Brussels, 13/07/2010 (Agence Europe) - Enough shilly-shallying! In order to put an end to the waiting game and the dragging of feet over GMO crops, the European Commission proposed, on Tuesday 13 July, that EU member states should have the freedom to allow, restrict or ban the cultivation of EU authorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on part or all of their territory. This they would be able to do subject to certain conditions and without having to resort to the safeguard clauses to restrict or ban the crops, but they would have to notify the measures they take to the Commission and to the other member states. The Commission thus plans to give the 27 member states full responsibility for their action.
Since 1998, only the Monsanto genetically modified MON 810 maize and the BASF genetically modified Amflora potato have been authorised for cultivation in the EU. Spain is the only member state to have cultivated MON 810, and the authorisation of Amflora caused a general outcry in the EU (EUROPE 10090).
John Dalli, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, had announced on 2 March this year that, at the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, proposals would be presented by the summer to find a solution allowing the current deadlock on the GMO crop issue to be broken, combining a rigorous system of scientifically-based authorisation, and respect for subsidiarity (EUROPE 10089). This has now been done.
The communication adopted by the college of commissioners draws up an inventory and sets out the policy proposed for the future. It is accompanied by a new recommendation concerning the rules governing side-by-side existence of GMO crops and conventional or organic crops, and a proposal aimed at amending Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. In practical terms, the Commission suggests amending guidelines on the co-existence of GMO and conventional crops (a dossier now under Commissioner Dalli's sphere of competence), with immediate effect. It also suggests amending in co-decision a paragraph of Directive 2001/18/EC, which will require intervention by the Council and European Parliament.
The new recommendation stipulates that member states may establish “GMO-free” areas. It also reflects the possibility provided in the existing legislation (Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC) for member states to adopt measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops. It highlights the fact that member states may take measures aimed at limiting GMO content in conventional food and feed to levels below the labelling threshold of 0.9%.
The proposal for revising Directive 2001/18/EC consists of including a new article (26b) to authorise member states to restrict or ban GMO crops on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks, as these will have been taken into account in the EFSA assessment procedure, John Dalli told the press. The grounds for such authorisation could therefore be of an economic or ethical kind but the commissioner refused to state what these might be before the press in order to avoid “being accused of defining them”. Article 26b would apply to all GMOs authorised for cultivation in the EU either under Directive 2001/18/EC or under Regulation 1829/2003/EC.
John Dalli said this was a balanced approach for a sensitive issue. The debate has been rekindled over recent months, he went on to say, hoping that it would continue in a rational manner. He said they would ensure that this approach is guided by science, which means stepping up risk assessment and demands relating to crop monitoring. He went on to add that they would present a report by the end of the year (Ed.: far behind schedule) on the socio-economic impact of GMOs, and an EFSA report on the assessment of environmental risks. Dalli expected rapid adoption and implementation of the legislation. He denied that approval should be received from member states for reactivation of authorisation procedures in exchange for their new-found freedom. “It is not a situation where something has to be given in return. The authorisation process will follow exactly the same rules as in the past, based on the same scientific data. But the rules will be strengthened”, he reiterated.
As soon as he had presented the content of these proposals to the press, the commissioner went on to the Parliament. A first debate is foreseen in Council in September or October.
Accusing the Commission of once again trying to force things through, the Greens/EFA in the Parliament immediately announced that there would be action by citizens and the Parliament to reject this fool's bargain. In a press release, the Greens say that the Commission has never hidden its desire to push on with transgenic crops in Europe. Dalli's proposal, they say, is very much along the same lines. The European Commission was, thus, confiscating scientific expertise for its own benefit and only giving member states the option of banning GMO crops on economic, social or ethical grounds. Yet, they argue, the Environment Council of December 2008 called on it to rapidly revise EFSA evaluation procedures, which it did not consider substantial and out of step with the expectations of citizens and consumers. The Greens/EFA consider, too, that the Commission proposal will weaken the EU position in the WTO because any European country which bans GMOs on ethical grounds will find it very difficult to demonstrate that it is in line with the international agreement on the application of health and plant health measures. On the other hand, Julie Girling (ECR, UK) who supports a ban on GMOs until they have had an extremely thorough health check, welcomes the proposal as “a rare example of the European Commission handing the decision making process back to the member states”. She adds: “This is as it should be. The issue of GMO authorisation and crop planting is deeply divisive and brings with it a raft of concerns, some social, some economic and some scientific. As such, any decision on whether to permit, tolerate or ban GMOs must be taken at individual national government level”. (A.N./transl.jl/rt)