MEPs yesterday voted to allow member states to set their own restrictions on the planting of transgenic (GM) crops. Officials say a vote, passed yesterday in the European Parliament, will give member states more flexibility over whether to ban or restrict genetically modified (GM) crops in their territories.

Member states can now include environmental and ‘public interest’ grounds, such as socio-economic impact, as well as other scientific reasons for banning or restricting the cultivation of GM crops. The MEPs also called for firmer legal assurances that "the polluter pays for unintended effects or damage that might occur due to the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs."

The draft amendment, which was voted through in the Strasbourg plenary, will now go before the European council. Discussions over GM within the council have been described as “deadlocked.” Mute Schimpf, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth, described the outcome as, “A clear signal from MEPs that they are on the side of the majority of European citizens who oppose GM crops.” Schimpf added, “it is now up to the European commission and governments to make sure safeguards against GM crops are upheld."

Currently MON 810 maize is the only GM crop grown commercially in the EU, although it is banned in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg. The European Parliament said allowing countries to justify banning GM on environmental grounds, such as threats to biodiversity and the creation of superweeds, would make such restrictions more likely to survive legal challenges.

The European Association for Bioindustries described yesterday’s outcome as “disappointing.” Carel du Marchie Sarvaas , Europabio’s director, said, "If member states can opt out of a product approval system simply because of political preference, without any scientific reasoning, the result will be more uncertainty and less choice for farmers."

Proponents of GM believe states should not be allowed to ban the crops for “non-scientific” reasons. They claim that, if the vote becomes law, Member States may disregard scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority in their decisions over whether to allow the crops to be cultivated.

The NFU has reacted strongly to the news. Dr Helen Ferrier, NFU chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, said the MEP report contained a variety of measures that would not only threaten the single market but also seriously hinder progress towards sustainable agriculture in the EU. She said, “We are disappointed that MEPs have decided to act according to emotive and political agendas rather than robust scientific evidence. This stance could discourage scientific research and investment in the EU which are crucial for sustainable agriculture. This is not the way to mend a dysfunctional regulatory process.”

However, Stefanie Hundsdorfer, Greenpeace EU Agriculture Policy Advisor, warned that national bans, while welcome, are no substitute for thorough safety testing of genetically modified organisms at European level. She explained, "We and a growing majority of the public remain seriously concerned about unanswered health and environmental questions around GM crops. Ecological farming is the correct response to the challenges of food security, climate change and long term productivity.”