Brussels, 16/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - Three questions for EFSA. On the fringes of the EFSA@10 conference on taking up tomorrow's challenges, Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle (referred to as CG-L below), EFSA's managing director, agreed to answer three questions from EUROPE.
(AE): Why has EFSA never issued a negative scientific opinion on GMOs in all its ten years?
CG-L: That is not true. In the scientific opinions we publish, we identify risks. For BASF's Amflora potato, for example, we identified environmental risks like the danger of transmitting anti-resistance. For some GMOs that are herbicide-resistant, we identified a resistance danger. It is for risk managers to take suitable measures. In addition, when EFSA receives research from industry, it asks for additional information in 95% of cases. Some 10% of dossiers received by the EFSA are withdrawn by industry itself when questions are asked, and that demonstrates that real problems have been highlighted.
(AE): Isn't making such an effort to assess the risks of genetically-modified plants that citizens don't want to eat or to be grown simply going to increase suspicion about GMOs and EFSA?
CG-L: It is not EFSA that authorises GMOs. It is given dossiers to assess. I will answer your question with another one - Why ask EFSA to assess the risks associated with GMOs when more than 60% of European citizens don't want GMOs? The answer to that is because Europe needs to import GMOs to feed poultry, pigs and dairy cattle. Soya cakes are imported from the United States, Argentina and Brazil. Can Europe's dependence on these imports be reduced? This is an agricultural policy debate, but today, the trend is to restrict the debate when in reality it is a question for society in general.
(AE): So who is responsible for this dependence and the way the debate is going? The Commission? The governments of the member states?
CG-L: I am not looking to apportion blame, but I would like what is at stake to be presented to citizens. The debate is reduced to a challenge for science, but it is a challenge for society in general. We would like it if people didn't hold us responsible. We are in favour of a dialogue with NGOs. We are not trying to escape from our responsibilities. (AN/transl.fl)