Resolution on the report from the Commission on the review of Directive 90/220/EEC in the context of the Commission's communication on biotechnology and the White Paper (COM(96) 0630 C4-0008/97)
Date: 1997-07-15
Institutions: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, biotechnology, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, health risk, labelling, marketing, product safety













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0239 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0239

Resolution on the report from the Commission on the review of Directive 90/220/EEC in the context of the Commission's communication on biotechnology and the White Paper (COM(96) 0630 C4-0008/97)  


Official Journal C 286 , 22/09/1997 P. 0049 





A4-0239/97Resolution on the report from the Commission on the review of Directive 90/220/EEC in the context of the Commission's communication on biotechnology and the White Paper (COM(96)0630 - C4-0008/97)The European Parliament,- having regard to Article 100a of the EC Treaty,- having regard to the Commission report, COM(96)0630 - C4-0008/97,- having regard to its previous resolutions on transgenetic products,- having regard to the Novel Food Regulation 258/97/EC on novel foods and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 1.)),- having regard to the ongoing review of the Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified organisms,- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy (A4-0239/97),A. whereas the Commission is correct to identify the precautionary principle as the basis on which the approved process is constructed and whereas a risk- benefit analysis can only be seen as a tool in the approval process,B. whereas some definitions within the existing Directive require re-examination in order to establish clearly the circumstances under which products fall within the scope of the Directive,C. whereas with the accumulated knowledge and experience it is now possible and necessary to establish a centralised definition of the objectives and methodology of the most accurate possible risk assessment,D. whereas the Commission must give a convincing argument for the possibility of multi-state releases being allowed in a new directive,1. Considers that a new provision should be introduced into the Directive which utilises experience gained to establish a classification commensurate with the identified risks involved for each release of genetically modified organisms;2. Considers that the guidelines for the methodology of risk assessment must be clear so that the risk may be classified as accurately as possible, and that all the potential risks, both to human health and the total environment, must be considered;3. Calls for the procedures for granting authorization for releases into the environment to be fully commensurate with the category of risk in order to minimize the risk to the environment and human health;4. Is of the view that further experience and confidence must be gained with the use of the simplified procedure provided for in the present Directive before any possibility can be considered of reducing its requirements;5. Believes that 'strengthened provisions' (including the establishment of a database) by the Commission are necessary to ensure the exchange of information between Member States and that this is a pre-requisite to any new directive;6. Considers that, where the transfer of one or more genes also transfers resistance to antibiotics, the possibility of transferring resistance to micro- organisms in particular must be assessed;7. Urges the Commission to ensure that there is an obligation to gather data/information during experimental releases that will enable the proper evaluation of the risks of full-scale commercial release;8. Believes that the internal Commission decision-making procedures should be examined with a view to making them speedier, more transparent and more democratically accountable and that the scientific committee proposed by the Commission to monitor releases shall normally meet in public and that its agendas and minutes shall normally be published;9. Proposes in the context of transparency and public consultation that the existing provisions be strengthened for example by publicly accessible databases or registers and that European citizens should have the right to be consulted;10. Suggests that the present Technical Committee procedures should be reviewed with the intention to bring them in line with the provisions of the agreement known as the 'Modus Vivendi';11. Calls on the Commission to examine ways in which an ethical, economic and social dimension can be introduced into the decision-making procedures associated with this Directive;12. Believes that there must be labelling provisions for all products containing genetically modified organisms placed on the market under the provisions of this Directive;13. Calls on the Commission to incorporate special liability provisions into its release Directive;14. For releases under Part B of the Directive, recommends that the Commission develops common guidelines for site security measures where the accidental escape of a GMO would have the potential to cause damage or nuisance to people or to neighbouring property;15. Considers that this resolution can only reflect an initial exchange of views on the possibility of the review of Directive 90/220/EEC and calls upon the Commission to present to it proposals for revisions to the Directive as soon as possible;16. Takes the view that the release or placing on the market of a GMO must always comply with the principle of having no harmful effect on health and environment;17. Regrets the fact that the Commission's report reviews only the administrative experience and does not refer to specifically environmental aspects;18. Takes the view that authorizations to place GMOs on the market should be for a limited period of time and that holders of authorizations should be required to draw up a report on their experience of introducing a GMO on to the market;19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.