Brussels, 19/05/2005 (Agence Europe) - The need for clear and binding regulation at a Community level on co-existence between traditional and genetically modified crops was strongly emphasised by a number of representatives from the regions and farming community, which participated in a conference on 17 May in Brussels organised by the Assembly of the European Regions and the Friends of the Earth (EUROPE 8947). With the aim of promoting quality agriculture that both values products from local regions by conferring the labels of controlled origin and consumer health, the regions have expressed their concerns about loopholes in current legislation. The Commission, which has authorised the cultivation and marketing of 17 new varieties of GMOs (directive 2001/18), is leaving it up to Member States to take measures ensuring the protection of crops exempt from GMOs and establishing standards in liability matters and compensation in the event of contamination. For the instant, only the German Bundestag has adopted strict legislation on this issue but it is still necessary to wait for the agreement of the Bundestag for the legislation to enter into force. The Commission has only made the labelling of products containing a 0.9% content of GMOs compulsory, a threshold considered arbitrary and which is widely opposed by the regions. The regions deplore the fact that this directive gives local and regional authorities very few possibilities of opposing the introduction of GMOs on their land, whereas it is precisely at this level that the rules can be better elaborated.
In July 2003 the Commission refused point blank any introduction of GMO-free zones, considering that this went against the rules of the internal market. It has now adopted a more flexible position by introducing a new Article 26a) which allows for regions that can prove that co-existence is not possible in practice, can take measures to ban GMOs. This door, opened by Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for agriculture and rural development, was warmly welcomed by those who wanted to use such room for manoeuvre to set out the rules of the game, like Germany.
The conference allowed for a broad agreement to be reached between the regions on the principle of Community legislation but many divergences remain: 1) definition of co-existence: some refuse co-existence, while others think that as soon as GMOs are introduced, it is impossible to make a u-turn (but they recognise the need for regulation). Andreas Gumbert, representative of DG Agriculture at the European Commission said that, “agriculture is an open process, the risks of contamination is inevitable”; 2) protection: protecting the health of people and animals through the traceability of compulsory labelling, maintaining regional biodiversity and promoting labels of origin were the formulas requested; 3) liability: should this must be down to those using the GMO (the polluter pays principle, as in Upper Austria), those introducing “new technologies” (including the GMO) as sought by the Commission or should it be those who own the seed patents? 4) Inspection and follow-up of the whole chain: production, via assessment of their legislation on coexistence and those notifying it of coexistence.
During the conference the European Parliament underlined the “democratic deficit” of the follow-up on GMOs, given that the 2001 directive does not include consultation with Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions. Friedrich Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens/EFA) called on the regions to declare themselves “GMO-free” by using Article 26a) so that they could exert pressure on their governments and force the Commission to produce a more precise directive. The concerned MEPs pointed out that the European Constitution includes the extension of co-decision to rural development.