Brussels, 07/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - That the European Commission decided, on Wednesday 6 November, to move forward with the procedure for authorising for cultivation Pioneer genetically engineered maize 1507, referring the matter to the Environment Council, caused indignation from non-governmental environmental organisations that had already spoken out on the issue before the debate at the Commission (see EUROPE 10958, 10955). Corinne Lepage (ALDE, France) was also very angry. Her voice counts as she is the rapporteur on the proposal for à-la-carte cultivation of GMOs in the EU. The European Commission hopes adoption of this action will allow an end to be put to the polemic once and for all. However, to judge from the MEP's reaction, this is not to be.
“This is a bad day for Europe, and it appears that the Commission has learned nothing from the controversy that has been raging over the past 20 years. Europe does not need transgenic maize and does not want it. The risk assessment of this GMO has only been partial as it does not take into account the associated use of the herbicide glufosinate ammonium with the maize”, said Lepage (our translation). Convinced that the “Commission would do better to withdraw its proposal of authorisation and reject authorisation, given that details are also lacking on the impact that the pesticide toxin has on butterflies”, she calls on the Council of Ministers to reject the request for authorisation.
Lepage, who is the rapporteur on the proposal for a regulation aimed at authorising member states to limit or to ban cultivation on their territory of GM crops authorised in the European Union, she points out that, in July 2011, the Parliament took a stance by a large majority in favour of strengthening this proposal and had called for strengthening of the prior risk assessment - something which has not happened.
Lepage deplores the fact that the genetically modified maize, Smartstax, had been authorised for imports into the EU. She had written to the Commission on this matter to sound a note of warning on the insufficient risk assessments carried out.
Greenpeace takes the view that the Commission decision to refer the matter to the Environment Council of 13 December while announcing that, if there is no qualified majority for approving or rejecting the proposal, it will decide to authorise cultivation of the maize, is tantamount to a formal approval. “For the first time in three and a half years, European commissioners meeting in Brussels this morning have formally endorsed the approval of a controversial genetically modified (GM) maize for cultivation in European fields”, the NGO states. “The Commission is acting irresponsibly by recommending the approval of a GM crop that is known to harm butterflies and moths and that will encourage rampant use of a herbicide so toxic that it is being phased out in Europe. Given the environmental impacts, the lack of actual benefits from GM crops and the widespread public opposition, we ask: on whose behalf is the Commission acting?” asks Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director.
While the European Commission has presented its decision as a necessity under the EU General Court's ruling of 26 September (case T-164/10), Greenpeace challenges even the legal validity of the argument in these terms: the ruling of the General Court is limited to stating that, on 1 March 2010, the Commission committed breach by default not having forwarded the dossier to the Council. The Court's case law shows that, in such cases, the Court cannot order the Commission to adopt provisions to which the action refers. The Court can only declare that, having not adopted the provisions, the Commission is in breach of the Treaty. And it is up to the institution in question, in this case the Commission, to decide what measures it must adopt to be in line not only with the judgment but also with the Treaty and the legislative provisions. Greenpeace goes on to say that, throughout this case, and as of October 2011, EFSA published a number of scientific opinions underlining the impact that the voluntary dissemination of genetically modified maize 1507 could have on certain butterflies and moths and other beneficial insects (the Bt toxin of this maize targets only maize diatraea). Recalling that, on two occasions, the European Commission called on Pioneer to modify its request for authorisation, something that Pioneer has always refused, Greenpeace affirms that “it cannot be argued that the Commission should knowingly adopt in 2013 a decision which, by disregarding the new evidence, would cause environmental harm”. “It is absurd to claim that the Court would consider a proposal for an invalid act as a sound remedy to a previous failure”, it states.
The last GMO to have been authorised for cultivation in European fields is the Amflora potato by BASF, in 2010, which was a commercial failure and was withdrawn after just two years. Since then, BASF and Monsanto have withdrawn all their EU applications for GM crops, apart from the request to renew authorisation for Monsanto's MON810 maize, which is mainly grown in Spain. (AN/transl.jl)