EU parliament environment committee has given its approval to draft regulations which would allow EU member states to restrict or prevent the cultivation of genetically modified crops on their territory.

image expired

However, the Parliamentary committee made a number of amendments, which would put member states in a better position to opt out of growing GM crops and recognise their unpopularity with EU citizens. Though they adopted the Council's position MEPs said their amendments were made with the intention of "Widening the powers of the Member States to justify legally a national or regional ban on GMO cultivation."

The proposals, which were first mooted in 2011, but dismissed under the Danish presidency of the EU in 2012, have proven deeply unpopular with environmentalists who claim they would be letting GM crops into the union "by the back door."

When member states' representatives on the EU environment council agreed to the measures in June, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said, "Environment ministers want to give member states the right to ban GMO cultivation on their land, but the text they agreed… does not deliver on what it promises. It would still leave those countries that want to say 'no' to GMOs  exposed to legal attacks of the biotech industry."

Corporate lobbying watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory said that the measures as they stood before the Council meeting in June had shifted "from a national ban proposal to an industry-friendly opt-out" since their first incarnation, proposed by the EU parliament in 2011.

Environment committee supports more power for member states

At the first reading before the EU Parliament Committee in late September, a number of changes were proposed to the text agreed by the Council. The environment committee pushed for tighter risk assessment criteria, taking into account:

• The long-term environmental effects of genetically modified crops
• Their potential effects on non-target organisms
• The characteristics of the receiving environments and the geographical areas in which genetically modified crops may be cultivated
• The potential environmental consequences brought about by changes in the use of herbicides (linked to herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops)

The committee also warned against reliance on the controversial concept of "substantial equivalence" in assessments of new GM crops. MEPs said changes to the EU licensing process, proposed in July by EU president-elect Jean-Claude Juncker, with the intention of ending long deadlocks over renewals and approvals for new crop types, should take into account the desires of EU public and their governments.

Juncker said in July, "I… intend to review the current legislation authorising the use of genetically modified organisms. I consider it unacceptable that, under current rules, the Commission is legally obliged to authorise the import and processing of new GMOs, even in cases where a clear majority of Member States are opposed to their use."

The environment committee added that the reformed decision-making process should "Confer at least as much weight to the opinions of democratically elected governments as to the views of the scientific community."

MEPs said the EU-wide approach to regulation may not "address all possible impacts of GMO cultivation in different regions and local ecosystems." They called for development of "co-existence" measures to ensure other sectors, such as honey production and organic farming are not affected where the crops are approved, and a system to ensure that border-regions between states with different policies are protected from potential cross-over by GM crops.

However, the Committee also said states wishing to opt-out of GM cultivation should be able to cite the expense or impracticability of introducing "co-existence" measures as an example of the untenable economic impacts of growing GM crops. Issues of co-existence between a GM-centred agriculture package and conventional or organic farming was brought to the fore in May, when the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that farmer Michael Baxter would not be held responsible for contamination of crops in a neighbouring field with GM plants, which cost neighbour Steve Marsh his organic certification.

Environment Committee MEPs said in their amendments that a "polluter pays" system of financial liability should be introduced to counter this risk to EU farmers.

A spokesperson for Greenpeace EU said the organisation will be commenting when the vote on the Committee's amendments goes ahead in November, but in the meantime Greenpeace has welcomed comments made by the incoming Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, who will also have purview over GM crops.

Following Andriukaitis' hearing in the European Parliament earlier this month, Greenpeace's agriculture spokesperson Marco Contiero said, "We welcome Andriukaitis' pledge to make EU decisions on GM crops more democratic and to review the authorisation system as requested this year by the European Parliament and 19 EU countries."

Contiero noted that the Commissioner-elect "Also repeated the Commission’s pledge not to sacrifice EU food safety and health standards on the altar of free trade...  but we will have to see how he intends to turn words into action."

The  Committee's ammendments can be read in full here