Brussels, 12/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 11 December, MEPs from the European Parliament's environment committee, chaired by Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), called for a showdown between the European Parliament and the Council on the question of guaranteeing maximum legal security for the draft directive that will enable member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their respective territory, which is, nonetheless, authorised in the EU (see EUROPE 11195).
According to these MEPs, if this legislation is to be effective, it must allow the EU28 the possibility of adopting measures for watertight legal bans, including those relating to environmental reasons and ensure that there is no question that member states can request biotech businesses permission for adopting restrictive measures. It is in this connection that MEPs voted by a comfortable majority (53 votes in favour, 11 against, with 2 abstentions) to clearly bolster the common Council position that was made official last July. The environment committee also voted to open negotiations with the Italian Presidency of the Council in an effort to reach an agreement before the end of the year. Timetable negotiations mean that these are imperative and they have therefore begun immediately and look like they are going to be tough going.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium), the rapporteur, is delighted with the result and said that “this vote demonstrates that we have achieved a broad consensus between the political groups on this sensitive question”. She is delighted with it because she believes that it will enable “member states to restrict or ban the cultivation of GMOs if they so wish”. She also welcomed the strengthening of risk assessments, as requested by MEPs and said that “at the same time, we have established a clear process for authorising GMOs at a European level, with improved provisions and a central role to be played by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which we believe is important”.
Legal basis: environment. MEPs decided to base the future directive on Article 192 (Environment) in the treaty, as requested by Parliament in 2011 and not on Article 114 (Internal Market) advocated by the Council. This amendment will provide the necessary legal basis for member states to ban GMOs for health, environmental and socio-economic reasons, the use of soils and urban regeneration, agricultural policy and the general interest.
The text voted for by the parliamentary committee will allow member states to adopt binding legislation to restrict or ban the cultivation of GMOs after their authorisation at EU level. When a GMO has been submitted for risk assessment at an EU level by EFSA, EU countries will also be able to request the geographic scope for their use to be adjusted.
All negotiations with biotech businesses out. MEPs have quite simply got rid of the negotiating phase with biotech companies (those demanding authorisation), which the Council had attempted to include in cases where companies/requesting party refuse to comply with a request from a member state to be excluded from the scope of the authorisation's geographical application.
Banning GMO crops could also be based on environmental policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, agricultural policy, public policy or possible socio-economic impacts pertaining to GMO crops.
More reasons invoked. MEPs would like other reasons to be endorsed, such as the possible contamination of other products by GMOs, persisting scientific uncertainty, the development of resistance to pesticides in plants and parasites, the proliferation or persistence of a genetically modified variety in the environment or the lack of data on the possible negative impact of a specific variety. This is effectively an extension to the list of reasons used to justify a ban.
Risk assessment strengthened. MEPs believe that risk assessments carried out on a case-by-case basis by EFSA should take into account the direct, indirect, immediate, deferred and cumulated effects of GMOs on human health and the environment and take into consideration the precautionary principle.
Buffer zones. Member states are also expected to guarantee that GMO crops do not contaminate other products and ensure, by way of measures on the coexistence of crops, that any cross-border contamination is prevented, for example, by setting up buffer zones with neighbouring countries.
The S&D Group said that “the text is more concrete than the Commission's and delivers more legal security to member states”. The Greens/EFA Group is afraid, however, of a “renationalisation of GMO authorisation policy”. The EPP, by contrast, voted against the text it believed was “impracticable” and which, “threatened decision-making policy in Europe based on science”. The GUE/NGL Group is delighted that the ENVI committee attempted to ensure “the primacy of the rights of democratically elected governments over those of the biotech companies”. (AN)