Brussels, 13/01/2015 (Agence Europe) - An institutional saga on the thorny issue of cultivation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) that dates back more than four years is about to come to an end with the European Parliament's vote in Strasbourg on Tuesday 13 January approving the draft European directive of July 2010 that will allow member states, subject to very strict conditions, to restrict or ban within their borders the growing of GMOs that have been authorised at EU level.
It was by a comfortable majority (480 votes to 159, with 58 abstentions) that MEPs backed the agreement in principle reached in trialogue on 3 December of last year on the text amending Directive 2001/18/EC and allowing greater freedom of movement for the member states (see EUROPE 11211). Adoption of the directive by the Council is no more than a formality, the member states ambassadors having already given their blessing. This will pave the way for the cultivation of GMOs in the EU from as early as springtime in those member states that wish it. For the moment, only one GMO is grown in the EU: MON 810.
During the debate, many from the Right and from the Social Democrats acknowledged that the second reading compromise is not a panacea but they were happy that it had significantly improved the European Commission's initial proposal and would allow the EU to move away from a position that was deemed untenable. The Greens/EFA, the GUE/NGL and the EFDD, along with the non-attached, voted against.
The legal basis of the text is the internal market (Article 114) and not the environment (Article 192) as the Parliament had wanted in first reading. During the process authorising cultivation of a GMO, the member states will be able to demand that they be excluded from the geographical scope of the authorisation. They will, of course, be able to review their decision if they decide that they do, in fact, wish to have the GMO grown on all or part of their territory. Once a GMO has been authorised, the member states will be able to restrict or ban cultivation, after providing the European Commission with justifiable reason for so doing, for example, land use, agricultural policy, environmental policy, public policy, urban and local planning or socio-economic impact. Within two years, the member states which allow GM crops to be grown will be required to put in place crop coexistence measures that prevent cross-border contamination affecting neighbouring countries which do not cultivate GMOs, unless geographic conditions make all measures ineffective. The Commission has undertaken to revise and strengthen risk assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Rapporteur Frédérique Ries (ALDE, Belgium) pointed out that this piece of legislation “will ensure more flexibility for member states” and “signpost a debate which is far from over between pro- and anti-GMO positions”. She also highlighted the formal undertaking by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to strengthen the democratic process on GMOs in Europe and to ensure that scientific research is genuinely independent.
Elisabeth Köstinger (EPP, Austria), the shadow rapporteur, sees this directive as “a step in the right direction” which “provides freedom of choice and takes account of the opposition expressed by 19 member states” to cultivation of a GMO which the Commission is about nonetheless to authorise (maize NK 603). She believes the two-step solution “provides legal security”, something about which a number of MEPs and environmental NGOs are doubtful because of the legal basis used. Françoise Grossetête (EPP, France) said that the current situation “was a block to innovation” and meant that those who wanted to ban GM crops could have their decisions referred to the courts. “The compromise is not the perfect ending. We would have liked a European solution. However, since looking for perfection can prevent something good being done, I call on everyone to show responsibility”, she told her colleagues before the vote.
“From next spring, European states will be able to ban GM crops,” said a delighted Gilles Pargneaux (S&D, France). In his view, “this directive, which gives greater security to those member states that are against GMOs, greater security to farmers growing traditional or organic crops and greater security to European consumers, is a very fine start.”
Julie Girling (ECR, UK) regretted that the text makes provision for the authorisation of groups of GMOs rather than case-by-case assessment and undermines scientific evaluation. Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland) felt that the Parliament's first reading was excellent but the agreement reached was unacceptable since the Council had brought in a system that places a sovereign member state and a biotechnology company on the same footing. Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium) and Rebecca Harms indicated that the Greens/EFA Group, which is against allowing GMOs to be grown in the EU, also opposes the repatriation of authorisations. “Now more than ever we need a joint approach,” they stressed. Marine Le Pen (non-attached) derided “GMOs imposed by agrochemical multinationals”. This was, she argued, “a trap, because it gives back a little sovereignty to states but, because of the principle of freedom of movement, French consumers will be more and more exposed to GMOs”. (AN)