Est. 2min 21-10-2008 (updated: 05-11-2012 ) mais.jpg Euractiv is part of the Trust Project >>> Languages: Français | DeutschPrint Email Facebook X LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram EU envrionment ministers continued to disagree on whether member states should be allowed to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive areas, although they did concur on the need for better long-term environmental risk assessment of GMOs. Following a number of informal discussions earlier this summer, the EU-27 environment ministers debated the bloc’s GMO authorisation procedure in a Council meeting on 20 October. But member states clashed on the issues of protecting sensitive and protected territories and establishing GMO-free zones. Some delegations underlined that the current legislative framework already allows for such protection measures if there is scientific evidence of risk. Others would like to retain control of their national territories and see the subsidiarity principle better respected in this regard, allowing them to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive eco- and agro-systems. According to the French Presidency, the ministers agreed on the need for better long-term environmental risk assessment. Several delegations also said the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) guiding principles should be revised. Its safety assessments would always take account of the latest research findings as scientific knowledge evolves. As for including socio-economic considerations in the GMO authorisation process (such as cost-benefit analysis of the possible consequences of GMO seeds entry into the overall agricultural system), ministers described this as both an “important” and a “complex” issue. They underlined that if such criteria were to be considered, they would need to respect EU’s obligations vis-à-vis the World Trade Organisation. Furthermore, some member states underlined that such measures would never replace scientific evaluation as the main authorisation criteria. The ministers also underlined that there was no exact definition of socio-economic criteria linked to GMOs. Therefore, an EU-level methodology framework could be elaborated to identify and evaluate such criteria. Read more with Euractiv Brussels pushing for forests in global climate deal The European Commission will push for an international commitment to end global forest cover loss by 2030 as part of a new 'forestry package' that proposes new rules to prevent illegal logging while testing the inclusion of forest credits in a global carbon market. Subscribe now to our newsletter EU Elections Decoded Email Address * Politics Newsletters PositionsRecent figures by the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) on biotech crop cultivation in Europe show that "more EU farmers are choosing to go biotech to boost their competitiveness despite a 10 year moratorium on new product approvals". The association therefore urges EU ministers to end the moratorium on cultivation approvals and give European farmers the right to choose the products "which they believe are best to protect their crops and increase their competitiveness". According to EuropaBio, some 50 products are currently awaiting approval in the EU, 19 of which are for cultivation. Meanwhile, Greenpeace argues that member states should be allowed to establish GMO-free areas and implement measures to avoid seed contamination. It argues that the EU's current authorisation process is "fundamentally flawed since it ignores the long-term effects of GMOs, evidence on their biodiversity impacts, diverging scientific opinions and concerns from EU member states". Therefore, the NGO calls on environment ministers to ensure that EU legal requirements on GMOs are respected and that "environmental risk assessments are carried out by independent bodies with the necessary scientific expertise". BackgroundAfter the Council's inability to either approve or reject GMOs for over a decade, the European Commission is now free to authorise them based on a special regulatory procedure. But both the procedure and the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have been targets for criticism (see EURACTIV 05/12/05 and 10/03/06), and the Commission has decided to introduce practical changes to EFSA's GMO-approval process (EURACTIV 12/04/06). Several member states have also repeatedly invoked an EU safeguard clause enabling them to suspend the marketing or growth on their territory of GM crops that have EU-wide authorisation. But the EU executive has never substantiated their applications and has always ordered them to lift the national bans. The French EU Presidency has created an ad-hoc working group and tabled a series of proposals to overcome these problems. Timeline Dec. 2008: Environment Council conclusions on the issue expected. Further ReadingEuropean Union Council press release:Provisional conclusions(20 October) European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Commission:Food safety website Business & Industry EuropaBio press release:Latest figures show that more EU farmers choose to grow biotech crops to boost their competitiveness, but are the EU’s Ag Ministers listening?(29 September 2008) NGOs and Think-Tanks Greenpeace press release:Protect agriculture and stand up against GM crops - Greenpeace distributes GMO cure to EU environment ministers(20 October)
