EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/498

(2004/C 84 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: GM crops

On 2nd September 2003, in response to a request for the banning of GM crops in Upper Austria, Commissioner Wallström said ‘I have, of course, full respect for the concerns of the Austrian authorities for the protection of the environment and human health, and have no problem to recognise that co-existence is an important issue to be addressed. However, I would like to point out that these are common concerns, shared by many regions across Europe, for which it is possible to find a viable response within the existing legal framework.’

Would the Commission please tell us what it considers to constitute a ‘viable response’ for regions such as Upper Austria or the south-west of England, where organic farming is an important sector of agriculture?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to ensure co-existence between conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. This is reflected by the commitment of the Commission under Action 17 of its Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology — A strategy for Europe (1), to address co-existence.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the protection of human health and the environment, is and has always been taken into account as part of the risk assessment under the authorising legislation for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment was identified during this assessment then approval of that GMO would either not be granted or conditions included in the consent to address that risk.

Since only authorised GMOs can be cultivated in the Union, and the environmental and health aspects are covered by 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 (2), the pending issues still to be addressed in the context of co-existence concern the economic aspects (monetary losses) associated with the admixture of GM and non GM-crops.

A new article to address co-existence from this perspective will be introduced into Directive 2001/18/EC allowing Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. This article was adopted in the framework of negotiations during the second reading of the proposal (3) on GM food and feed.

However, Member States are not free to take any measure they want. The measures have to be consistent with Community legislation and the principles of the Common Market. Member States are, for instance, not allowed to contravene Article 22 a of Directive 2001/18/EC, which states that Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of authorised GMOs.

Furthermore, in July 2003, the Commission produced a Recommendation on guidelines for co-existence (4) in order to assist Member States in the development and implementation of appropriate measures. The ‘key word’ for the proposed co-existence measures is proportionality, which means that the measures must be proportionate with respect to the goal they are intended to achieve.

Consequently, the guidelines provide the necessary recommendations to address co-existence. In terms of economic risk, the guidelines provide the principles on which Member States and their regions can operate in terms of national measures and include an indicative list of management measures which, depending on local or regional factors, could be implemented. These measures include, for example, isolation distances between fields, buffer zones or pollen barriers, crop rotation and planting arrangements for different flowering periods, etc.

The Commission has no objection to voluntary local arrangements between farmers and between farmers and the industry to ensure the absence of GM crops. Co-existence is not a new issue in agriculture and farmers have ample experience with the implementation of farm management practices to ensure purity standards in seed production or to segregate agricultural production lines. Specific varieties of crops, which deliver ‘quality traits’ are grown for example under voluntary arrangements between adjacent farmers and contractual requirements.

This constitutes the ‘viable response’ to which the Member of the Commission responsible for Environment referred to on 2 September 2003.

(1) COM(2003) 96 final.

(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(3) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.

(4) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.