EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/797

(2004/C 78 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Impact of genetically modified crops on nature

Week 42 saw articles published e.g. in The Financial Times and on the BBC's website about the sensational findings of an investigation into how far genetically modified crops impact on nature. The investigation was based on trials in England and documents that fields with GM crops in many cases destroy natural conditions to an even greater extent than conventional farming. It showed, for example, that there were fewer birds, butterflies and bees in the vicinity of fields containing GM crops when compared with fields containing conventional crops.

This being so, will the Commission explain how these frightening findings affect EU policy with particular reference to authorisation of GM products? Does it intend, in the light of these findings, to carry out new studies into GM production and its adverse impact on nature and does it believe that the rules for co-existence between GM crops and non-GM crops ought to be reviewed in the light of these findings? Lastly, will it indicate how GM producers are to be made financially liable for the negative changes they are imposing on nature?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

On 16 October 2003, eight reports on extensive crop trials carried out in the United Kingdom over the last three years, known as the Farm Scale Evaluations (hereafter FSE) research, were published. This work investigated the impact of the cultivation of three genetically modified (GM) Herbicide Tolerant Crops (hereafter HTC) (maize, spring-sown oilseed rape and beet) on the abundance and diversity of some key components of farmland wildlife in comparison with their conventional non-herbicide tolerant equivalents. During three years treatments have been made to several fields, one half having been sown with conventional seeds and the other half with GM seeds of the same crop. Both field halves have been managed by farmers as they would do under commercial agricultural practices.

As a main result, the FSE indicate that the effects from using HTC on the field biodiversity varied between crops. HT-maize was more positive to the field biodiversity than a conventional crop while HT-oilseed rape and HT-beet were more negative than conventional crops.

The United Kingdom trials were classified as experimental treatment releases. Such releases are now regulated under Part Β of Directive 2001/18^ (1) (previously Part Β of Directive 90/220/EEC (2), which was replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC on 17 October 2002). The authorisation of these releases involves a ‘decentralised’ procedure. This requires that the Member State in which the release is to take place has to conduct an environmental risk assessment prior to approval of the release. This Member State has sole responsibility for such releases, including appropriate management and inspection/control measures. Results of experimental releases of GMOs should be included in notifications for the placing on the market of the same GMOs.

Taking the above into account it is, therefore, important to consider the ACRE (the British Government's statutory advisory body on the release of GMOs) opinion of the implications of the results for any existing or pending or future releases of GM crops.

It should also be kept in mind that the FSE results are only applicable to the three crops studied and under the herbicides regimes applied. Potential extrapolation of the results to other types of GM crops would need further examination.

As stated in the report: ‘there is no evidence that adverse effects on biodiversity have arisen from the cultivation of a crop which has been modified through modern biotechnology.’ The different impact between the conventional half-field and the transgenic half-field could be explained by the change in herbicides regimes used on HTC and conventional crops.

Each GMO, before being released into the environment for research or commercial purposes, has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That means that each GMO is assessed in a specific way depending on the parental crop (maize or oilseed rape, etc.) and its biological characteristics (self-pollinating/cross-pollinating crop, insect-/wind pollinating crop, annual/biennial crop, etc.), on the newly inserted GM trait (herbicide tolerance, insect tolerance, etc.) as well as on the receptor environment.

In the case where new scientific data, with regard to the risks of the GMO(s) to human health or the environment, become available after consent has been granted, the notifier shall immediately take the measures necessary to protect human health and the environment, and inform the competent authority thereof in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2001/18/EC.

These FSE reports do not provide relevant information for the management of co-existence. However, three further studies on gene flow from GM crops to non-GM crops have been published by the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (3). The studies were based on modelling and field experiments. Their results are important to judge the efficiency of farm-scale management measures to limit admixture of GMOs in other crops. In this respect these studies could be of interest in the discussion on co-existence.

The Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003, on the guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (4) addresses the question of responsibility for implementing the farm management measures necessary to limit the gene flow. As a general principle, during the phase of introducing a new type of crop in a region, this responsibility should be born by farmers who introduce the new production type. As regards liability in the case of economic damage resulting from admixture of GMOs to other crops the Commission recommends that Member States should examine their civil liability laws to find out whether the existing national laws offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard.

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2) Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(3) DEFRA press release: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031013b.htm

(4) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.