To adopt emergency measures regarding genetically modified food or animal feed, the member states of the EU cannot rely solely on the principle of precaution, Advocate General Michal Bobek told the Court Justice of the EU on Thursday 30 March.
This case (C-111/16) concerns the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810, the EU authorisation of which has had many repercussions over the last 20 years (see EUROPE 11713). The Court has been asked only to rule on a specific issue that occurred in 2013, when the Italian government adopted a decree banning the cultivation of this maize on Italian soil. This decision was made despite the fact that the Commission had concluded that there was no scientific evidence to justify the requested emergency measures or to overturn its earlier conclusions that the maize was harmless.
The question – which is still on the table, even though the legal framework has moved on – is whether emergency measures may be adopted on the basis of the principle of precaution alone. This principle is enshrined in the food legislation of the EU (Regulation 178/2002) and authorises the member states to adopt emergency measures to prevent risks to human health that have not yet been fully identified or understood due to scientific uncertainty.
In the view of the advocate general, recourse to this principle is not enough to ban the cultivation of GMOs as, he argues, Article 34 of a different regulation (1829/2003) is the concrete expression of the principle of precaution in the specific context of genetically modified food and animal feed in an emergency situation. He therefore proposes that the Court respond by stating that the member states may not adopt emergency measures regarding genetically modified food and animal feed unless they are able to establish, in addition to the urgency, “the existence of a situation which is likely to constitute a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health and the environment”. (Original version in French by Jan Kordys)