Brussels, 14/10/2010 (Agence Europe) - The Environment Council in Luxembourg on Thursday 14 October (see EUROPE 10234) discussed GM (genetically modified) crops. If the liveliness of the political debate is anything to go by, the Commission still has its work cut out if it intends to bring an end to Europe's loss of ground simply by giving member states greater freedom of choice. To break the current deadlock, it will first have to satisfy the unanimous calls from member states at the Environment Council two years ago for in-depth reform of the risk assessment procedures used by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and go back to the drawing board to clarify matters.
Several of the environment ministers welcomed the package of measures presented by the Commission in July (see EUROPE 10180) as it is a commendable effort to give member states the option of restricting or banning cultivation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) legally authorised in the EU, on condition that such a move is for reasons other than environmental and health, already taken into account in the European authorisation process.
Doubts over feasibility of the measures. Doubts were, however, raised both over the feasibility of the measures, if the Commission does not set out clearly what reasons could be invoked, and over the package's compliance with the EU Treaty and WTO rules. Member sates were unanimous in the view that the Commission had not met all the demands of the December 2008 Council, which met under French presidency.
These were the two issues on which the Belgian Presidency had asked ministers to give their views. Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli tried valiantly to get ministers to demonstrate openness and gave assurances that he would present the missing points before the end of the year. The Council, however, was inflexible: it would wait until it had the Commission report on the socio-economic benefits of GM crops and new binding guidelines for assessing the environmental risks of GMO cultivation by EFSA so that they had all the facts at their disposal before coming to any decision. The opinion of the Council legal department on the legal solidity of the proposals' ground, particularly with regard to the internal market and the WTO, expected in the next few days, would also be welcome. The various delegations and the European Commission were all agreed on this point, all impatient for clarification, although Dalli has already said he was reassured by the opinion given by the Commission legal department.
Assurance given to France and Ireland. By way of a strong political gesture and to still the ministerial unrest, Dalli told France and Ireland that, without waiting for the implementing regulation on the Citizens' Initiative that was brought in by the Lisbon Treaty, he would meet Greenpeace to receive the first citizens' petition to have gathered one million signatures which calls for a moratorium on GM crops until EFSA procedures have been reviewed.
Joke Schauvliege, the Belgian minister and chair of the Environmental Council, said that the ad hoc Council working group on this issue “will have to take into account the remark” of the environment ministers in the continuing discussions.
Commissioner's speech. At the start of the debate, John Dalli said that the “July package” was consistent with the 2008 conclusions in that it gave member states the option of establishing non-GMO areas and acknowledged regional specificities. He added that monitoring crops and toughening risk assessment were priorities. He also announced that the revised EFSA guidelines would be presented in November, with a debate with member states coming next year. The report on the socio-economic implications of GM crops would be finalised, he said, before the end of the year and put to the Parliament and Council. The authorisation process must certainly be further improved to increase cooperation between EFSA and member states' experts, he conceded but the authorisation procedure would not change. The flexibility offered to member states only comes into play after authorisation, which is based on science.
States' reactions. Opening the attack, France, which is particularly keen to see an in-depth reform of authorisation procedures with tougher assessments, was the most hard-hitting: “I note that you are make efforts but we refuse to join the discussion. There will be no discussion until the unanimous 2008 conclusions are applied,” said Secretary of State for the Environment Chantal Jouanno. She said that the Commission had in no way responded to the demand for stronger guidelines on assessment of risks to health and the environment, and the demand for EFSA to operate more effectively. More incisive still when addressing the press, Jouanno added: “The Commission is there to implement the conclusions of the Council. It is not there to defend other paths”.
France, which is in favour of having the flexibility to ban, but not to generalise GMO crops, also said the Commission's proposals did not give “a margin of freedom” so much as make the system more brittle and fragile, sowing the seed for possible major contention.
Germany took the view that the Commission brings the internal market into question if each member state can ban GMO crops on its territory for its own reasons, although such crops are authorised at European level. Fearing this might create a dangerous precedent, Minister Norbert Rötgen asked in what circumstances one might opt for such an approach. “Instead of making compromises and fixing criteria at European level, one limits the market. In substance, we are opposed to this method”, he said. Hammering in the point, Paula Lehtomäki of Finland said: “If one can buy seeds in a country where crops are banned, then that is against the internal market”. Like all delegations, she also underlined the need to have a clearer idea of the criteria that can be used and the need for far more information. Luxembourg said the proposal would only make sense if it were modified as the legal factors and real possibilities of member states were not clear. Italy takes the view that the Commission should explain to them what the acceptable legal motives might be.
Sweden called for risk assessment to be carried out on a case by case basis. Austria, which put up the biggest fight for freedom of choice by member states, welcomed the Commission's “brave initiative” which, it says, is “considerable progress”. It nonetheless considers that the health and environmental reasons would be easier to defend before the WTO than ethical reasons. Bulgaria felt it was absolutely necessary for the Commission to verify whether such measures were an obstacle to trade as “that is the most important problem at stake”.
Spain, the only country to grow the genetically engineered Monsanto MON 810 crop stood out from the others by complaining of the current approval procedures which it deems to be too slow and ineffective. Elena Espinosa said they felt the proposal was not always a guarantee that things would be rationalised as procedures will remain slow. She said there are only solutions after approval and that a political solution is needed for those that wish to ban consumption.
Many other issues were raised, such as the prolonged absence in the EU of a threshold of tolerance for accidental contamination of organic or conventional seeds by GMOs, other than the current 0.9% threshold foreseen for the labelling of products containing GMOs. Lithuanian spoke of this. It is obvious that John Dalli has not come to the end of his troubles if he wants to satisfy the Environment Council. He may count on the help of the United Kingdom which, he said, has not yet finalised its stance but hopes to play a constructive role so that the Commission's proposals live up to the conclusions of the 2008 Council. (A.N./transl.rt/jl)