Brussels, 17/07/2015 (Agence Europe) - Steadfast parliamentary objection to plans for the 'à la carte' use of GMOs imported into the EU entered a more formal phase, in Brussels on Wednesday 15 July, at the committee on the environment, public health and food safety of the European Parliament.
On Monday, Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), the chair of this committee, presented his colleagues with his draft report, which recommends rejecting the European Commission's proposal, submitted on 22 April of this year, to give the member states the possibility of restricting - or prohibiting - the use on their territory of legally imported GMOs for the purposes of food or animal feed. His report went down extremely favourably across all groups. This draft recommendation to reject the proposal may be accompanied by a request to the European Commission to present a new text, as several MEPs called for.
Criticism once again focused on a text which was deemed to be impracticable, to run counter to the rules of the single market and to be difficult to reconcile with the rules of the WTO, whatever the European Commission says. The proposal provides for the member states to be able to exercise their right of 'opt-out' only if they invoke compelling reasons of public interest (other than environmental or sanitary), duly justified and compatible with the rules of the single market and the rules of international trade.
“There is a clear majority in the European Parliament against this proposal. There is no impact assessment around this draft, and we believe that this was not the best proposal possible. This proposal is in conflict with the principles of 'better regulation' and transparency which the new European Commission has taken on. After so many years we have spent on getting rid of internal barriers, this proposal could fragment the internal market and lead to border inspections”, said Giovanni la Via.
Gesine Meissner (ALDE, Germany), argued that “the implementation of this proposal would be impossible” and would be “harmful to the internal market”. She therefore argued for the text to be thrown out, stressing that “we must have a new, better proposal”. Guillaume Balas (S&D, France) criticised the lack of legal certainty and precision in the proposal, particularly as regards the notion of use of GMO. “Another point is the practicability of the proposal”, he said. Pledging his group's support to the rapporteur, Mark Demesmaeker (ECR, Belgium) also expressed “serious doubts about the workability of the proposal”.
Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL, Ireland) described the proposal as “dishonest” as it aims to “ensure a quick and easy authorisation procedure rather than truly addressing the problem”, which is an authorisation procedure which currently allows the Commission to authorise GM products against the opinion of the majority of member states. “We need to start again, to have a new text that would ensure that GMOs cannot be authorised when a majority of member states are against them”, she said.
“Maybe we have to congratulate the Commission on managing to unite Parliament”, joked Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Belgium), in reference to the fact that the text had rallied a virtual unanimity against it. He went on to state that “if we reject the text, we should at least demand a new proposal”. Mireille d'Ornano (ENF, France) called for guarantees of an “imminent new proposal”. Eleonora Evi (EFDD, Italy) said that she firmly believed that “this proposal quite simply doesn't work”.
There is no plan B. Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Ladislav Miko stressed that “there is no plan B” and that if the proposal is rejected, “we will stay in the current situation”. He said that the notion of “use” of GMOs had been deliberately chosen to take account of the various practices in the member states, whilst as regards the WTO, the Commission stresses that “use” is not the same as “circulation”.
The committee on the environment will take position on the motion to reject at its meeting on 12 and 13 October. Giovanni La Via also hopes that when it in turn takes position at the plenary session of 26 to 29 October, the European Parliament will also roundly reject this proposed modification of regulation 1829/2003/EC on genetically modified food and animal feed.
No impact assessment on the proposal, vagueness from the Commission regarding the reasons which can be invoked to justify the request for an opt-out, uncertainty as to what is covered by “use of GMOs”, risk of fragmentation of the single market, major legal uncertainties as to the validity of the arguments which can be invoked as regards the WTO: the arguments against this proposal were developed at considerable length by the MEPs at their first exchange of views with the Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, on 8 June of this year (see EUROPE 11332). Since then, the project has caused the Agriculture Council to circle its wagons (see EUROPE 11359). And over at the WTO, a number of countries have already expressed their concerns about draft legislation that could bring about potential technical obstacles to trade (see EUROPE 11344). (Aminata Niang)