A vote with an uncertain outcome is expected on Tuesday 27 November in the European Parliament Committee on the Environment on the proposal to recast the EU's general food legislation to increase the transparency and independence of scientific risk assessments in the food chain.
This proposal was presented by the Committee in response to the European Citizens' Initiative ’Stop glyphosate' (see EUROPE 11999).
At a time when political groups are struggling to negotiate, the Greens/EFA group warned on Thursday 22 November that no compromise could be reached on the most sensitive and crucial issue, the protection of intellectual property rights, which could threaten the public's right of access to all scientific studies on which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) relies.
In the light of a legal analysis commissioned by the Greens/EFA, highlighting flaws in the Committee's proposal, German Green MEP Martin Haüsling, shadow rapporteur for his group, criticised the Conservatives' desire to weaken the text. This legal opinion is the basis for the recommendations of a group of NGOs behind the Stop glyphosate initiative (see EUROPE 12096).
"The proposal contains some uncertainties. We ask that the studies be published before EFSA issues its opinion", said the MEP to the press. And in addition: "On the conservative side, industry law takes precedence over data access law. This could threaten transparency. There may be sensitive information requiring an appropriate procedure, but this should not affect access to documents".
According to him, German MEP Renate Sommer (EPP), rapporteur for this dossier, "clearly defends the industrial sector. It does not want additional transparency and wants confidentiality to be preserved whenever you want" (see EUROPE 12087). Affirming that he wanted to defend the public interest, the MEP stressed that his group was not ready to give its agreement at just any price, although it is necessary to move quickly to hope to close the file during this legislature. The plenary vote is scheduled for December.
Alongside her, Bondine Kloostra, a Dutch environmental lawyer and author of the legal analysis, pointed to two contradictory aspects in the Committee's proposal, which aims both to improve transparency and to better protect the industrial sector. "Recital 36 makes it clear that the purpose of the proposal is to protect the specificities of the sector while respecting confidentiality", she stressed.
According to the Committee, the proposal creates a more restrictive regime on data disclosure that derogates from the general rules of Regulations 1049/2001 (on access to documents) and 1367/2006 transposing the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.
"The current regulations require industry to provide evidence of negative consequences for the industry. As a lawyer, I wonder why paragraph 1A is added to preserve intellectual property rights. Rather, it is a way to reduce transparency without allowing the public to know whether the interests at stake are really at stake", it said.
Since the Committee's proposal also amends other legislation (such as that on GMOs), this could lead the industry to consider, for example, that it does not have to disclose information it considers confidential about the DNA sequence, "which would pose a serious problem". (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)