Food Alert!
Your Inside Report on Food Safety and Industrialized Agriculture in Eastern Europe
Fall 2009 • Vol. 10, No. 1
Milk and Wheat Prices Cause Grief for Farmers in Eastern Europe
Farmers all over Eastern Europe are
being hurt by the low prices of milk
and wheat. The crisis affects not only
the countries that recently joined the
EU but also those that did not.
In June, farmers in Croatia blocked
the streets in the country’s capital
of Zagreb. Protestors attempted to
enter government buildings with
tractors and spilled 60 litres of milk
on the street in front of the Ministry
of Agriculture. Farmers claimed that
cheap imports of milk and wheat were
preventing them from making money
and that the government was slow
with subsidy payments.1
June also saw protests by Czech
farmers who, with some 200 tractors,
brought the highway system of their
country to a near halt. Milk farmers
demanded a minimum purchase price of milk after they
were forced to sell milk below production costs this sum-
mer. Although the Czech governments brought back the
school milk program that had been canceled two years
ago, it may not be enough to alleviate the situation of
farmers.
In Poland, farmers are not faring better; they sell milk
below production costs while the price of one litre of milk
in stores is three times higher than prices received by
farmers. Cereal production is in trouble as well, espe-
cially in northern Poland. The prices are way below last
year’s levels and farmers are not seeing profits. Instead
of protesting, they are thinking of a wide informative ac-
tion conducted by media and agricultural institutions to
make consumers aware that the price paid for bread does
not reflect farmers’ actual income.2
1 „Croatian Farmers Continue Zagreb Protest”, June 11, 2009, Bal-
kan Insight, http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/20136/
2 Sylvia Śmigiel, “Tanie jak zboże”, Gazeta Wyborcza, August 6,
2008, http://wyborcza.pl/1,75248,6903681,Tanie_jak_zbo-
www.foodandwatereurope.org
The governments of Eastern Europe-
an countries often take the approach
that farmers need to help themselves
through market solutions, telling
them to form producers’ groups. The
last suggestion is quickly becoming
a mantra repeated at times when
the governments, the EU, and other
international bodies do not know
how to address problems. A different
approach is being taken by the Polish
Ministry of Agriculture. Minister
Marek Sawicki is asking the European
Commission for intervention in the
cereal market.
These developments are part of a
Europe-wide milk crisis started
over a year ago, after the European
Commission decided to gradually
increase milk quotas in preparation
for abolishing them by 2015. Farmers
across Europe noted price drops and many smaller
ones started to approach bankruptcy, with some going
out of business. Despite protests and the dramatic
situation in the milk sector, the European Commission
decided to continue with the milk quota increase even
though measures it took to support EU farmers such as
reintroduction of export refunds for producers of butter,
cheese and whole and skimmed milk powder proved to
be rather ineffective.
Various civil society groups are taking the position that
the quota should be frozen or decreased. Food and Wa-
ter Europe sent a letter to Mariann Fischer Boel asking
her to reconsider increase of milk quotas and find ways
to protect small and medium-size dairy farmers while
continuing the investigation into anti-competitive prac-
tices of distributors and retailers of milk.
ze.html?utm_source=RSS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campa-
ign=4809280
Inside This Issue
• The European Union Unblocks Subsidies for Romanian
eu ope
Farmers and Bulgaria Probes Farmers – 2
• Environmental Ministry Revokes Integrated Permit for
Smithfield’s Poultry Operation in Poland – 2
• Move for GMO Opt-Out Clause? – 3
• Europeans Walk the Walk Against GMOs – 4
• Small Bits – 4
 eu ope Food Alert! Spring 2008

The European Union Unblocks Subsidies for Romanian Farmers and

Bulgaria Probes Farmers
In mid July, the European Union again allowed
agricultural subsidies to reach Romanian farmers. This
had been blocked for almost a year since August 2008
due to the unsatisfactory “way the Romanian agency
in charge of distributing the funds was managed and
controlled.”1

The subsidies are now back on as Bucharest cleans up its

act and it was revealed that the problems were not linked
to any fraud, as had happened in Bulgaria. Agriculture
Minister of Bulgaria Valeri Tsvetanov said in an
interview in late spring that farmers had exaggerated the
size of their land in their subsidy applications in 2007 so
they could receive more money from the Union. Food
processors were also caught lying about their expenses,
buying second-hand equipment and claiming that they
had bought it brand new.2 As of July 31, 2009, experts
from the European Commission and the European Anti-
Fraud Office (OLAF) are reclaiming subsidies from over
80 Bulgarian meat and milk processing companies due
to suspected fraud.3

1 „EU Unblocks Romania Farm Subsidies, July 14, 2009, http://www.

eubusiness.com/news-eu/1247508121.95/
2 “Bulgaria probes hundreds of farmers for EU money fraud”, June
2, 2009, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1243944123.25/
3 EU claims back subsidies for farm projects in Bulgaria, July 31,
2009, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1249029122.44/

Environmental Ministry Revokes Integrated Permit for Smithfield’s

Poultry Operation in Poland
The Ministry of Environment in Poland revoked the inte-
grated permit for a large poultry operation in Sienkiewic-
ze belonging to Animex company, which is a subsidiary
of American meat giant Smithfield. The permit that was
granted in February by the local marshal’s office means
that the company is applying best available practices to
minimize the negative impact on the environment.

As the residents of the area were complaining about the

smell from the farm and questioning whether the farm
follows the best agricultural practices, the Federation of
Greens from Bialystok appealed the permit to the Min-
istry of Environment. The Federation represented the
inhabitants of the area, as it is difficult for citizens to
represent themselves under Polish law.

Although the ministry did not agree with the issues

raised by the Federation of Greens, it decided to revoke
the permit due to serious inconsistencies in the docu-
mentation provided by the farm. The estimates regard-
ing water needed in the facility and waste management
were inadequate and, together with other problems, A month before the permit was revoked, the regional in-
caused the Ministry of Environment to withdraw the spectorate of environmental protection halted operation
integrated permit. of the Sienkiewicze farm.

Page 2
Spring 2008
Move for GMO Opt-Out Clause?
Fourteen EU member states, led by Austria and includ-
ing Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, France, Latvia, Lithuania,
Slovenia and others, want the ability to opt out of the
cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops if they are
authorised at EU level. In late June, Austria, along with
other countries, presented a controversial proposal to the
Environment Council in Luxembourg that would per-
mit each member state of the European Union to decide
whether to allow cultivation of GM crops on its territory.
This means that even if the EU bodies deem GM crops
safe for cultivation and allow them, national governments
would still be able to prevent them.
Currently, if any EU country wants to ban GM crops it has
to come up with new scientific reasons questioning their
safety for consumers or the environment. While some
countries are willing to maintain bans even after the EU
rejects their reasons as insufficiently scientific, it is hard
for Europe to accommodate both these bans and ongo-
ing difficulties in securing authorisations of GM crops,
as these attract political pressure from GMO-producing
countries (most notably the United States).
While the Dutch/Austrian proposal would provide one
“solution” to the GM problem and it has supporters on
both sides of the debate, it also poses risks, as having dif-
ferent practices in different countries increases the risk
of GM contamination via cross-fertilization with conven-
tional crops and cross-border “co-mingling” via imports.
Minimizing such risks would require a significant in-
crease in the robustness of the testing and enforcement at
national borders, which is currently weak. It would also
be a significant breach of the European Common market
in the important area of agriculture, which is unlikely to
be politically tolerable to many.
The biotech industry is very critical of the opt-out pro-
posal, stating that it would only delay the authorization of
new GM crops.4 This may be a reflection of the consider-
4 Austria Pushes for GMO Opt-Out Clause, July 14, 2009, Euro-
pean Biotechnology Science and Industry News, http://www.eu-
robiotechnews.eu/central-europe/articledetail/?tx_ttnews[tt_new-
Food Alert! eu ope
able increase in administration that would be required
of the industry that prefers in many ways to deal with a
single authorisation and enforcement regime.
Anti-GMO campaigners are concerned that the possi-
bilities for opt-outs might cause an upsurge in EU GM
approvals if opposing countries believe they can simply
opt-out of later. This would likely result in increased
cultivation of GMOs in pro-GM countries, with increased
risks for opt-out countries described above — history has
shown that keeping GMOs out of non-GM supplies is not
possible.
Campaigners are also concerned that the move would
splinter the opposition movement as activists achieve
opt-outs in their own countries and others are increas-
ingly isolated, especially in countries like the UK where
the government is pro-GM against the wishes of the
population. Campaigners point out that the public is still
opposed to GM food and crops and urge the authorities
to act in their interest rather than that of big business in
other countries. In any case, very few GMOs are suitable
for cultivation in the EU, so complaints from industry
about the number of authorizations must be considered
in a full political context.
The European Commission agreed on June 26, 2009 to
explore the opt-out proposal further and draw a list of op-
tions for discussion.5
On July 1, 2009, however, the European Commission al-
lowed 10 more years of GM maize MON 810 cultivation.6
This is, so far, the only crop cultivated in the European
Union since the late 1990s, patented by U.S. biotech giant
Monsanto, and the subject of bans in France, Germany,
Austria, Greece, Hungary and Luxumbourg.
s]=10278&tx_ttnews[backPid]=5&cHash=4c5750805d
5 EC Agrees To Explore Opt-Out Proposal, June 26, 2009, http://
www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/EC-agrees-to-explo-
re-GM-opt-out-proposal
6 Commission Allows Ten More Years of GM Maize Cultivation, July
1, 2009, http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/commission-allows-year-
s-gm-maize-cultivation/article-183656
Page 3
 eu ope Food Alert! Spring 2008

Europeans Walk the Walk

Against GMOs
On July 30, the European march against the use of ge-
netically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture con-
cluded in Brussels upon reaching the institutions of the
European Union. The march started six weeks earlier in
Berlin, where 1,500 people gathered to start a 1,000 kilo-
meter walk to fight GMOs. The march included events in
cities such as Liepzig, Bonn and Maastricht and several
others during which signatures were collected. The peti-
tion against GMOs in the fields and on the plates was
signed by 35,000 people and received by Hannes Loren-
zen, a senior adviser in the Committee on Agriculture
and Rural Development in the European Parliament.1

The march resonated in other countries, even ones that

were not en route to Brussels. In Poland, thanks to the
GMO-Free Poland Coalition, symbolic marches against
the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture
were organized in various cities and towns.
1 GMO-free March reached Brussels with 35.000 signatures for a
GMO-free world, August 10, 2009, http://www.aseed.net/index.
php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=1

Small Bits:
• Agricultural employment in the Czech Republic has
fallen by almost 3 percent in the last year. Almost 50
percent of people working in agriculture are between
the ages of 45 and 59.2

• Foundation of Assistance Programmes for Agricul-

ture (FAPA) predicts significant growth in Polish
organic production, especially in the fruit and veg-
etable sector. It is expected that in the near future 5
to 10 percent of garden and orchard produce will be
organic.
Food & Water Europe
Working to Protect Europe’s
• Polish producers of cherries and apples are facing Consumers, Farmers and Environment
prices below production costs. The world price of Food & Water Europe is a non-profit food safety and
cherry concentrate is very low and Poland, as well as agriculture policy organisation with offices throughout the
many other European countries, overproduces cher- EU that works toward sustainable food production and
ries and apples. water resource policies.
tel: +48 146 422 127
• In the first half of July 2009, the European Com- web: www.foodandwatereurope.org
mission approved requests by Hungary, Spain and email: europe@fwwatch.org
Slovakia to pay subsidies to sugar beet farmers hard
Staff
hit by the EU’s sugar reforms. Wenonah Hauter – Executive Director –
whauter@fwwatch.org
• The Romanian division of American biotech giant
Dan Craioveanu – Romania representative –
Monsanto is courting farmers by publishing state-
dan@ngo.ro
ments that Romanian agriculture can eclipse agricul-

ture in France.3 Gabriella Zanzanaini – Brussels coordinator –
gabizanza@googlemail.com

Eve Mitchell – UK representative –
2 Czech agricultural portal www.agris.cz, http://www.agris.cz/en- emitchell@fwwatch.org
glish/detail.php?id=163879&iSub=518&PHPSESSID=959864c1ff-
429c192ee7960b0a7ffa90 Anna Witowska – GMOs, Eastern European issues,
3 Monsanto: Romanian agriculture can eclipse France, The Diplo- factory farming, global trade – awitowska@fwwatch.org
mat, July 2009, http://www.thediplomat.ro/features/country-focus/
usa/monsanto-romanian-agriculture-can-eclipse-france/

Page 4