The EFSA had previously given the green light for a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize to be grown. However, when Europe's leaders began to delve into the data on safety of these crops alarm bells rang.  

Leading experts from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Institut Pasteur and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) have already raised concerns about the impact of German chemical giant BASF's GM potato on human health. The crop could result in people and animals developing resistance to certain types of antibiotics which are used to treat diseases. The data on the two types of GM maize wasn't much better. Scientists believe that they could harm wildlife such as butterflies and other insects. 

And if this mounting body of evidence wasn't enough to make Europe's Commissioners sit up and think again, then the 130,000 email messages from Greenpeace supporters certainly helped them to do so. Since last autumn, when Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas first stood up to the biotech industry, tens of thousands of environmentalists have kept the heat on the European Commission about this issue. We posted comments on Commission blogs, we wrote them emails, we sent them postcards and petitions.

Greenpeace International's Geert Ritsema certainly thinks that the decision is another nail in the coffin for the GM food industry. On hearing of the Commission's decision, Ritsema said, "that policy makers at the very highest levels are now questioning the safety of GM crops is very significant". 

"The fact that the Commission has ordered a second investigation also raises huge questions over the EFSA’s ability to do its job properly. How can we trust it to get it right on other crops if it has got it so badly wrong this time?"  

Of course, scientific opinion means little when the giants of the GM industry are using every trick in the book to make sure that the crops are given the go ahead. It's no secret that the industry has been trying to intimidate Europe into giving the go ahead by threatening to launch a law suit against the Commission if it didn't agree.  
 
The Commission should be given a pat on the back for not caving into industry pressure. Having said that, why is the Commission asking the EFSA to look again at the crops when it has shown itself completely incapable of doing so the first time round?  There is no escaping the facts. The impact on the environment and on human health of GM crops that produce their own insecticides is completely unknown. The Commission should have recognised this and rejected the new crops outright.