Brussels, 09/03/2006 (Agence Europe) - Risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU's decision-making process on GMO authorisation were slammed in Brussels on Thursday by the Environment Council during a highly controversial public debate launched by Jan Pröll, Austrian Environment Minister who chaired the session. The debate, which followed the discussion begun at December's Environment Council, will be enhanced by new contributions from the Council on 26 June.
Invited to note the failings observed in EFSA procedures and to put forward suggestions for improvement (EUROPE 9145), the delegations were unanimous in calling for greater transparency in the work of the EFSA and for systematic account to be taken by this pivotal body for food safety in the EU of objections voiced by relevant national authorities, when doubts are expressed by Member States on how safe GMOs are for health and the environment. We recall that EFSA does not carry out its own risk assessments, but gives scientific opinions (so far always in favour) on the relevance and validity of assessments made by firms that have notified a request for product approval.
Except the United Kingdom and the Netherlands that systematically vote for GMO approval proposed by the Commission after a favourable opinion from EFSA, there were nearly just as many delegations that questioned committee procedure, which allows the Commission to decide, on its own, whether to authorise the marketing of GMOs against a majority opinion expressed by Member States when neither the relevant regulatory committee nor the Council have reached the qualified majority required to reject a draft authorisation. Every Member State that criticised this procedure called for its amendment to allow Member States to refuse authorisation by simple majority but the European Commission was playing deaf.
Whether they criticised committee procedures or not, all the delegations believed that transparency of procedures and communication to the public of decisions, duly backed up, was essential for the credibility of the EU and the trust the citizens placed in it.
In a press statement resuming the main lessons he had drawn, Jan Pröll informed the press that “GMOs are a subject that create a lot of emotion in the population of the Member States. We launched a very interesting debate on authorisation procedures. I am delighted to note that the debate on the future of European policy of GMOs was very lively”. The main lessons are: EFSA has to make scientific data available and take into account the opinions of the national authorities and European citizens should be associated in decisions on GMO subject matter. Pröl also said that he was eagerly awaiting the two conferences on GMOs organised by the Austrian presidency and European Commission in April in Vienna, as part of an effort to deepen reflection and think more about possible improvements during the Council in June. The first conference (4-6 April) will be on the cohabitation of conventional/organic crops with GMO crops; the second (18-19 April) will deal with the precautionary principle regarding GMOs. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas sought to put into context the liveliness of the debate pointing out how recently the regulatory framework on GMOs had been developed, necessarily making for questions and leaving room for improvement. He said that the new regulatory framework had only been operational for two years. He went on to say that guarantees had to be given that the scientific data informing the risk assessments were of the highest possible quality. He was aware of criticisms made about EFSA's working procedures, but pointed out that EFSA itself was a recent creation and was only beginning to find its feet. There had just been an external evaluation of how it was working and this criticism indicated that some changes would be appropriate. The Commission, he said, would be involved in the revision of EFSA procedures. As Commissioner, he said he would ensure that risk evaluation procedures were as complete and transparent as possible. However, it was out of the question to tinker with the committee procedure, which applies to several sectors and which is currently under review and had originally been approved by Member States fully aware of all the facts. He recalled that in 2003, when the Council and Parliament decided to apply the committee procedure to authorisation of GMOs, they were well aware what would be the outcome if there was disagreement in the Council. Mr Dimas felt that increasing citizens' confidence through the scientific basis rather than tinkering with the committee procedure would be more productive. A simple majority was all that was required in Council to reject authorisations, as well as to approve them.