Brussels, 14/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - Though EU environment ministers are pleased that the European Commission has finally submitted a list of seven reasons for restricting cultivation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) which have been authorised in the EU, they are still far from convinced of the legal solidity of these seven reasons that are to allow member states, in full security, to benefit from room to manoeuvre (see EUROPE 10314). The latest debate they held in Brussels on Monday 14 March on this non-exhaustive list of arguments that could be invoked - a list defended by Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner John Dalli - rather confirmed member states' questions and divisions around their various concerns, and their unanimous request for clarity.
Some wanted the list to be indicative and to figure in an appendix to revised Directive 2001/18/EC (Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden), while others would like it to be binding and, therefore, forming part of the legislation (France, Latvia, which wants an “open” list, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Poland) and the Netherlands simply sees no value in having such a list.
Some have concerns over the relevance of some reasons, such as public order, for example (France and the United Kingdom fear that this might encourage acts of violence in order to push the authorities into banning the GMOs). Germany continues to hold the view that leaving it up to member states to authorise crops is a serious blow to the proper operation of the internal market and purely and simply rejects the Commission proposal. Spain warned of the danger of “renationalising” EU policy on GMOs if full legal certainty cannot be guaranteed. All, and especially Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden, are doubtful of how consistent the reasons are with WTO rules.
Each brought preferences for possible additions to the non-exhaustive list (protection of eco-systems and respect for public opinion for Bulgaria, local planning for Latvia, rural development and social planning issues for Malta). Many continue to insist that the demands made by the Council in December 2008 must be met in full (this is a priority for France, Spain, Greece, Sweden, and Belgium, which has become very radical), in particular the requirement that a socio-economic impact report on the cultivation of GMOs be available (Italy and Spain). What is recent is Belgium's new-found opposition to any pursuit of the debate until such time as all the Council demands, as expressed in unanimous conclusions in December 2008, are implemented.
All member states want a legal opinion from the Council. The representative of the competent department gave assurances that this opinion would be submitted to the Council ad hoc group on GMOs. This opinion “will assess the content and status of this list, which is only a working document and contains no analysis of consistency with the WTO”, the expert stated. Discussions will continue, then, within this working group and the president of the Council, Sandor Fazekas, pledged to do all in his power to try to make progress on this issue, taking due account of member states' concerns with regard to the legal aspects of the text. Commissioner Dalli assured everyone that a report on the socio-economic aspects of GMO cultivation would be brought forward in April. “The Commission is awaiting member states' responses” to the revised guidelines for the authorisation procedure, presented by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) in November of last year, he said. (A.N./transl.rt)