WRITTEN QUESTION P-2383/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: GM-contaminated seeds

In the EU seeds grown by traditional methods have been contaminated by unauthorised GM seeds (adventis rapeseed in at least five Member States). With seeds, contamination can quite clearly be excluded, and the option of a threshold level for accidental contamination must therefore be totally rejected.

1. What consequences will the Commission draw from this incident?

2. How does the Commission assess the different responses to this scandal in different Member States?

3. Can the Commission give an assurance that this unlawful growing of GM rape is not supported by EU funds?

4. Is there any truth in reports that unlawful growing is receiving EU subsidies?

5. Can the Commission give an assurance that no appropriations from the EU budget have been used for these unlawful plantings and products, and that if assistance is provided to farmers, the Commission and the Member States will hold the undertaking concerned liable for compensation?

6. How is the question of liability and insurance to be solved in the near future, bearing in mind that any legislation on the basis of the White Paper on environmental liability will take several more years to implement?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

The Commission is aware of recent interceptions of conventional seed varieties which were contaminated by unauthorised GM seeds. Since 1966, Community seed legislation has been designed to maximise seed purity,

bearing in mind the many sources of contamination to which production and processing operations are exposed from field to storage. Standards indicating impurity tolerances have been laid down in respect of analytical and varietal purity.

1. In preparing the White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission identified a need for specific seed purity provisions to take account of the presence of GM seeds in seed lots of traditional plant varieties. It therefore decided to introduce corresponding legislation under Action 77 of the programme presented in the Annex to the White Paper. This legislation is currently being prepared. Moreover, when informed of the aforesaid interceptions, the Commission launched a coordinated and harmonised interim action plan for the early detection of such contaminated seed lots. This plan is under discussion with the Member States. Unauthorised GM seeds are totally prohibited by existing Community law.

2. The interim action plan should ensure coordination and harmonisation of the measures which Member States could, or should, take under existing Community legislation to prevent further incidents.

3. The relevant cultivation regulations preclude Community support for unauthorised varieties of GM rapeseed. With a view to the production of high-quality rapeseed oil, only certain zero-zero rapeseed varieties qualify for area payments. These varieties are indicated on a regularly updated Commission list.

4. The national authorities of several Member States have ordered the destruction of crops obtained from the Hyola 401 seedling, even though this appears on the list of eligible varieties. Batches of this variety were found to be contaminated with very small quantities of unauthorised GM seeds. Rape producers were unaware of this fact at seed time.

5. To benefit from area payments, plantings should, in principle, be cultivated up to flowering. Thus, premature crop destruction unfairly deprives producers of part of their area payment income, even where they have met the requirement of the arable crops scheme defined by the 1992 reform and confirmed by Agenda 2000, namely to have sown before 31 May preceding the harvest in question and submitted an area payment application by 15 May at the latest. As a result, and with a view to protecting agricultural income, the Commission authorised the Member States to make normal area payments to producers obliged to destroy the implicated crops. This derogation from the flowering rule will not entail additional expenditure for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

On the other hand, producers who have suffered a loss of income owing to the inability to market their crops should seek compensation through the normal, particularly legal, commercial litigation channels.

6. The question of liability has already been settled as far as damage to health or property is concerned. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products(1), as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC(2), will cover damage caused by any movable product, including GM seeds. This Directive imposes strict liability on the producer, i.e. the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of any raw material or the manufacturer of a component part or importer of a defective product, as well as joint and several liability where more than one person is liable for the same damage.

As a follow-up to the White Paper on environmental liability(3), the Commission intends to prepare a framework directive which will deal with specific environmental damage caused by GMOs (contamination of sites and reduction of biodiversity).

(1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985.

(2) OJ L 141, 4.6.1999. This Directive, which extends the scope of the original Directive to primary agricultural products, entered into force on 4 June 1999 and provides for implementation by the Member States with effect from 4 December 2000.

(3) COM(2000) 66 final, 9.2.2000.