Resolution on genetically modified maize
Date: 1997-04-08
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: agricultural market, consumer protection, genetically modified organism, maize, market approval, public health













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0147 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0147

Resolution on genetically modified maize  


Official Journal C 132 , 28/04/1997 P. 0029 





B4-0147, 0148, 0149, 0151, 0152, 0153 and 0155/97Resolution on genetically modified maizeThe European Parliament,- having regard to Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.)),- having regard to the Commission's decision of 23 January 1997 ((OJ L 31, 1.2.1997, p. 69.)) to authorize the placing on the market of genetically modified maize notified by Ciba-Geigy in accordance with Council Directive 90/220/EEC,- having regard to the conclusions of the three Scientific Committees (the Scientific Committee on Food, the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition and the Scientific Committee for Pesticides) which have been consulted by the Commission on the issue,- having regard to its resolution of 14 November 1996 on biosafety and food security ((OJ C 362, 2.12.1996, p. 277.)),- having regard to European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.)),- having regard to the Commission statement of 7 April 1997,A. whereas the national competent authorities could not agree to approve the application by Ciba-Geigy; whereas the Commission took its decision despite the fact that a large majority of Member States (13 out of 15) oppose the placing on the market of this maize,B. whereas the minutes of the Commission discussions on 18 December 1996 disclose alarming evidence that economic and commercial pressures were put before considerations of public health and protection of the environment,C. whereas there is considerable concern among consumers as regards genetically modified products; whereas consumer confidence has already suffered due to the BSE crisis,D. whereas the abovementioned European Parliament and Council Regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients contains certain provisions about the labelling of genetically modified foodstuffs,E. whereas there still remain serious doubts about the safety of the genetically modified maize now authorized for placing on the market; noting the refusal by the Regulatory Committee set up by Directive 90/220/EEC to authorize the marketing of genetically modified maize and the conclusions of the Scientific Committee for Food on the risks of transmission to man of a tracer gene resistant to antibiotics,F. whereas there is further scientific evidence which does not appear to have been taken into account by the Commission and its advisers,G. whereas no detailed studies have yet been carried out into the long-term effects of genetic manipulations,H. whereas imports of transgenic maize place European producers in an extremely disadvantageous competitive position and force them to use seed based on genetically modified organisms,I. whereas large-scale use of the Bt toxin raises environmental concerns,J. whereas the resistance of the maize to pesticides may have the long-term effect of increasing use of those same pesticides,1. Reiterates its position that food safety, and thus the health of consumers, must be paramount to all decisions regarding the placing on the market of foodstuffs; considers that transparency for consumers must be guaranteed;2. Regrets that trade considerations have obviously dominated the decision-making process so far; strongly requests that food safety and health considerations should have priority in the future;3. Regrets, further, the fact that the current rules of the World Trade Organization oblige importing countries to prove that a product is harmful, rather than requiring the exporter to demonstrate that it is safe, thereby showing that commercial considerations take precedence in decision-making;4. Calls on the Commission to publish the complete findings of the three scientific committees which guided its decision and the names of the experts consulted;5. Condemns the lack of responsibility of the Commission in unilaterally taking a decision to authorize the marketing of genetically modified maize in spite of the negative positions of most Member States and the European Parliament and before the entry into force of the European Parliament and Council Regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients;6. Notes that certain Member States of the European Union such as Austria and Luxembourg have taken measures to prohibit the placing on the market of genetically modified maize by applying Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC and that the notifications forwarded by these countries contain new scientific evidence which will justify their decision and which will be examined thoroughly by the Commission and its appropriate committees;7. Deplores particularly the fact that the Commission did not take sufficient account of the precautionary principle with regard to the health of consumers, the protection of the environment and the concerns of producers; deplores also the lack of clear and precise information on the reasons why the Commission took a decision which has such implications for each and every EU citizen;8. Demands therefore that the authorization procedure be reopened and the authorization suspended until the reassessment has been completed;9. Questions the validity of the cooperation and consultation procedures at inter- departmental level within the Commission;10. Demands that the procedures to authorize the marketing of genetically modified products be revised so that they correctly reflect the democratically expressed opinions of the Member States and the European Parliament;11. Is of the opinion that the way this genetically modified maize has been examined and authorized proves once again that the existing comitology procedures need to be reexamined and confirms its position that this should be done in the context of the IGC; invites Member States to draw the appropriate conclusions regarding the necessary revison of the comitology system;12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.