Brussels, 07/05/2008 (Agence Europe) - The opponents of GMOs may well have gained ground in Europe and criticism may well be raining down on the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), but the European Commission is sticking to its guns and signing: on the subject of the authorisation of genetically modified organisms in the EU, only the scientific opinions of the EFSA will guide the decisions as to whether or not GMOs will be authorised- in full respect of its institutional responsibilities (insuring the application of Community legislation, which, it asserts, is the strictest in the world) and its international obligations (observing the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)).
The Commission announced this on Wednesday 7 May, after its guideline debate on GMOs, a complex subject giving rise to much controversy, and which has led the Commission to take decisions on authorising GMOs on its own, against the majority opinion of the Member States when these fail to take position by qualified majority either for or against the authorisation of a GMO- as the comitology procedure requires.
"The objective of the debate was to take stock of the situation and to establish how we can move forward both for the overdue cases of authorisation and for horizontal issues in the long-term", spokesperson Johannes Laitenberger told the press. This objective has now been achieved, as the Commission has confirmed that it will finalise its decisions on outstanding requests for authorisation and that it will look at all new applications on the basis of the science. "The Commission confirms its confidence in the high-quality opinions provided by the EFSA", continued the spokesperson, announcing however that the EFSA would be called upon to review its previous opinions on three GMOs. The Commission intends to proceed as follows:
For the three hybrid maize varieties from Monsanto (MON 863xMONx810, MON 863XNK 603, MON 863xMON 810XNK 60) and the genetically modified potato "Amflora" from BASF- all of which have a gene which is a resistance marker to certain antibiotics and which have twice been ruled safe by the EFSA- the Commission will ask the EFSA to provide additional information on the effects of these GMOs on the environment and health. And if the EFSA continues to assert that the products are safe, the Commission will authorise them. It is worth noting that the WHO, the Pasteur Institute and the European Medicines Agency have all voiced concerns about the Amflora potato, which is designed for animal and human consumption.
For BT 11 maize from Pioneer and 1507 maize from Syngenta, two varieties of maize which have been genetically modified to resist pesticides and crop use, the Commission will call on the EFSA to look at scientific information which came to the Commission's attention at the end of 2007. After an initial opinion in favour of both of these varieties, the EFSA acknowledges that it was not in a position to carry out an assessment of the indirect and long-term impacts on the environment of these GMOs- even though this assessment is required by directive 2001/18/EC (on the voluntary dissemination of GMOs in the environment and the authorisation for marketing). It is worth noting that Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, was steadfastly opposed to the planting of these GMOs, but isolated within the Commission.
For genetically modified LL62, the Commission will ask the EFSA to confirm that the necessary scientific proof is available in full, and if so, it will present a proposal for authorisation to the competent committee.
Regarding the presence of a low level of unauthorised GMOs in animal feed and foodstuffs, the Commission has instructed its services to "find a technical solution".
The Commission will also order Austria immediately to lift its safeguard measures against the import of T25 and MON 810, both of which are authorised within the EU (in June 2005, the Member States got together the qualified majority required to oppose the Commission in this attempt).
Responding to questions from the press, the spokesperson confirmed that since 2005, 16 authorisation decisions have been taken by the Commission and that no GMOs had received an unfavourable opinion. "This may be because no unsafe products have been put forward", he added. Although the Commission is "sensitive to the political debate, it is the safety of the products which is the main parameter in risk management decisions", Mr Laitenberger told a journalist who asked him whether the Commission had taken on board the request of Member States such as France, Germany and Italy for the GMO authorisation procedures to be reviewed (the forthcoming French Presidency of the EU wishes to make a priority of extending the debate on the expert knowledge and assessment of GMOs at European level- EUROPE 9616).
In the view of the environmental NGOs, the fact that the Commission is thinking of sending three genetically modified plants which have received positive assessment back before the European Food Safety Authority is something of a disclaimer. Stressing the paradoxical attitude of the Commission, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe see the result of the debate as a "massive vote of no confidence towards the EFSA and a justification of the concerns of Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas". Taking the opposite view, Europabio, the European biotechnology industry Association, sees it as "a disappointing signal" for the growth of GMOs and deplores the fact that 40 products are waiting for authorisation whilst Europe is already "so far behind its international competitors". (A.N.)