MEPs back national freedom to ban GM crops

The European Parliament's environment committee yesterday (12 April) backed proposals by the EU executive to give member states a choice of whether to ban cultivation of GM crops on their territory, adding environmental impacts to a list of grounds on which restrictions could be imposed.

Background

In July, the European Commission proposed an overhaul of the EU's policy for approving genetically-modified crops, which would give countries freedom to ban cultivation on their territory, in the hope of drawing a line under years of controversy regarding GMO approvals.
The proposal has drawn widespread criticism from both supporters and opponents of GMOs, who argued that the new system will create legal uncertainty for farmers and agri-businesses and lead to distortions in the internal market.

At present, EU member states are only able to restrict genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation under strict conditions, as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc in accordance with the principles of the EU's single market.

After initial heavy criticism of the Commission proposal, the Hungarian EU Presidency said last month that it would be possible to make progress by restricting or prohibiting GMO cultivation in EU countries, or particular regions, for "well-grounded reasons".

MEPs voted on Tuesday to amend a Commission proposal for an EU regulation that would allow member states to restrict or ban the cultivation on their territory of GM crops, which have been given safety approval at EU level.

The Commission's initial proposal suggested that member states could restrict or ban the cultivation "on grounds other than those related to the assessment of the adverse effect on health and environment which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs".

But the proposals have sparked a wave of criticism, with stakeholders fearing they could lead to fragmentation of the internal market and legal uncertainty for farmers. Some of the proposals are also deemed incompatible with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.
The Commission's indicative list of grounds upon which member states could restrict or prohibit GMO cultivation includes public morality - such as religious, philosophical and ethical concerns over GM technology - public order and avoiding GM contamination of other products or GM-free schemes.

Banning GM crop cultivation on environmental grounds

Lawmakers yesterday voted to include environmental grounds - such as pesticide resistance, biodiversity protection and the invasiveness of the GM crops - among the grounds on which member states could say 'no' to cultivation of genetically-engineered crops. Environmental grounds "would provide greater legal protection against possible WTO challenges to GMO bans," MEPs said.

The report, drafted by French MEP Corinne Lepage (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), was adopted with 34 votes in favour, 10 against and 16 abstentions.

Socio-economic grounds

Further grounds for restrictions backed by the House's environment committee relate to the socioeconomic impacts of GM crop cultivation, where risk of contamination of conventional crops (cross contamination) "cannot practicably be managed". Socioeconomic grounds could also be referred to as a means of protecting other types of agriculture, such as organic farming, they said.

Back in 2009, a joint European Commission and member-state reflection group was launched to define and consider the socio-economic implications of placing GM crops on the market - such as a cost-benefit analysis of the possible consequences of the entry of GM seeds into the agricultural system. The results of the socio-economic assessment should be presented shortly.

No to 'buffer zones'

An amendment tabled for approval by the environment committee sought to establish EU-wide minimum buffer zones between GM and conventional (non-GM) fields to avoid unintentional contamination by GMOs, but MEPs rejected the proposals.

However, they agreed that member states must take measures to avoid the presence of GMOs in other products. According to the existing EU directive (2001) on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, such measures are currently optional.

Positions

The European Parliament's draftswoman, French MEP Corinne Lepage (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), said the lawmakers' vote was "a clear signal from the Parliament to the Council and Commission: the EU authorisation system should be maintained but it should be acknowledged that some agricultural and environmental impacts, as well as socio-economic impacts linked to contamination, can be cited by member states to justify a ban or restriction on GMO cultivation".

British MEP Linda McAvan (Socialists & Democrats) stressed that the existing law does not deal with the issue of biodiversity and the respect of different types of farming adequately, but that "under the terms of this vote, member states will be obliged to prevent contamination of GMO-free crops and other products on their territory and in the border areas of neighbouring member states".

The Greens said they are concerned with the general approach of the Commission's original proposal, which implies renationalisation of authorisation, but welcomed the committee vote, "which would clearly strengthen the position of member states wanting to prohibit GMO cultivation".

Belgian MEP Bart Staes (Greens/European Free Alliance) said the vote would also ensure member states can ban GMO cultivation "if there is contradictory or inadequate data on the impact of cultivating a GM crop".

"Given the very real concerns of cross-contamination of conventional crops by GM crops, including cross border contamination, we welcome the broad consensus to make anti-contamination measures mandatory. Member states that still do not have 'coexistence' measures in place have to adopt them. MEPs also supported a Green amendment calling on member states to establish a strict liability system to ensure the polluter pays for damages that might occur due to the cultivation or placing on the market of GMOs," Staes added.

Swedish Green MEP Margrete Auken added that "crucially, MEPs today voted that no new GMO variety shall be authorised until the risk assessment provisions are properly implemented. This means ending the principle of substantial equivalence or 'comparative safety assessment' as a basis for risk assessment. MEPs also voted to ensure that access to material necessary for independent research must not be restricted".

German MEP Sabine Wils (European United Left/Nordic Green Left) welcomed the vote, saying that "with this compromise, member states now have an arsenal of valid legal arguments that they can use when challenged by international commercial partners".

Greenpeace's European Unit welcomed the vote, saying that MEPs had strengthened the originally weak proposal from the Commission to give EU countries the right to ban the cultivation of GM crops. Greenpeace argues that the inclusion of environmental grounds to the proposal is "crucial if national bans are to be legally robust".

Greenpeace EU's agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer said that "environmental impacts are a major danger of GM crops and including these into law will help governments ban them from Europe's fields. Without these grounds, national bans would be in danger of being overturned by biotech companies in court".

Source : EurActiv with Reuters