Strasbourg, France
December 18, 2003
from
European Parliament
GMOs and conventional crops: the battle over "coexistence"
Friedrich-
Wilhelm GRAEFE zu BARINGDORF (Greens/EFA, D)
Report on coexistence between genetically modified crops and
conventional and organic crops
2003/2098(INI))
Doc.:
A5-0465/2003
Procedure : Own-initiative
Vote : 18.12.2003 (Rule 110a)
Vote
MEPs
focussed on the difficulties of separating genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) from conventional organisms in food and animal
feed, when they adopted a highly contested own-initiative report
by Friedrich-Wilhelm GRAEFE zu BARINGDORF (Greens/EFA, D). In
general terms, MEPs are demanding stricter and more effective
protection for organic and conventional farmers against
accidental contamination of their crops and seeds. They
highlight the need for EU common regulations on coexistence
(instead of leaving the issue under subsidiarity rules, as the
Commission suggested recently) and argue that GMO producers
should have some kind of civil liability for any contamination
of organic and conventional products.
The House
calls "for rules to be established without delay at Community
level on the coexistence of genetically modified crops and
non-genetically modified crops". MEPs also ask for the
European Parliament to be included in this process under the
codecision procedure. The resolution adds that Member States
should have the free choice to restrict GMO cultivation in
certain geographical areas if they wish.
GMOs in
seed production
A new EU directive of June 2003 introduced a tolerance level of
0.9% of accidental GMOs in conventional crops. Should this
threshold be exceeded, the producer will have to indicate it on
the product label. MEPs support this measure but also share one
of the main concerns among farmers: the potential presence of
minute traces of GMOs in conventional seeds, which makes it
practically impossible today to achieve 100% non-genetically
modified crops. The European Commission has recently drafted
guidelines suggesting a tolerance level for the adventitious
presence of GMOs in seeds (between 0.3% and 0.7%, depending on
the type of seed). In the text adopted, MEPs say that a limit
value for the labelling of GMO impurities in seed should be set
and they "call on the Commission to stipulate the labelling
of GMOs in seed at the technically reliable detection threshold".
Civil
liability
MEPs also urge the Commission to bring forward "a proposal on
Community-wide civil liability and insurance in respect of
possible financial damage in connection with coexistence".
Another recommendation adopted by the House "calls on the
Commission and the Member States to include workable and legally
enforceable civil liability provisions for sufficient insurance
cover on the part of the applicant as a component of the
authorisation procedure for placing GMOs on the market, so that
claims by persons affected can be dealt with adequately and
quickly in the event of damage".
European Parliament wants
strict EU-wide rules for co-existence
From
EurActiv via
Checkbiotech.org
In short:
MEPs have adopted an own-initiative report
on the co-existence of GM and conventional crops, calling for
stricter rules and lower thresholds to control and limit the
accidental contamination of crops.
Background:
The EU Directive on genetically modified food and feed from July
2003 stipulates that any products containing more than 0.9 per
cent GMOs have to be labelled (see
EurActiv, 23 July 2003).
To ensure this threshold can be complied with, additional rules
are necessary concerning the purity and labelling of the seeds
that food products are derived from.
As it is
today practically impossible for farmers to achieve 100 per cent
non-genetically modified products, the Commission recently
published guidelines suggesting a tolerance level of 0.3 and 0.7
per cent of the adventitious [accidental] or technically
unavoidable presence of GMOs in crops, depending on the variety.
However, according to the Commission, the responsibility for
setting conditions for the co-existence of crops should lie with
the individual Member States (see
EurActiv, 24 July 2003).
The
Parliament's Agriculture Committee on 2 December adopted an
own-initiative report on this issue to evaluate whether the
Commission's approach is realistic and practicable, especially
in light of next year's EU enlargement. The report, drafted by
Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Greens, Germany)
addresses issues such as civil liability, cost sharing and the
practical implementation of the co-existence rules.
Issues:
The Parliament's own-initiative report was adopted in the
plenary session on 18 December. It demands a more effective and
stricter protection for organic and conventional farmers against
the accidental contamination of their products.
Opposing
the Commission's approach to leave the final decision up to the
Member States, MEPs think that there is an urgent need for
EU-wide regulations on co-existence. Moreover, the report says
that GMO producers should have civil liability for any
cross-contamination of non-GMO products. Member States wishing
to restrict GMO cultivation in certain geographical areas should
have the right to do so.
The EP also
considered that the thresholds of 0.3 and 0.7 per cent for the
'adventitious' [accidental] presence of GMOs in seeds was set
too high, saying that a limit value for the labelling of GM
impurities in seeds should be set "at the technically measurable
and reliable detection threshold".
Positions:
During a hearing at the European Parliament on 11 September
2003, several experts
from national agriculture institutes agreed with the
Commission's stance that the Member States should set their own
thresholds. They argued that this was necessary because the risk
of contamination depended on various local factors, such as
climate, type of crops and machinery used (see
EurActiv 16 October 2003).
In its
debate on 29 September, the
Agriculture Council
revealed the wide range of attitudes on co-existence in the
various Member States. Opinions ranged from Austria's call for a
solid EU-wide framework on co-existence to a more liberal French
and British position demanding maximum flexibility. The most
controversial issues in this debate included GMO thresholds in
organic produce, civil responsibility, thresholds for GMO in
seeds and the possibility of setting up GM-free zones.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe and the European
Environmental Bureau have condemned the
Commission's recommendations, criticising its advice to allow
genetic contamination of organic products by applying the same
labelling threshold to conventional and organic farming.
However, environmental pressure groups welcomed the Commission's
recommendation that measures of a regional dimension could be
considered to prevent GM contamination, as they felt this would
open the door to regional bans of GM crops.
EuroCommerce,
the European trade representation of the Retail, Wholesale and
International Trade has also attacked the draft directive,
stating that it would lead to growing GMO contamination of the
whole food and animal feed supply chain and reduce the
consumers' freedom of choice between GM and non-GM food.
EuropaBio,
representing the biotech industry, has welcomed the Commission's
initiative, saying that the guidelines would help widen the
choice of farmers, processors and consumers. However, the
industry maintains that no special legislation for civil
liability is needed, as existing national laws provide
sufficient possibilities to seek compensation for economic loss.
Next
steps:
The Council is currently awaiting a new proposal by the
Commission after the executive had decided to change the legal
basis for the proposal (see
EurActiv 24 October 2003).
The Council will then take up the debate again in 2004.
Links:
Official
documents:
EU
Actors'
positions:
EuropaBio:
Commission U-turns on Seeds
Directive (24 October 2003) |
