements. Thus Mr. Dalla Libera appealed to Consiglio di Stato (the highest Administrative Court of Justice in Italy) which accepted to take the case under consideration. In January 2010 Consiglio di Stato ruled that Italian farmers have the legitimate right to plant GM crops authorised at European level and listed in the Common Catalogue of Varieties and that the planting authorisation were not subject to the release of the coexistence regulations. MoAg was obliged to release the authorisation in compliance with the right to cultivate GM crops within 90 days. Despite the ruling of Consiglio di Stato Mr. Dalla Libera has not been able to enjoy his right stated in court yet. At the end of an unclear adoption process the MoAg issued a decree to reject the authorisation demanded by Mr. Dalla Libera, exceeding the formal limit stated by the Consiglio di Stato, which obliged the MoAg to assent the authorisation. The denial was justified on the debatable results of a study, which has been carried out in short times and without filling any scientific procedural requirements such as peer review and cross checks. Currently Mr. Dalla Libera is appealing against the decree for its evident inconsistency with the ruling of Consiglio di Stato.