Brussels, 05/07/2011 (Agence Europe) - Yes, member states should have the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to pick and choose on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), though this must not cause the internal market to unravel. That is the wish of the European Parliament (EP). MEPs said this very clearly (548 votes for to 84 against, with 31 abstentions) in the first reading vote, in Strasbourg on 5 July, on the draft regulation which aims to give EU member states the flexibility to ban or restrict the cultivation within their borders of GMOs authorised in the EU. Accepting the recommendations of rapporteur Corinne Lepage (ALDE, France), the EP detailed and extended the range of reasons that can be used as grounds - through the addition, for instance, of complementary environmental grounds to those taken into account by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) - so that member states can, indeed, ban GMO cultivation without the threat of having their knuckles rapped at the WTO.
The text as amended by the EP is a move towards greater democracy since the EP objective “is to draft common EU-wide rules governing opt-outs and responding to the wishes of the many regions and citizens against GMO cultivation”, Lepage said. Delighted that the EP had come to a “balanced agreement” which will allow states and regions which do not want GM crops not to have to allow them, she said that “EU assessment remains, agricultural circles have been heard and understood, and freedom is intact”. The ball, she said, is now in the Council's court: the Council must now find a common position.
As voted, the text allows three types of grounds for banning to be invoked: (1) environmental grounds further to those considered by EFSA: this means measures related to local or systemic factors in a given agronomical context (supported by all political groups); (2) the socio-economic impact of GMO cultivation, such as, for example, the cost of measures to monitor and prevent contamination of conventional and organic crops; (3) grounds related to agricultural practice and land use.
The EP called on all member states to take the necessary measures to prevent contamination of conventional or organic farming by GM crops, and ensure those responsible for such incidents can be held financially liable.
MEPs also changed the legal basis of the draft regulation, from Article 114 (internal market) to Article 192 (environment) to provide greater security for the measures taken by the various member states, Article 192 being stronger on multilateral trade rules.
EU-level safety checks and authorisation will continue to be a precondition for approval for GMO cultivation. MEPs reminded the Commission, however, that the EFSA guidelines need to be updated.
Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France) said that the Commission's initial proposal was an admission of failure, the Commission having “fled its responsibilities and placed them on the shoulders of member states”. “I would have preferred that EFSA scientific assessment of GMOs be strengthened and also that environmental and health assessment of GMOs at EU level be similarly strengthened. Once this step has been taken, it will be possible to determine the room for manoeuvre given to member states by the current legislation”, she said before the vote.
Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany), who chairs the EP environment committee, said that the new law “goes in the right direction: it protects freedom of choice for farmers and consumers” and “member states will be obliged to prevent contamination of GMO-free crops and other products”. Kartika Liotard (GUE/NGL, Netherlands), noting that the “Commission would have preferred fewer opportunities for countries to ban GMOs”, congratulated the EP on its firmness.
Health and Consumers Commissioner John Dalli said that he could go with this approach especially since, he said, the EP grounds that could be invoked derive to a great extent from the updated list drafted by the Commission at the request of the member states at the Environment Council of 20 December 2010. Noting the merits of the legislation currently in force, however, he added that the aim is to give member states the choice, but where there is a proven risk, there is no choice - there is an obligation to act at EU level, and the current legislation provides for definite and restrictive measures. He said that Article 114 was not the best legal basis for getting member states to agree to having to adopt financial liability, but it was the best basis for the approximation of laws to put in place an internal market. Convinced of the need to continue to work effectively and constructively, he assured MEPs of his willingness to work with the joint legislators to reach agreement as soon as possible. (A.N./transl.rt)