ECJ rules: Genetically modified honey must be approved as a food

Amateur beekeepers had detected up to 4.1% genetically modified corn pollen and DNA in their honey and therefore filed a petition with the Augsburg Administrative Court to determine that the affected beekeeping products were no longer marketable or usable due to the presence of pollen from the MON810 corn variety, in order to enforce claims for damages against the Free State of Bavaria as the owner of the cultivated land. The ECJ (judgment of September 6, 2011 – Case C-442/09 -; see also Beck-bolg.de) has now made the following fundamental findings for genetic engineering law:

1. Non-reproducible genetically modified maize pollen in honey is not
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
2. Genetically modified corn pollen in honey is an ingredient and therefore one of
subject to food law approval.
3. For the authorisation of food and feed, the 0.0% limit applies in relation to a
Contamination with GMOs. The tolerance threshold of 0.9% applies to the approval of
Foods are not. This only applies to the labeling requirement.
4. The authorisation requirement also applies to accidental introduction of GMOs.

The biologist is reassured by the finding that non-reproductive organisms in food are not GMOs. The question of why they are nevertheless subject to food law as ingredients is more difficult to understand. The decisive factor for the ECJ here was that the scope of food law is significantly broader for consumer protection reasons. However, it did not consider pollen in honey to be a natural component, but defined it as an ingredient, which caused considerable unrest in the food industry.
The effects of the ECJ ruling are not yet fully foreseeable. What is clear is that food must now be analyzed for GMO content due to the 0.0% tolerance limit. Who will bear the costs is unclear. If contamination is detected, it may be the polluter; otherwise, it is likely the beekeeper or producer of the food, which will not please them. Legislators will also be called upon, as the ECJ has just certified that their coexistence regulation (Section 1 No. 2 GenTG) is not working. What is certain is that, as a result of the decision and the results of the analyses, claims for damages will have to be examined at various levels. This applies, on the one hand, to food and feed manufacturers against the supplying beekeepers, but also to the relationship between the beekeepers and the farmers who cultivate or release the beekeepers.
Whether the ECJ's decision can be considered a lasting success in this respect is therefore also questionable for beekeepers, since the connection between genetically modified corn pollen in honey and the area cultivated will not always be clear, given the flight radius of bees - 10 km is stated - and the portability of the bee colonies.

This publication can also be found on the website of the law firm Dr. Kauch .