Brussels, 14/07/2015 (Agence Europe) - EU agriculture ministers, meeting in Brussels on Monday 13 July, were almost all critical of the proposal for a regulation that would allow member states to restrict or ban the use within their borders of genetically modified foods and feeds. This, however, came as no surprise. The countries opposed to the proposal principally highlighted fears that the text would be incompatible with internal market rules and with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
European Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis tried valiantly to defend his proposal, but in vain. He pointed out that the proposal came about from the European Commission's policy guidelines and sought to address a dilemma for the EU: citizens are sceptical but livestock producers are heavily dependent on imports of GM soya. He stressed that products placed on the market represent no threat to health, thanks to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinions which are based on strict scientific standards. That the present authorisation system has never allowed a majority to be found in the Council of the EU is justification for the proposal, he argued.
A further paradox exists, the commissioner said: some member states that oppose GMOs nevertheless use them. “The time has come for everyone to fully assume his responsibilities”, he said, adding that the text offered a pragmatic and legally sound solution. Member states could restrict or ban the use (as opposed to the movement) of GMOs, on the basis of national circumstances, so long as there was no conflict with EU law, EFSA opinions or international trade agreements. In conclusion, he summed up: the proposal allows governments and citizens to have their say while, at the same time, ensuring a balance between safety (authorisation by the Commission on the basis of an EFSA opinion) and subsidiarity.
During the round-table discussion that followed the commissioner's speech, many ministers (Austria, Germany, France, Denmark, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Croatia, Latvia, Hungary, Belgium and more) opposed the proposal, mainly expressing fears that it would not be compatible with internal market rules (including the risk of fragmentation of the internal market and distortion of competition) and with international trade agreements. “You have sought to defend an indefensible proposal”, stated, for example, the Austrian minister. France argued that the proposal brought with it “a certain degree of legal uncertainty”. The debate also made clear the extent to which the EU depends on imports of GM products (soya) to feed livestock.
Spain and Portugal also highlighted the possible impact on investment in biotechnology and on the competitiveness of their agriculture.
Only Hungary supported the proposal, in that it would allow the country to ensure GMO-free agriculture within its borders, as the Hungarian constitution demands.
Malta and Cyprus approached the proposal “with an open mind” but said they wanted fuller information from the Commission.
Most member states (including Austria, United Kingdom, Greece, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Croatia, Latvia and Poland) called on the Commission to carry out an impact assessment so that the economic and environmental implications of the proposed regulation could be better assessed. Several countries also called for an opinion from the Council legal service as to the legal soundness of the proposal. The legal service confirmed that it would, at the request of the member states, closely examine the proposal.
Italy wanted more information on the imported GM varieties for which there is no commercial alternative. Some member states, such as Greece and France, regretted that the proposal lacked detail on the definition of the term “use” of GMOs. Other countries wanted the Commission to provide a list detailing the justifications member states could invoke for introducing restrictions or bans. Slovenia invited the commissioner to a ministerial conference on GMO-free farming to be held in that country on 21 August.
In response to the comments of the EU countries, Commissioner Andriukaitis said that the proposal only offered member states a legal basis before adding that it would be up to them to assess the impact of whatever decisions they envisaged taking. An EU-wide ex-ante impact study would, in his view, be of little value as so many factors come into play: the number of member states applying restrictive measures, the number of varieties affected, the type of measures, etc. He was convinced that the proposal was perfectly valid legally and posed no problems of compatibility with internal market rules and trade commitments made under the aegis of the WTO.
The Luxembourg Presidency mandated the Council preparatory bodies to examine the technical aspects of the proposal. (Lionel Changeur)