WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Contamination of non-GM crops by GMOs.
Date: 2002-01-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: crop production, environmental impact, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, plant propagation, seed, transgenic plant

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/69

(2002/C 205 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0086/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Contamination of non-GM crops by GMOs

Is the Commission aware of the findings of a study, reported in the ‘New Scientist’ of 24 November
1.
2001, which shows that contamination from genetically modified oilseed rape is now so widespread that it
has become difficult to grow crops which can be guaranteed GM-free?

The study, conducted by the Canadian Federal Government’s Saskatoon Research Center, was
2.
conducted over six years. Does the Commission agree with the Center’s conclusion that it ‘provides
valuable lessons for other parts of the world, such as Europe, that don’t yet allow commercial production’?

Does the Commission agree with the Center’s suggestion, on the basis of its findings that oilseed rape
3.
pollen can travel up to 800 metres, that ‘some crops may have to be kept far apart or even grown in
separate, designated zones’?

Does the Commission believe that a modification of Directive 2001/18 (1) may be necessary in order

4.
to accommodate these new findings?

Does the Commission further accept that the de facto moratorium should remain in place until such

5.
a modification is agreed and implemented?

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the study reported in the ‘New Scientist’ of 24 November 2001 concerning
the spread of pollen and seed of genetically modified oilseed rape that is currently taking place in Canada.

Genetically modified rapeseeds have been approved for breeding activities and import in the Community
under Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (1). The authorisations granted under this Directive continues to
remain in force after 17 October 2002 when the new Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs has to be transposed
into national legislation.

As provisions concerning potential effects resulting from gene transfer are already an integral part of
Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission finds that a possible amendment of this Directive to address these
‘new findings’ would not be appropriate.

The overall objective of Directive 2001/18/EC is to protect human health and the environment, following
the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. As part of this objective, Member States and where
appropriate the Commission shall ensure that potential adverse effects on human health and the
environment, which may occur directly or indirectly through gene transfer from GMOs to other
organisms, are accurately assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In this context, the principles for risk assessment under the Directive include the potential for gene transfer
to the same or other sexually compatible plant species under conditions of planting the GMO and any
selective advantage or disadvantage conferred to those plant species.

C 205 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Furthermore, information required in the risk assessment includes appraisal of the ways and extent of
dissemination (e.g. an estimation of how viable pollen and/or seeds declines with distance) and any specific
factors affecting dissemination, if any. The presence of sexually compatible wild relatives or cultivated plant
species and proximity to officially recognised biotopes or protected areas that may be affected must also be
considered.

In terms of information on control and monitoring, details should be provided for any precautions taken
in terms of distance(s) from sexually compatible plant species, both wild relatives and crops as well as any
measures to minimise/prevent dispersal of any reproductive organ of the genetically modified higher plants
(e.g. pollen, seeds, tuber).

Against the background of the risk assessment, GMOs are only authorised for the placing on the market
when there is no reason to believe that there is an adverse effect on human health or the environment
under the conditions of consent.

In the case of seed crops, minimum distances from undesirable neighbouring pollen sources have been
established in the seed legislation in the case of cross-pollinated plants. These distances vary according to
the species, the kind of variety and of the category of seeds. The Scientific Committee on Plants has stated
in its opinion of 7 March 2001 on the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds (2), that
one of the measures to achieve a 0,3 % threshold for adventitious GM presence in the case of non GM
hybrids of oilseed rape would be to increase the current isolation distance up to 3000 meters.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/out93_gmo_en.pdf.

(2002/C 205 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0094/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council

(22 January 2002)

Subject: European Schools

Parents’ participation in the governance of schools is becoming more prevalent in EU Member States. This
is a welcome development and is in the interests of pupils, families, teachers, the well-being of schools and
the strength of the various communities. The exception appears to be the European Schools in Belgium,
Luxembourg,
to participate in the
governance of the schools attended by their children. In view of the fact that all of the Member States are
represented by national civil servants in the governing bodies of the European Schools, what arrangements
are they prepared to undertake in order to ensure that, in the interests of democratic participation and
inclusivity, there is appropriate parents’ representation on those governing bodies?

Italy, Spain and elsewhere since parents have little or no right

The European Schools are C quite rightly C funded through budgets financed by Member States and are
therefore of direct relevance to the European Parliament. Does the Council consider that the current
arrangements allow for levels of staffing by qualified teachers and teachers’ assistants that are equivalent to
levels that are normal in the Member States of the EU at primary and secondary schools in the public
sector?

Is the Council aware that the representatives which Member States appoint to the governing bodies of the
European Schools are characteristically civil servants who do not live in the countries where the schools
are located, do not have children in the schools, and do not have any clear collective responsibility for
accounting for their decisions to any plainly defined body or group? The officials concerned may have
expertise and experience in their own countries and they are likely to be well motivated. But by what
means do Member States ensure that their representatives on the governing bodies of the European
Schools are properly acquainted with the daily and strategic teaching and resource needs and with the
levels of provision and performance of the schools?