Brussels, 28/10/2015 (Agence Europe) - There is no question that MEPs will accept the European Commission initiative on a single market to be transformed into a patchwork of national legislations on the use of GMOs legally imported into the EU for food.
This is why a very large majority at the European Parliament on Wednesday 28 October in Strasbourg rejected the Commission proposal of last April to allow member states the possibility of banning or restricting the use of imported GMOs for human food or animal feed on their respective territories (see EUROPE 11300).
By providing member states with the possibility of an opt out, as long as they can use extremely important reasons compatible with the internal market and multilateral trade rules to justify their national measures for banning or restricting, the Commission believed it had found a way to make the authorisation procedure more democratic, as its president Jean-Claude Juncker had made a commitment to do at the EP on this issue.
The Commission, however, clashed with the MEPs' almost unanimous refusal to accept this mix-and-match proposal. For a plethora of different reasons that go beyond the simple risk of single market fragmentation such as: the absence of an impact analysis for this proposal, its impracticable character, the vagueness of the term “use”, the lack of legal solidity with regard to a possible complaint from the WTO, which was already concerned by this legislation (see EUROPE 11366), the threat that it represents to the agricultural sector's competitiveness, the lack of coherency with the better regulation objective. These arguments were the main ones used by the MEPs.
Commission persists: The European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Adriukaitis, is also responsible for GMO issues and described the proposal as “complying with the Treaty”. He said that they did not want the Commission to take decisions against the will of the majority of member states, which explained the proposal they had put forward.
The MEPs voted for a rejection of the motion by 577 votes (75 against, with 38 abstentions) and urged the Commission to revise its draft. Nonetheless, the latter persisted and indicated that it would not change its proposal. Before the vote, the Commissioner stated: “The Commission is convinced that this is the best way of proceeding. It does not intend to withdraw its proposal”. He said that he was prepared to continue the debate on biotechnologies, science and technology, “perhaps next year, with the Parliament and by inviting NGOs and eminent scientists to help dissipate any misunderstandings”.
Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy), the author of the motion for the rejection, responded: “If there is a commonality between all the groups, it is the rejection of this proposal. You say that an impact assessment is unnecessary because the member states have the choice but it is up to the Commission to legislate to ensure the appropriate functioning of the single market. We do not want this derogation to the rules of the single market. We need a broad and open debate on the new technologies because it is only through knowledge that we will be able to remove any grey zones concerning them”.
Although this is an undeniable snub to the European Commission, it does not come as any surprise. The EP Environment Committee, as well as the Agriculture Committee, had already called for a rejection of this proposal devised on the model of the new legislation that now authorises the mix-and-match approach to GMOs in the EU (see EUROPE 11409 and 11381). (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)