Brussels, 29/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - It is out of the question that the genetically modified (GM) pollen present in honey, even in infinitely small quantities, should escape EU labelling requirements. The members of the European Parliament's environment committee bluntly refused the European Commission's proposal, on Wednesday 27 November, aimed at amending European legislation on honey (Directive 2001/110/EC) to define pollen as a natural honey constituent, in line with World Trade Organisation (WTO) standards, and to thus circumvent labelling requirements. Such a rejection comes as a snub to the Commission which, with its proposal submitted on 21 September this year, was seeking to address a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU saying that the pollen is an ingredient (case C-442/09).
Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium), who was delighted by the majority support of the parliamentary committee, said (our translation throughout): “MEPs have given preference to the interests of beekeepers, bees and consumers of Europe. The EU Court of Justice ruled in 2011 that the honey contaminated by the genetically modified honey should be labelled as such in accordance with legislation in force. The Greens called on MEPs to reject the Commission's hypocritical proposal”.
Staes' colleague, Sandrine Bélier (Greens/EFA, France), took up: “Rather than follow the case law, the European Commission preferred to present revised legislation so that the presence of pollen in honey is not indicated on the label. The honey contaminated by GMOs could be increasingly present on the shelves of shops because of honey imports from countries that have chosen to work with GMOs”.
The Court's decision pointed a finger of blame at the marketing, without prior authorisation, of honey contaminated by genetically modified pollen MON 810. Upon referral for a preliminary question linked to the interpretation of Directive 2001/110/EC, the Court described pollen as a honey ingredient, arguing that pollen is to be found in honey mainly because of beekeeper intervention. We would point out that a German beekeeper, who had detected GMO MON 810 maize pollen in his honey, had challenged the legal status of the honey.
The Commission, for its part, considers that the pollen is recognised as a natural element of honey as it enters the hive through the bees' activity and is found in honey whether or not the beekeeper intervenes. As a consequence, the EU rules on labelling which require the presence of a list of ingredients would not apply. The Commission points out that its proposal will not prevent European legislation on GMOs from being applied to GMO pollen present in foodstuffs. Honey containing genetically modified pollen could therefore be authorised on the EU market quite lawfully if it is the subject of a prior authorisation in compliance with the legislation. Labelling rules relating to GMO present in foodstuffs (Regulation No 1829/2003) would also apply. In other words, the presence in honey of GMO matter (or products made from GMO) should appear on the labelling of honey solely if the matter present is equivalent to over 0.9% of each ingredient. The proposal, moreover, seeks to grant the Commission the implementation competence introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (the famous delegated acts).
It is now up to the European Parliament to take a stance, and the Greens/EFA Group hopes the plenary session will confirm the rejection vote of its environment committee. (AN/transl.jl)