Commission prepares minimal reform of GMO imports

By Cécile Barbière | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Samuel White

09-04-2015 (updated: 17-04-2015 )

Only one type of GM maize is currently approved for cultivation in the EU. [Sarah Sammis/Flickr]

EXCLUSIVE / The European executive plans to present a new legal framework for GMO imports by the end of the month. Member states could be given the final say over imports, a possibility that disappoints environmentalists. EURACTIV France reports.

After placing the issue of GMO cultivation in the EU in the hands of the member states, the European Commission is preparing to adopt the same approach for imports of GM products.

The Commission is due to present a new procedure for the authorisation for GMO imports into the EU. The subject has divided member states for years, and caused the European executive no small amount of embarrassment.

>> Read: Agriculture Commissioner promises GMO labelling, despite TTIP

Jean-Claude Juncker has promised to address the issue since the beginning of his political programme. “I will make sure that the procedural rules governing the various authorisations for GMOs are reviewed. I would not want the Commission to be able to take a decision when a majority of Member States has not encouraged it to do so,” he told the European Parliament in July 2014.

Authorisation procedures

In the firing line are the existing authorisation procedures for GMOs, which require a qualified majority in the Council, not a simple majority. This constraint has already caused the Council and the Commission to clash on the subject.

>> Read: MEPs approve national ban on GM crops cultivation

In order for the legislation to progress, the Commission had to offer an “à la carte” system, whereby member states, such as France, could choose to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified crops within their borders.

This exemption clause gives member states the final say over GMO cultivation, without completely dismantling the EU’s decision making procedure. But it has been criticised for its legal ambiguity.

Justine Maillot from Greenpeace said, “On the authorisation procedure for GMO products for animal or human consumption, the Commission may opt for the same system of exemption, while we were expecting a real procedural reform.”

>> Read: EU agreement opens door for new GMO cultivation in 2015

The NGO is not the only voice to express regret at the introduction of another exemption clause. “The European Commission persists in its mistake of abandoning the European level of GMO regulation in order to renationalise decision making,” said the French Green MEP José Bové. “As a result, it is also abandoning the precautionary principle at the European level,” he added.

>> Read: EU one step closer to law on national GMO crop bans

Justine Maillot warned that “the Commission’s proposal would leave countries with a fake right to opt-out that won’t stand up in any court, as EU free market rules will always prevail over national opt-outs.”

Brussels is currently dealing with 17 authorisation requests for GMO imports for human or animal consumption.

Background

Timeline

Comments

0 responses to “Commission prepares minimal reform of GMO imports”

Iwantout says:

09/04/2015 at 15:51

It is sad when people in positions of authority say things which illustrate their foolishness. So we have Green MEP José Bové saying “As a result, it is also abandoning the precautionary principle at the European level,” shows he has absolutely no understanding of the precautionary principle. The principle states that if an action is suspected of a risk then in the absence of a scientific consensus that the action is not harmful then it is up to those in favour of the action to prove that it is not harmful. In the case of GMOs that have been licensed the scientific consensus is clearly that they are not harmful, therefore the precautionary principle has been complied with. A point the EU chief scientific advisor also made until she was dispensed with.

Greenpeace have been found to be an untrustworthy source of information on GMO. Their campaign against golden rice for example is estimated by the WHO to threaten the life of 100m Vitamin A deficient children around the World, which results in between 125 – 250,000 unnecessary deaths a year as well as greater amounts of suffering through compromised immune systems. Also let’s not forget the 600,000 vitamin A deficient mothers who die in child birth a year

It is interesting that Mark Lynas a well-known UK environmentalist in a recent speech said the following “I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid-1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option that can be used to benefit the environment.” (http://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/mark-lynas-why-i-became-pro-gm.htm ) I urge everyone to read his speech, it is a damning analysis of the anti GMO position written by one of the founders of the movement presented in an entirely rational and scientific way.

Log in to Reply
130253911 says:

17/04/2015 at 20:16

I think we know where you are coming from. You accuse Bove of having no understanding of the Precautionary Principle. With all due respect, I think he could teach you a thing or two. You say: ” In the case of GMOs that have been licensed the scientific consensus is clearly that they are not harmful, therefore the precautionary principle has been complied with.” That is complete nonsense. There is no consensus, and there is abundant evidence of harm associated with a number of these “approved” GMOs — it’s all there, in the peer-reviewed literature. The old EU Chief Scientific Advisor was got rid of because she was an embarrassment — and she lied over and again about GMOs, demonstrating in the process that she has little understanding of the scientific process. As for Golden Rice, and Mark Lynas — you have gotta be joking, man…….

Log in to Reply
- Iwantout says:
  
  17/04/2015 at 21:11
  
  @ 130253911, I am always interested in new information. I was under the impression that the scientific community had concluded that GM crops are not harmful. I was relying on reports such as -http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html and http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/genetic-modification-pdf/ (in particular the second section, produced by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council the major UK funding body for biotech research). Even http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm produced by the EU itself which states categorically “According to the projects’ results, there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.” Work funded by the EU at a cost of 200m euro over 25 years and involving 500 independent research bodies.
  
  As I have provided links in which the scientific consensus seems pretty solid, please could you provide the links to the peer reviewed scientific literature stating that GM crops are dangerous ?
  
  With regards to your assertion that the “EU Chief Scientific Advisor was got rid of because she was an embarrassment — and she lied over and again about GMOs, demonstrating in the process that she has little understanding of the scientific process.” Please could you let me know where Professor Anne Glover (an expert in microbiology) has been shown to lie? I am sure this must have made news and unfortunately despite numerous searches I cannot find any evidence to support this claim. But given that you have published the comment and are therefore legally liable for it I am sure you will have evidence.
  
  Likewise in what way has she been shown to have little understanding of the scientific process. Given her position and membership of several prestigious scientific bodies this must also have been global news but alas once again I have been unable to find it.
  
  With regards to golden rice and Mark Lynas I was not joking. The WHO seems very much in favour of golden rice which was released to the World without any commercial strings. They seem clear that the health benefits for millions of poor people were obvious and overwhelming. What am I missing ? The Scientific American also produced this item http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/ which makes their supportive position clear.
  
  Mark Lynas seems to have rationally argued case, what do you know that I don’t? Reading his work he simply says he has now started to read about the subject and understand it rather than just make emotional claims.
  
  Anyway, I look forward to reading your evidence.
  
  Log in to Reply
130253911 says:

17/04/2015 at 20:16

I think we know where you are coming from. You accuse Bove of having no understanding of the Precautionary Principle. With all due respect, I think he could teach you a thing or two. You say: ” In the case of GMOs that have been licensed the scientific consensus is clearly that they are not harmful, therefore the precautionary principle has been complied with.” That is complete nonsense. There is no consensus, and there is abundant evidence of harm associated with a number of these “approved” GMOs — it’s all there, in the peer-reviewed literature. The old EU Chief Scientific Advisor was got rid of because she was an embarrassment — and she lied over and again about GMOs, demonstrating in the process that she has little understanding of the scientific process. As for Golden Rice, and Mark Lynas — you have gotta be joking, man…….

Log in to Reply

Commission prepares minimal reform of GMO imports

Background

Timeline

Further Reading

Press articles

EURACTIV's editorial content is independent from the views of our sponsors.

Contribute to our reporting

Mella Frewen, Director General of FoodDrinkEurope

Susan Danger, CEO, AmCham EU

Commission prepares minimal reform of GMO imports

Background

Timeline

Further Reading

Press articles

EURACTIV's editorial content is independent from the views of our sponsors.

Topics

Subscribe to our newsletters

Contribute to our reporting

Mella Frewen, Director General of FoodDrinkEurope

Susan Danger, CEO, AmCham EU