Brussels, 05/03/2003 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Commission held a policy discussion about the co-existence of genetically modified (GM), conventional and organic crops without deciding on its strategy. The Commission took note of a Communication by Franz Fischler in which he notes that it would be preferable to leave Member States with the reponsiblty of taking emausres suitable for their own geographical, environmental and agricultural conditions (see Europe of 4 March 2003, p.16) rather than laying down EU legislation. The also discussed preparatory work carried out to date, possible farm management measures, the feasibility of GM-free zones and liability for adventitious presence. A roundtable is being organised on GMOs on 24 April 2003, following which the Commission will present guidelines to assess the proglme of co-existence.
"Co-existence raises questions which have to be addressed. It is important to be clear about the rules and the legal framework, be it on a national or EU level. Let there be no mistake: Co-existence is about economic and legal questions, not about risks or food safety, because only authorised GMOs can be cultivated in the EU. The application of co-existence measures is not new. Already in conventional farming, seed producers, for example, have a great deal of experience of implementing farm management practices to ensure seed purity standards. The next step will be to extensively discuss the different options with member states and stakeholders. Then the Commission will quickly bring forward guidelines", Franz Fischler said.
A summary of the preiminary conclusions reached by the Commission after its policy discussion and in the light of Fischler's document:
- Co-existence. The cultivation of authorised GMOs in the EU will also have an impact on agricultural production. In particular, it raises the question of how to manage the adventitious mixing of GM and non-GM crops (admixture) resulting from seed impurities, cross-pollination, volunteers (self-sown plants, mainly from harvest fall-out carried over to the next growing season), harvesting-storage practices and transport, as well as its possible economic consequences. The ability of the agricultural sector to deliver a high degree of consumer choice is linked to its ability to maintain different production systems, notes the Commission. The most cited example of income loss due to admixture is that of conventional and organic farmers who have to sell their crop at a lower price because of the adventitious presence of GM crops above the authorised threshold level. The opposite example is where a speciality GM crop could depreciate in value because of admixture with non-GM crops.
- Examples of possible farm management measures: the Commission listed several such measures, such as isolation distances between fields; buffer zones; pollen barriers; control of volunteers (self-sown plants); crop rotation and planting arrangements for different flowering periods; and monitoring during cultivation, harvest, storing, transport, and processing.
- GM-free zones. Some Member States have xpressed a desire to establish a full ban on GMOs in certain areas, or in the whole country. But the Commission believes EU or national GM-free zones should be ruled out since the protection of purely economic interests cannot be a legally valid reason for such severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms. In addition, the establishment of GMO-free zones against the will of some farmers runs counter to the very principle of co-existence. The Commission reckons that voluntary local arrangements are feasible between farmers or between farmers and industry to ensure the absence of one or more GM-crops in specific areas. It explains that examples of such arrangements already exist for crops requiring high purity standards or separation, such as erucic acid oilseed rape.
- Liability. Several Member States have asked whether the possibility to seek compensation for economic loss in the event of gene admixture needs to be regulated on an EU level. In respect of the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission considers that the first step must be to find out whether the existing national laws do not already offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard. The issue will have to be assessed in greater detail once clear guidelines have been published.
