WRITTEN QUESTION E-3151/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Moratorium on the authorisation of new genetically modified organisms.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer information, environmental policy, genetically modified organism, health policy, labelling, marketing, means of agricultural production, organic farming, traceability

C 155 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

(2003/C 155 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3146/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Advertising messages from mobile phone operators

It is becoming increasingly common for people to move backwards and forwards between different EU
countries. While on the one hand we have managed to make life easier with things as advanced as the
euro (cid:1) in other words one currency for almost all Europeans (cid:1) national borders have proved insuperable
in an area as fundamental as cellular phone communications, even though some operators already have
telecommunications companies in different EU countries.

It is hard to understand why an additional charge should nowadays be made for roaming, and harder still
to have to listen to advertising messages every time one enters a new mobile phone area.

These messages, which promote an operator’s own services, should only be sent to those users who wish
to receive them. At present, users receive these messages on their phones every time there is an automatic
switch of operator, be it on crossing a national border or on entering a new mobile phone area within the
same country.

Is it not possible to limit the use of self-promotional advertising by mobile phone operators?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) was adopted by
the European Parliament and the Council on 12 July 2002. This Directive includes a provision that
including SMS (2) messages, without prior consent of the
prohibits the sending of commercial e-mail,
recipient. The only exception to this rule will be for commercial messages in the context of an existing
customer relationship. But in such cases messages may only be sent by the company who has sold a
product or service to the addressee of the message. Moreover, this company has to offer the right to refuse
further commercial messages with each message. Member States have until 31 October 2003 to transpose
this provision in national law.

As a consequence of the new Directive, the practice of self promoting SMS messages sent to mobile users
roaming from one network to another, as referred to by the Honourable Member, will have to stop as of
1 November 2003 at the latest. Only the operator with whom the mobile user has a contract may send
such messages but only if he has offered his subscriber a right to object at the time of concluding the
contract and provided that he continues to offer this right with each SMS message.

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2001.
(2) Short message service.

(2003/C 155 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3151/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Moratorium on the authorisation of new genetically modified organisms

On 17 October 2002 the Commission expressed its satisfaction regarding the implementation of
Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) (1). It took the view that the conditions were right to resume the GMO authorisation procedure or
in other words lift the de facto moratorium that has been in place for some four years. It is now hoping

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/99

that the Council and Parliament will adopt the regulation on labelling and traceability. It maintains that its
chief concern is human health and the environment. These assertions, however, are at odds with the
declared aim of lifting the moratorium.

issues raised by commercial exploitation and patenting of life and the natural
Apart from the ethical
heritage, the release of GMOs into the environment is irreversible and uncontrollable: it has a direct impact
in that it pollutes traditional farming and reduces biological diversity, and the consequences for ecosystems
are incalculable. Organic and traditional farmers will thus be left without a choice. In the medium to long
term contamination will be unavoidable, and several NGOs and farming organisations, especially those
involved in organic farming, have drawn attention to the risks. On the other hand, until such time as the
consequences for human and animal health have been accurately researched, the cardinal rule should be
the precautionary principle. Another point to stress is the economic dependence of farmers on the large
multinationals and the dependence of countries where their food policies are concerned. Apparently, only
business considerations matter, not least the import of particular products such as soya from the United
States.

How does the Commission reconcile the precautionary principle and environmental protection with the
lifting of the moratorium? On what research does it base its assertion that the conditions are right and
how will it control the release of GMOs into the environment?

How in its opinion are traditional and organic crops likely to be affected by the release of GMOs?

How does it view the decision that traces of GMOs resulting from ‘accidental’ or ‘technically unavoidable’
circumstances do not have to be indicated on product labelling when they fall below a given threshold?
Does it not consider that, to comply with the precautionary principle, that threshold should be zero?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission considers that the more stringent and transparent provisions of the new Directive 2001/
18/EC provide the necessary legislative conditions and measures to ensure a high level of protection for
human health and the environment under which new applications for authorisation should be considered.
As explained in recital 8, the precautionary principle has been taken into account when drafting this
Directive and its implementation must also take account of this principle.

It is not the Commission’s direct responsibility to control the release of genetically modified organism
(GMOs) into the environment. This responsibility is addressed in Article 4(5) of the Directive, which clearly
specifies that Member States shall organise inspections and other control measures, as appropriate, to
ensure compliance with Directive 2001/18/EC. The Commission considers that it has created the necessary
legislative conditions to re-start the authorisation procedure for GMOs. Directive 2001/18/EC requires that
applications for authorisation of a GMO include, on a case by case basis, a comprehensive assessment of
potential risks to human health and the environment. Clearly, applicants should provide their assessment
on the basis of current scientific information that is relevant to the GMO in question. Appraisal of this
assessment by the competent authorities of Member States and the European Scientific Committees, which
the Directive also requires as a condition of authorisation, will also be based on such information.

The issue of co-existence has been raised largely in terms of the potential impact of cultivation of GM
crops on organic and conventional crops. Some commercial cultivation of GM crops and hundreds of
experimental releases of GMOs have taken place in the Community over the past decade, without any
significant impact on organic and conventional crops. Nevertheless, it is clear that the potential impact
varies from one crop to another. Consequently, more scientific evidence is required, and the question is
being analysed in the framework of the Commission working plan on Life sciences and biotechnology (1).

C 155 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

it should be noted that commercial cultivation and use of GMOs in the Union is strictly
However,
regulated under a Community legislative framework that provides for authorisation on the basis of a
comprehensive assessment of potential risks to human health and the environment. The objective of such
legislation is to afford a high level of protection for human health and the environment. Where a risk is
identified, then authorisation would either not be granted or would contain management measures to
control this risk to an acceptable level.

Co-existence refers to the harmonised existence of different agricultural production systems and not
exclusion of individual systems. Co-existence must, therefore, be considered principally as an agricultural
management issue and not one of risk per se. It should allow for the principle of freedom of choice for
farmers to apply different agricultural production systems. This requires consideration of the potential
impact of individual production systems on other systems and the appropriate means to address this
impact. The issue of co-existence between the different types of agriculture is not included in the scope of
this legislation and cannot be used as justification for delaying the restart of the authorisation procedure.
The Commission is fully aware of the importance of co-existence in terms of agricultural production
systems and is currently investigating the most appropriate means in which to address this issue. This
includes the financing of research projects through the 6th Framework Programme and further studies by
the Joint Research Centre, which will continue to analyse management practices related with co-existence
of different systems of agricultural production.

The Commission would firstly point to the fact that thresholds under current Community legislation and
the Proposals on (i) traceability and labelling and (ii) GM Food and Feed cover only adventitious traces of
GMOs that have been authorised for the placing on the market or have received a positive evaluation from
a Community Scientific Committee or Authority. Consequently, these GMOs will have undergone a
comprehensive scientific risk assessment and the precautionary principle will have been taken into account
as part of the evaluation. The precautionary principle is, therefore, not applicable to the setting of such
thresholds, which are purely for labelling purposes. The purpose of GM labelling is to enable consumers
and users to make an informed choice between GM and non-GM products: it does not imply that the
products are harmful to health or the environment.

in practice, traces of
The Commission views tolerance thresholds as necessary since it considers that,
GMOs in products may be technically unavoidable and zero tolerance is therefore not possible. In the
production of food, feed and seed, it is practically impossible to achieve end products that are 100 % pure
and totally free from foreign substances.

(1) COM(2002) 27 final.

(2003/C 155 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/02

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Measures to establish an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU

In Title IV of the EC Treaty on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of
persons, Article 61 stipulates that the Council should adopt a series of measures to establish progressively
an area of freedom, security and justice within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty
of Amsterdam.

What measures has the Council adopted to ensure the free movement of persons, and with respect to
external border controls, asylum and immigration, and what has it done to prevent and combat crime in
accordance with the provisions of Article 61(e) of the EU Treaty?