Jul 6, 2010

News

Send

New coexistence guidelines: Cultivation bans will now be allowed

Cultivation of genetically modified crops: European Commission plans renationalisation

On 13 July the European Commission will decide on new regulations for plant genetic engineering. The key issue is that EU member states are to be granted the freedom to ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops on their own territory. A European Commission proposal explaining how this will be achieved is currently in circulation. There are fears that the political price will be high.

As early as a year ago, Commission president José Manuel Barroso announced his intention to introduce a package of measures to overcome the political blockade which has been crippling European genetic engineering policy for years and thwarting the decision-making process.

Decisions regarding the cultivation of genetically modified crops are to be “renationalised”: member states will be entitled to declare politically motivated bans without having to justify them scientifically by challenging the safety of the products.

At the same time, a single European authorisation procedure will be maintained. As before, authorisations for GMO products will be issued solely on the basis of the scientific safety assessment, for which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible.

Whilst authorisations for imported GM food and animal feed remain binding on all EU countries, in future every member state will be free to decide for themselves whether to ban the cultivation of a GM crop – even if that very same crop has passed the EU-level authorisation process and is therefore categorised as “safe for humans, animals and the environment”. The political reasoning behind this is that anti-GM countries will approve GM authorisations in the Council of Ministers if they are able to achieve their main goal – a ban on the cultivation of GM crops in their territory – independently of Brussels.

However, it has long been uncertain how the European Commission intends to implement this package to ensure that responsibility for cultivation can be transferred to national level as quickly as possible. Changes to existing legislation can take place only with the approval of the European Parliament and member states. Such proceedings can drag on for years and the outcome is almost impossible to predict. For this reason, the Commission has been searching for a means of bringing about the intended renationalisation without the need for any legislative changes. The key is to replace the coexistence guidelines issued by the Commission in 2003.

The European Commission had previously left it to member states to determine measures for the coexistence of GM and non-GM agricultural systems. However, they had to be adequate to ensure that “adventitious or technically unavoidable” GMO traces in conventional crops remained below the EU-wide labelling threshold of 0.9%. Up until now, the European Commission has rejected any unduly restrictive regulations and regional bans on the cultivation of GM crops. In future, however, coexistence measures will no longer be based on the 0.9% threshold approved by all member states at that time.

Countries will be able to stipulate GM-free zones after all

The contamination of conventional crops as a result of the cultivation of authorised GM crops may be regarded as an economic loss: if the GMO contamination exceeds the 0.9% threshold, the conventionally produced food or fodder will also require labelling. In many countries the farmer concerned faces economic losses, since the market price for labelled products is significantly lower.

In its proposal for new coexistence guidelines, the European Commission now concedes that significantly lower GMO inputs are to be regarded as constituting an economic loss. Consumers will not tolerate GMO inputs, particularly in products specifically marketed as “GMO-free” or in organic products. In future, countries will be able to stipulate coexistence measures which aim to avoid GMO contamination across the board. In so doing, the countries will be required to take into account regional variations in agricultural conditions, such as field size, crop rotation, production systems, climate and landscape.

Even the Commission’s proposal for “GMO-free” zones amounts to a U-turn. Whilst these were previously compatible with EU law only if they took the form of voluntarily agreements, now under certain economic conditions, member states will be entitled to prohibit the cultivation of GM crops on larger areas of their territory in order to avoid undesirable GMO traces in conventional and organic crops. To issue a regional or national ban on cultivation, member states must simply demonstrate to the Commission that GMO contamination cannot be avoided with the use of other coexistence measures, such as buffer zones, for example.

Coexistence: Anything is possible

If the Commission’s proposals are adopted, EU member states will win the right to “national self-determination” in matters of coexistence, as promised by President Barroso. Anything is possible, from a regional or national ban on cultivation to doing without coexistence guidelines altogether. Yet this would mean surrendering the single market with its level playing field – at least as far as plant genetic engineering is concerned. Each one of the 27 member states will now be free to decide whether and how it permits or bans the use of GM crops.

The Commission is well aware that this renationalisation contradicts both European objectives and existing legislation. Ultimately, the Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18 – the defining legislation for the authorisation and cultivation of GM crops – is based on Article 95 of the European Treaty, which harmonises the transposition of legislation in all EU member states. The Commission is therefore proposing to remove the reference to Article 95 of the European Treaty in the Deliberate Release Directive. Whether this apparently minor, yet politically fundamental amendment can be accomplished without a hitch remains doubtful.

On 13 July the Commission intends to vote on the proposal drawn up by Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner John Dalli. The draft for new coexistence guidelines is currently circulating within the Commission, and it is entirely possible that further changes will be made.