Mar 7, 2008

News

Send

EU approval procedure for GMOs

France advocates stricter regulations

At the Council meeting of European environment ministers last month, the French environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo spoke out in favour of a comprehensive review of the approval regulations for genetically modified plants. He proposed that in future, greater consideration should be given to additional scientific criteria and agronomic criteria when European committees decide on approval applications. France wants to see the topic on the agenda again at the next meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers. He also announced that a conference of experts on plant genetic engineering will take place in Paris in October.

Jean-Louis Borloo , French environment minister: more test criteria for the approval of genetically modified plants in the EU.

Horst Seehofer , German agricultural minister, is also in favour of changing the GMO approval procedure.
Photo: dsv-saaten

Under the agenda item ‘other business’, France’s environment minister Borloo presented a discussion paper to his European colleagues, in which the French government put forward its suggestions for improving the approval procedures for genetically modified plants and GMO products. These include, for example, examining the methods of safety assessment.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had already submitted new proposals for extending the range of methods available in January. According to Borloo, these proposals now warrant carefully examination by the European Commission. The safety assessment of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) demands a strong, multidisciplinary approach. In addition to scientific investigations into the potential risks to the environment and health, Borloo believes that other factors should also be taken into account, such as the agronomic consequences of GMO cultivation and the impact on different production systems.

As regards insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GM plants, France proposes aligning their safety assessment with that of crop protection products. A more efficient approach should be sought, particularly with regard to toxicological testing.

France also wants to tackle the long overdue establishment of a threshold for GMO presence in conventional seed.

Meeting of experts under France’s Council presidency

The relevant French authorities are to discuss the proposals with their colleagues in other member states by the next Environment Council meeting. The aim is to put a joint initiative on the agenda of the Council meeting in June. The French government also plans to invite experts in the field of genetic engineering to a conference in Paris in October, by which time France will hold the presidency of the Council of the European Union. The main topics of discussion for participants of the planned conference will be the effects of biotechnology on biodiversity and the development of political approaches to regulating genetic engineering.

According to environment minister Borloo, six EU countries have indicated their support for the French initiative, including Spain, Italy, Poland and Germany. The German agricultural minister, Horst Seehofer, had already spoken in favour of reviewing the principles for GMO approvals at EU level back in the autumn. In his view, an independent scientific EU committee should decide on applications and not a political one as is currently the case.

Lengthy legislative process ahead?

So far, however, the question of how the rather general proposals put forward by France and Germany should be implemented in practice remains unanswered. Europe-wide approval procedures for the cultivation, import and consumption of GM plants, and food and fodder produced from them, are stipulated in the Deliberate Release Directive (2001/18) and in the Regulation on Genetically Modified Food and Feed (1829/2003). Changing these would require a lengthy legislative process with an uncertain outcome. It would be simpler to leave the approval procedures as they are and tighten up the criteria for safety assessments. In this case revising the relevant EFSA guidelines may well be sufficient.