THE EUROPEAN Commission has capitulated to prolonged political deadlock over the future of genetically modified crops, saying European governments should be allowed to decide whether the crops can be cultivated in their national territory.
In a rare instance of Brussels ceding power to member states, the EU’s executive branch wants to remove barriers to the prohibition on ethical or social grounds of the cultivation of the crops.
“We are giving much more flexibility to restrict the cultivation of genetically modified organisms ,” said health and consumer policy commissioner John Dalli.
“Member states may use any grounds to do so, other than those covered by the health and environmental risk assessment of the EU risk authorisation process. Therefore, the proposal gives competence to member states to decide on cultivation.”
With member states split between countries opposed to the cultivation of GM crops and those who want to promote cultivation for economic reasons, the EU authorisation system has been paralysed for more than a decade with only two crops passed for cultivation. The commission’s approval last March of a modified potato developed by BASF was the first since 1998.
The Government, which does not allow GM-cultivation in the State, said it will scrutinise the proposal but offered no further comment. “We will be examining these complex proposals very carefully in light of our programme for Government commitment to a GM cultivation-free island.”
While empowering European governments to decide their own policy on GM cultivation, there is no change per se to the EU system of authorising GM crops.
“I stress that the EU-wide authorisation system, based on solid science, remains fully in place,” said Mr Dalli.
The proposal was criticised by environmentalists, however, because it refers only to measures against the cultivation of GM crops. Member states are not allowed measures against importing or marketing authorised seeds in the EU.
“This is a dangerous bargain: within the internal market GM seeds and products will circulate freely. Contamination does not stop at borders,” said German MEP Martin Häusling, a member of the Green group in the parliament.
There are two strands to the commission’s decision, which Mr Dalli said will send a signal to citizens that Europe takes account of their concerns. The first introduces an immediate change to existing non-binding guidelines, giving member states greater scope to take measures to prevent GMOs in neighbouring countries from contaminating conventional crops in their own territory.
The second would change EU law, but is subject to a process of “co-decision” with European governments and the European Parliament.
While the proposal is designed to release the commission from the crosshairs of disputing member states, it is already running into political resistance from governments who want to preserve the EU’s common policy on GM crops. France, for example, has argued against a renationalisation of the policy.
Mr Dalli, however, rejected claims that the EU executive wanted to retreat from its responsibilities. “This proposal does not mean that the commission walks away from its responsibilities. On the contrary and far from it.”
While biotech companies have warned that the proposals will create legal uncertainty and disrupt the European single market for agricultural goods, Mr Dalli said the changes were legally watertight and would not open the EU to challenge by the US at the World Trade Organisation.
Liberal Democrat leader in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt said the commission’s plan was “an abdication of responsibility” which “sets a dangerous precedent for finding common solutions to other cross-border issues”.
He went on: “Whatever one’s view on the benefits or risks associated with GMOs, the matter is one of common European interest and concern and, as such, requires a unified approach across all member states.”
The commission’s duty, he said, was to find solutions in the absence of national consensus on even difficult issues: “That is the whole point of the EU: what next? Do we give up on trying to agree a community patent or allow member states to set their own fishing quotas? This is a sad day for European integration.”
But Conservative MEP Julie Girling applauded the plan, saying: “This is a rare example of the European Commission handing the decision-making process back to the member states. This is as it should be.”
– (Additional reporting: Reuters)
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL
A perennial controversy in European politics, genetically modified (GM) crops include genetic material which been altered in way that does not occur naturally.
The practice is as divisive as it is complex, dismissed by critics as improper intrusion in the natural order of the world but hailed by its supporters as a scientifically sound means of making food production more efficient.
Through changes in their genetic make-up, GM crops can offer the advantage of resistance to insect damage and viral infection, as well as tolerance to certain herbicides. This offers clear commercial advantages in the food business.
To critics, however, gene technology threatens human health due to the risk of allergic reaction to modified food or the risk that gene transfer to human cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. The World Health Organisation says no allergic affects have been found in GM foods currently on the market, adding that the probability of gene transfer is low.
However, it says the risk of modified genes moving into conventional crops from GM crops is "real" and was shown in a case in which traces of a maize type approved only for feed use appeared in the US in products for human consumption.
Views vary in Europe on the soundness of GM foods. Britain is keen on expanding the sector, as are Spain and the Netherlands. But others strongly resist it. The top five global producers in terms of land under cultivation are the US, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada — with the EU in 14th place.
Despite the European Commission's approval of a GM maize product made by US group Monsanto, it was banned by Austria, Hungary, France, Greece, Germany and Luxembourg.
Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary have also objected to the cultivation of the genetically modified "Amflora" potato for its starch, which the Commission approved last March.
