Brussels, 10/06/2015 (Agence Europe) - In the field of GMOs, the European Commission is certainly still struggling. MEPs at the European Parliament's Environment Committee, chaired by Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), are completely against (all the different groups) its proposal to introduce separate authorisations for imported GMOs into the EU for human food and animal feed. On Monday evening 8 June in Strasbourg, they made their feelings crystal clear on this issue.
The first exchange of views they had with Vytenis Andriukaitis, the commissioner for health and food safety, on this proposal on 22 April last demonstrated that the Environment Committee was “unanimously against it and farmers, NGOs, multinationals and everybody are criticising it”, as emphasised by Matthias Groote (S&D Germany). Many MEPs on the left (S&D, Greens/EFA, GUE) even announced that they would reject it and are already imploring the Commission to withdraw this text and revise it.
This proposal was devised on the model of the new system for separate product authorisations, now in force for GMO crops in the EU. It seeks to provide member states with the possibility of restricting or prohibiting on their territory the use of genetically modified organisms imported for human food or animal feed, provided that compelling grounds pertaining to the general interest are used (apart from health and environmental reasons) and which are justified and compatible with internal market rules and those applying to multilateral trade (see EUROPE 11300).
In the absence of an impact assessment on the proposal, Commission vagueness regarding the motives that can be used for demanding an opt out and the lack of clarity covering the “use of GMOs” could lead to the European Commission provoking fragmentation in the internal market, despite it being the guardian of the treaties. This would also be failing to respect the promise made by President Jean-Claude Juncker in July 2014 to the European Parliament to democratise the authorisation procedure, which subsequently creates major legal uncertainties regarding the validity of the arguments used at the European Court of Justice and, in particular, at the WTO. These numerous pitfalls have been denounced by the MEPs.
Vytenis Andriukaitis reminded MEPs that the European Commission was “obliged to fulfil its legal obligations” to rectify the absence of an opinion among member states and the Council, which has led to an impasse over the past few years. He called on the different institutions to meet their responsibilities and stated: “Since 2003, none of these 67 GMOs authorised for human food or animal feed have successfully obtained a qualified majority for or against an authorisation demand. Over a four-year period, member states have not managed to speak in favour or against GMOs and have subsequently left it up to the Commission to decide. It is time to acknowledge that the status quo is not sustainable. It is easy to blame the Commission!”
He reiterated the fact that 25 of the 28 member states are dependent on GMO imports for animal fodder (the EU only produces 1.4 million tonnes of soya a year but every year imports 32 million tonnes of genetically modified soya, mainly for animal feed) but he was unable to convince MEPs that this proposal is “in the Commission's opinion, the most proportionate and balanced solution”.
In reply to questions from MEPs, the Commissioner provided the following clarifications: there will not be any impact assessment on the proposal, “because it only involves a procedural question”; on the other hand, the request for an opt out by a member state will be the subject of an impact assessment and could be the subject of member states' comments in the three month timeframe given to the Commission to make its decision; member states know what compelling grounds upholding the general interest are and what is needed in this respect at a legal level; they will also be able to count on the experience of the Commission in disputes with the WTO, when using defence mechanisms; - the possible rejection of the proposal “would be unjustified and it will be necessary to take into account the position of the Council”. The Commission is “open to all proposals and other discussions”. (Aminata Niang)