Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending directive 2001/18/EC (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2002-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal nutrition, consumer protection, environmental protection, foodstuff, genetically modified organism, human nutrition, labelling, marketing, traceability

C 331 E/308

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning
traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed
products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (1)

(2002/C 331 E/48)

COM(2002) 515 final — 2001/0180(COD)

(Submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty on 13 September 2002)

1. Background

to the Council and the European Parliament
Transmission of
(COM(2001) 182 final — 2001/0180(COD)) in accordance with Article 95(1)
of the Treaty

the Proposal

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions

Opinion of the European Parliament — first reading

2. Objective of the Commission Proposal

20 August 2001

21 March 2002

16 May 2002

3 July 2002

The Proposal
lays down a Community framework for traceability and labelling of GMOs, as well as
traceability of food and feed products produced from GMOs, at all stages of their placing on the market.

3. Commission opinion on the amendments adopted by the Parliament

3.1. Amendments accepted by the Commission

Amendments 11 and 13 concern the definitions for ‘food’ and ‘pre-packaged’ and provide helpful clari-
fication.

3.2. Amendments accepted in part or principle by the Commission

Amendment 9 refers to Article 3(1) of the Proposal and exempts certain organisms from the definition of
‘GMO’ as per the exemption under Article 3(1) Directive 2001/18/EC. This is achieved via inclusion of
‘with the exemption of certain organisms yielded by the techniques of genetic modification listed in Annex
1B of Directive 2001/18/EC’. This is a helpful clarification and acceptable in principle provided the precise
wording of the Directive is used ‘excluding organisms obtained through the techniques of genetic modi-
fication listed in Annex IB of Directive 2001/18/EC’.

Amendment 10 refers to the definition of ‘operator’ under Article 3(5) of the Proposal and clarifies that a
person handling products placed on the market in the Community could be ‘either from a Member State of
the EU or from a third country’. The Commission considers that this additional wording is implicit in the
original text but can accept the amendment in principle. Whilst the wording ‘either from a Member State
of the EU or from a third country’ can be included in the definition, it should be noted that Community
requirements cannot be extended beyond the borders of the EU.

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001, p. 327.

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/309

Amendment 12 refers to the definition of ‘placing on the market’ under Article 3(13) of the Proposal and
in part, ensures further consistency with Directive 2001/18/EC. The amendment can be accepted provided
that the full wording, rather than only a part, of the definition under the Directive is included. On this
basis, the definition should read ‘placing on the market’ means placing on the market as defined under
Article 2(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC. This removes the need for the full text of the definition.

Amendment 14, in terms of labelling under Article 4(1) of the Proposal, retains the wording provision of
Directive 2001/18/EC for products containing GMOs but provides for an alternative in that the name of
the crop or GMO can be included on the label. This does not detract in substance from the requirement of
Directive 2001/18/EC but consistency should be ensured with other Community legislation, including the
Proposal on GM food and feed. The Commission can accept this amendment in principle on the basis that
it is without prejudice to other specific requirements in Community legislation. To increase clarity in the
context of accepting this amendment, the wording of Article 4(5) is re-worded as follows. Paragraphs 1 to
4 are without prejudice to other specific labelling and traceability requirements in Community legislation.

Amendment 24 provides that operators who receive pre-packaged products have to retain the information
specified in Articles 4(2) and (3) and 5(1). However, the obligation to retain this information is already
provided for in Article 4(2) and (3) and 5(1) and is therefore already accepted by the Commission. The
Commission can accept to clarify the exemption proposed in Article 6(1), which aims to ease the adminis-
trative burdens of operators by adding the following wording. ‘This paragraph does not apply to the first
stage of the placing on the market of a product or to primary manufacture or repackaging of a product.’
This takes into account the first part of amendment 24.

Amendment 29 adds additional wording to the standard wording for inspection and control measures
under Article 9(1) of the Proposal. This is acceptable, in part, provided that the wording of the amendment
‘and risk assessment on the basis of sample checks and testing (quantitative and qualitative)’ is replaced by
‘including sample checks and testing’. Inspection and control constitute risk management measure, which
should not be confused with risk assessment.

Amendment 30 refers to Article 9(2) of the Proposal and the involvement of Member States in the
development of guidance. This is acceptable in part provided that the wording of the amendment ‘in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10’ is replaced by ‘in close co-operation with Member
States’.

Amendment 31 introduces a new paragraph in Article 9 concerning further measures (registers) to be
developed for the purpose of inspection and control. The establishment of registers to contain sequence
information and reference material for GMOs is already provided for under Article 31(2) of Directive
2001/18/EC and Article 30 of the GM food and feed Proposal. It is not, therefore, necessary to include an
Article to establish such a register(s) in this Proposal. This amendment can, however, be accepted in
principle provided that its contents are transferred to recital 7 and are subject to the following re-wording.
‘Account should be taken of the register(s) containing information on genetic modifications in GMOs to be
established by the Commission in accordance with Article 31(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC.’

Amendment 35 refers to the need to ensure that consumers receive reliable information and in this
context, introduces a new recital 1a. The content of the amendment is acceptable,
in principle, given
that the availability of information to the public is in line with one of the objectives of this Proposal and
can include part of the text in Recital 4 as follows; Traceability requirements for food and feed produced
from GMOs should be established to facilitate accurate labelling of such products, in accordance with the
requirements of Regulation (EC) No . . ./2002 [on genetically modified food and feed], so as to ensure that
accurate information is available to operators and consumers to enable them to exercise their freedom of
choice in an effective manner as well as control and verification of labelling claims. Requirements for food
and feed produced from GMOs should be similar in order to avoid discontinuity of information in cases of
change in end use.

C 331 E/310

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

Amendment 47 introduces a new paragraph in Article 9(2)(a) of the Proposal and refers to consultation of
relevant bodies during the development of technical guidance. This is acceptable in part on the proviso
that the wording ‘take account’ is not construed as legally binding and that it is not precluded that the
Commission takes account of work in other relevant groups. This would, as a matter of course, include
Member States and discussions with their national competent authorities. The following wording is,
therefore acceptable. ‘In developing the above technical guidance, the Commission shall take account of
the work of national competent authorities, the committee referred to in Article 58(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002 and the Community Reference Laboratory laid down pursuant
to Regulation (EC)
No . . ./2002 [on genetically modified food and feed].’

3.3. Amendments not accepted by the Commission

Amendments 2 and 6 make reference to the precautionary principle in the context of this Proposal, which
cannot be accepted. The precautionary principle relates to the risk analysis of products and is accounted
for as part of the approval process under the authorising legislation (Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation
(EC) No 178/2002). Any safety measures to protect human health and the environment arise directly from
this authorising legislation. Traceability is not a ‘safety measure’ per se but can be used to ‘facilitate’ the
application of other measures, such as product withdrawals and monitoring, as a means to ensure safety.
The precautionary principle cannot, therefore, be taken into account when implementing traceability
requirements.

Amendment 16 is not acceptable as it removes the derogation concerning traceability requirements for
products intended for direct use as food, feed or processing. The derogation allows operators to state that
these products are intended for direct use as food, feed or processing and provide the unique codes of the
GMOs that the product ‘may contain’. The Commission believes that this derogation is essential for an
operational traceability system for such products. Imposing further requirements for these products would
be very difficult and burdensome for operators to implement. Whilst the identity (unique codes) of specific
GMOs to be released into the environment for cultivation is essential given that they are capable of
establishing and reproducing, this is not the case for GMOs intended for food, feed or processing,
where any potential environmental risk is extremely limited. The Biosafety Protocol, similarly, does not
include a requirement for full listing of GMOs intended for food, feed, or processing in bulk consignments
for trans-boundary movement.

Amendments 17 and 22 extend the period for retention of information by operators from 5 to 10 years
and cannot be accepted. Even if traceability were possible after 5 years, the benefits of this information
would be minimal with no practical value. Extension of the time limit would also place an unnecessary
burden both on operators and inspection authorities.

labelling requirements for pre-packaged products produced from
Amendment 20 includes additional
GMOs under a new Article 5(1)(a) and cannot be accepted. Article 5(1) already requires that
this
information is transmitted to the next operator in the chain and it is not necessary to impose labelling
with the same information to meet the objectives of the Proposal.

Amendment 21 requires that the GMOs from which food and feed products are derived have to be
their unique codes and this cannot be accepted. The main
precisely identified with provision of
objective of the Proposal as regards products produced from GMOs is to ensure accurate labelling
(recital No 4).
individual GMOs,
through a traceability system including the unique codes to provide for comprehensive labelling. For
the purpose of providing appropriate information to the purchaser or consumer it is sufficient that the
label documents that the product is produced from GMOs.

It is not necessary to establish the detailed history and origin of

31.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331 E/311

Amendment 27 refers to measures for co-existence and segregation, which cannot be accepted given that
the objective of
to avoid adventitious or technically
unavoidable presence of GM material in food. The Commission has put forward an action concerning
the issue of co-existence between different types of crops, including GM crops in the Communication on
life sciences and biotechnology adopted in January 2002.

this Regulation is to trace products and not

The Commission cannot accept amendment 28, which requires that the traceability provisions under
Article 4(6) of Directive 2001/18/EC would remain in place rather than repealed when the Proposal
enters into force. This would mean that national measures for traceability could proceed alongside the
Community system for traceability under this Proposal, creating possible disruption of the internal market.
Recital 2 specifically refers to the fact that a harmonised Community framework for traceability and
labelling of GMOs should contribute to the effective functioning of
the internal market and that
Directive 2001/18/EC should be amended accordingly. The Commission cannot accept amendment 51
removing the wording ‘and amending Directive 2001/18/EC’ from the title in order to maintain the legal
consistency of the Proposal.

Amendments 32 and 33 mean that no new products could be authorised prior to the entry into force of
the system to assign unique codes under the Proposal and are not acceptable. The authorising legislation
for new products provides for a comprehensive pre-market risk assessment. Products are only granted
authorisation on the basis that they will not present a risk to human health or the environment. The
requirement to assign unique codes to GMOs under this Proposal does not impinge on the approval
procedure under the authorising legislation. The Commission is firmly against extending the conditions of
authorisation to include formal adoption of the provisions of this Proposal.

Amendment 39, which removes part of the wording for the definition of ‘produced from GMOs’ is not
acceptable. The Commission considers that the definition of ‘produced from GMOs’ needs to be the same
in the GM food and feed proposal and in this proposal. Furthermore, the wording ‘but not containing
GMOs’ is already enshrined in the Novel Foods Regulation (EC) No 258/97, which has been in force for
more than 5 years.

Amendment 48, which shifts assistance for the development of unique codes from the committee under
Directive 2001/18/EC to that under Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, cannot be accepted. The Proposal
requires that unique codes shall be assigned to all GMOs, including seeds for cultivation, and not merely
those intended for food, feed and processing. The Commission considers that the committee under the
‘horizontal’ Directive 2001/18/EC, which contains the foundations for environmental risk assessment, is
most appropriate for this purpose.

Amendment 50 introduces the word ‘standardised’ with regard to procedures for transmitting and retaining
information to ensure traceability and is not acceptable. The Proposal specifically does not require stan-
dardised procedures to be used as a means to accommodate use of existing systems, where appropriate.
Operators must be in a position to identify to whom and from whom products have been made available.
The Commission considers that this does not hinge on use of standardised procedures.

Amendments 26, 52 and 55 either remove or restrict the possibility to establish thresholds to address the
issue of adventitious presence and are not acceptable.

More than 50 million hectares of GM crops are grown in the world and adventitious or technically
traces GMOs or GM materials in conventional products is inevitable and
unavoidable presence of
that a threshold should
largely unavoidable. The Commission therefore agrees with the Parliament
apply to traces of authorised GMOs and GM materials below which such products do not have to be
labelled or traced. The possibility of establishing labelling thresholds for such traces of GMOs is already
provided for in Directive 2001/18/EC and under the Novel Foods Regulation. It is, therefore, logical and
consistent to provide for such traces of GMOs and GM material to be exempted from the labelling and
traceability requirements of this Proposal.

C 331 E/312

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.12.2002

However, the Commission also considers it necessary to provide thresholds for GMOs that have been
scientifically assessed as without risk to human health or the environment but are pending approval under
Community legislation. This is necessary because these GMOs have been approved in third countries and
traces of such GMOs in imported commodities will be largely unavoidable. This issue will have to be
addressed in order to avoid trade grinding to a halt. However, we need to acknowledge the fact that
authorisation processes can take some time. On this basis, the Commission has suggested that a tolerance
level should be introduced for such materials BUT only under certain stringent conditions that do not
compromise safety. These thresholds would be limited to adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of
GMOs or GM material that have been positively assessed by a Community scientific committee as without
risk to human health or the environment and which is pending administrative approval under Community
legislation.

The intention of the Commission proposal is to provide that products containing or consisting of traces of
such GMOs and GM material below a threshold do not have to be traced. This possibility has been deleted
by the above amendments. This will not only undermine the feasibility and practicability of the traceability
and labelling requirements under the Proposal but also have major implications and restrictions for trade.

3.4. Amended Proposal

Having regard to Article 250, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty, the Commission modifies its Proposal as
indicated above.