Jul 9, 2004

Archive

Send

Red-green Genetic Engineering Act

Bundesrat wants ‘thorough review’

(9 July 2004) The draft Genetic Engineering Act proposed by the red-green majority in the Bundestag has been referred to the Mediation Committee by a majority vote from the CDU/CSU-governed federal states in the Bundesrat. Their aim is for the draft legislation to be completely revised. If the mediation process fails, the Bundestag will be able to reject the Bundesrat’s proposed amendments. However, this requires an absolute majority (‘Chancellor’s majority’) amongst its delegates. This means that just three dissenters from within the red-green camp would be enough to scupper the new law.

Matthias Berninger (B90/Green Party, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection) defended the government’s draft legislation in the Bundesrat, reminding delegates that the majority of farmers and consumers are opposed to genetic engineering.

Petra Wernicke (CDU, Agricultural Minister of Saxony-Anhalt): ‘The federal government’s Genetic Engineering Act is designed to delay, complicate and prevent the cultivation of genetically modified crops.’

In their meeting on 9 July, the majority of Bundesrat members followed the recommendation of the Agricultural Committee, which had rejected the Bundestag’s draft legislation by a large majority.

On 18 June, the federal government removed all parts from the draft that would require Bundesrat approval. All remaining parts of the text were rephrased so that they too could be passed without approval from the Bundesrat. This now means that the Mediation Committee will not be required to achieve a compromise on the amended draft, as would have been the case with legislation requiring Bundesrat approval.

If the government continues to hold firm, trying to reach a compromise would only delay things. Now the red-green coalition government may be able to pass its Genetic Engineering Act this autumn.

The CDU/CSU-governed federal states are concerned that the new cultivation and liability regulations would effectively prevent the cultivation of genetically modified crops. In addition, they argue that by dividing the draft legislation into a part that requires approval and one that doesn’t, it would fail to achieve its original purpose, the long-overdue incorporation of the European Release Directive 2001/18 into German law. Important regulations, for instance on coexistence and procedures, would have to be agreed later between Bundestag und Bundesrat and would thus be delayed further.

The Bundesrat’s list of proposed changes

In its statement, the Bundesrat highlighted the following issues for amendment as part of a ‘thorough review’:

• Authorisation requirements for outcrossings from field trials: According to the government’s draft legislation, any outcrossings from field trials that lead to GMO presence in the harvests from neighbouring fields would be classed as ‘placing on the market’. Since field trials do not usually have approval for placing on the market, those responsible for such trials would be liable for even the slightest traces of GMO. This kind of incalculable liability risk would make field trials virtually impossible. ‘For the sake of legal assurance for all parties involved’ the Bundesrat is calling for outcrossings from field trials not to be defined as ‘placing on the market’ requiring separate authorisation.
• Coexistence and liability: According to the Bundesrat’s proposals, a farmer growing genetically modified crops should become liable for economic losses incurred by neighbouring conventional farmers as a result of GMO contamination only if he has contravened the rules of good farming practice. Equally, the Bundesrat wants to get rid of the planned joint liability of all GM farmers within a region. For economic losses resulting from GMO contamination that cannot be attributed to the fault of individual farmers, the Bundesrat wants compensation to be paid from a liability fund.
• Good farming practice and certificate of competence: Unlike the government, the Bundesrat does not consider it necessary to regulate good farming practice in GM farming through government legislation. It argues that this would be too expensive and would counteract efforts to reduce bureaucracy. Since provisions for coexistence vary for each type of plant, seed producers should be required to highlight the relevant requirements in the accompanying product information. The Bundesrat majority also rejects the idea of special training for farmers growing GM crops.
• Site register: The Bundesrat proposes that plot-specific identification of fields with GM crops should be included only in the non-public part of the national site register, which is only accessible to those who can prove a ‘legitimate interest’. The public part of the register should only list the districts containing fields with GM crops, not the exact plot.
• Central Commission for Biological Safety (CCBS): The Bundesrat disagrees with the government’s proposal to split the Central Commission for Biological Safety into two committees – one for genetic engineering work in closed facilities and one for cultivation of GM crops in the open. This division is considered unjustified and would only lead to increased costs and administration.
• Simplified procedures: The Bundesrat feels that proposals for simplified procedures for genetic engineering work in closed facilities and for the authorisation of field trials, which the government had scrapped in its latest draft of the legislation, should be reinstated.