The European Commission adopted a "package" of proposals overhauling the EU policy on GM crop cultivation, hoping to draw a line under years of controversy regarding GMO approvals.
"We are basically giving much more flexibility to member states to restrict the cultivation of GMOs in their countries," EU Health and Consumer Affairs Commissioner John Dalli said at a press conference in Brussels.
The proposals have sparked a wave of criticism, with biotech firms fearing that the measures could jeopardise the internal market and undermine farmers' choice of technology, as well as give rise to legal disputes between farmers, crop companies and national authorities.
Guidance on co-existence
In the package adopted by the EU executive, a recommendation on co-existence between GM and non-GM crops is "the immediate solution to allow member states freedom to cultivate," said Commissioner Dalli. The recommendation replaces, as of yesterday, the 2003 Commission guidance on national co-existence measures.
Co-existence measures aim to prevent the unintended presence of GMOs in other products, and prevent economic losses caused by traces in conventional and organic crops.
The new recommendation allows member states to establish "GMO-free" areas and to adopt stricter isolation measures to avoid an unintended presence of GMOs in other products.
It amends the previous recommendation, which advised EU countries to limit co-existence measures, including the size of buffer zones between GM and non-GM fields, to comply with EU regulations limiting their presence in other crops to 0.9%.
Right to ban cultivation
Another legislative proposal seeks to revise the 2001 Directive on the Deliberate Release of GMOs. The plan is to insert a new article (Article 26b) into the directive in order to give member states the possibility to restrict or prohibit cultivation of GMOs on their territory on grounds other than those covered by EU health and environmental risk assessments.
This means that the EU-27 can ban GM crop cultivation on their territory based on socio-economic, ethical and moral grounds, Dalli said.
But environmental NGOs have argued that the proposal does not provide the legal certainty that member states need in order to adopt permanent bans on GMOs that have received EU approval, and would only lead to legal disputes between crop companies and member states (EurActiv 12/07/10).
However, Dalli rejected those claims, stressing that "my legal advice contradicts with this".
He also refuted criticism that the proposals merely aim to speed up the GM crop authorisation process.
"Let me be clear: there are no trade-offs. There's no speeding up of authorisations and no weakening of the requirements of the legislation agreed by Parliament and Council in 2003," he said.
As for those worried about the internal market consequences of GMO restrictions, Dalli said that the Commission recognises member states' competence to organise their agro-economic sectors and activities as they prefer.
If a country wants to support organic farming on its territory, for example, then GM crop cultivation could jeopardise this aim, he noted.
Subject to co-decision, the legal amendment needs to be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council before entering into force.
