WRITTEN QUESTION P-2693/03 by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. GMOs.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, genetically modified organism, health risk, maize, marketing restriction, oil seed rape, precautionary principle

C 78 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

With regard to the requests for subsidies and grants provided for the EURES Cross-border partnerships in
2003 following a call for proposals, the Commission received requests amounting to EUR 8 025 005. In
the light of the Commission’s analysis, a total of EUR 7 443 411 was committed to support the work of the
21 partnerships making up the EURES cross-border network (representing 93 % of the funds requested)

The following is the breakdown in commitments for the whole of the EURES budget for 2003 (covering
both parts A and B of the B3-4011 budget line):

National public employment services

Cross-border partnerships

Maintenance and upkeep of databases and website

Training programme

Job mobility information campaign

Conferences and seminars

Publications

(euro)

5 104 580

7 443 411

754 886

738 445

979 790

93 131

152 000

Total

15 266 243

Recipients of EURES funding include the Member State public employment services responsible for the
delivery of EURES services, the cross-border partnerships which support labour market mobility in frontier
zones, contractors selected to organise the training programme aimed essentially at training EURES
advisers, contractors selected to participate in the European job mobility information campaign (which
forms part of the Commission’s Action Plan on Skills and Mobility) (2), contractors selected to organise
conferences and seminars, and contractors responsible for publishing EURES promotional and other
material.

(1) OJ L 5, 10.1.2003.
(2) COM(2002) 72 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2693/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: GMOs

A number of Member States have invoked Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EC (1) (now replaced by Directive
2001/18/EC (2)) in respect to the following Part C marketing consents:

(cid:1) C/F/95/12/07: T25 and T14 Maize (cid:1) Austria (28 April 2000), Italy (4 August 2000);

(cid:1) C/UK/95/M5/1: Topas 19/2 Oilseed rape (cid:1) Greece (3 November 1998), France (16 November 1998);

(cid:1) C/GB/94/M1/1: MS1 and RF1 Oilseed rape (cid:1) France (18 November 1998);

(cid:1) C/F/94/11-03: CG00526-176 (aka Bt-176) Maize (cid:1) Austria (13 February 1997), Luxembourg

(28 February 1997), Germany (31 March 2000);

(cid:1) C/F/95/12/02: MON810 Maize (cid:1) Austria (2 June 1999), Italy (4 August 2000);

(cid:1) C/F/95/12-01/B: MON809 Maize (cid:1) Italy (4 August 2000).

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/153

Would the Commission please indicate the current status of the measures imposed by Member States on
the basis of Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC. Have they been upheld or overturned by the European
Union?

Would the Commission also indicate the specific reasons given by the Member States for imposing these
measures and release copies of the documentation provided by these Member States or justification for
invoking Article 16?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Article 16 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into environment of
genetically modified organisms, replaced on 17 October 2002 by Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament
and the Council of 12 March 2001, was invoked by six Member States in nine cases which concerned five
authorisations of genetically modified plant products. Italy has not invoked Article 16 under Directive 90/
220/EEC, but has taken safeguard measures relating to certain products authorised under Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997, concerning novel foods and novel
food ingredients (1).

The Commission submitted the documents Member States had provided to justify measures taken
according to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC to the Scientific Committee(s).
In all cases the
Committee(s) concluded, after examination of the reasons and information submitted by Member States,
that they did not provide new scientific evidence to change the original risk assessment on the grounds of
which the products concerned had been authorised.

In the case of Bt-176 maize (C/F/94/11-03) consultations of the Regulatory Committee were launched end
of 1997, according to Article 21 of Directive 90/220/EEC. The Regulatory Committee failed to deliver an
opinion on the draft decisions of the Commission in April 1998. These were subsequently transmitted to
the Council. The Council did not have the qualified majority to act on the proposed decisions within the
statutory three-month period. In the other Article 16 cases, the Regulatory Committee consultation is
pending.

The reasons given by the Member States for imposing measures taken according to Article 16 are as
follows:

(cid:1) Concerning male sterile and herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1),

France raised questions and stressed the need of further research in order to answer these questions on
dissemination, volunteers, rate and consequences of intra- and interspecific geneflow, accumulation
and possible loss of effectiveness of herbicide tolerance genes, management of weeds and volunteers.

(cid:1) Concerning insect resistant

(Bt
resistance marker gene carrying maize Bt 176 (C/F/94/11-03),

toxin), herbicide (glufosinate)

tolerant and antibiotic (ampicillin)

Austria put forward the potential risk of the antibiotic resistance gene to be transferred to bacteria,
especially in the intestine of humans or animals, thereby possibly inactivating important antibiotics
used in human and veterinary therapy; the need to evaluate the possible role of multiresistance
plasmids and transposons in the spread of antibiotic resistance genes; the potential risk of the Bt-toxin
to non-target
the Bt-toxin in soils; development of
resistance to the Bt-toxin in target organisms; need of mandatory resistance management programmes;
unclear possibility to use the herbicide tolerance in cultivation; the use of this gene as a marker would
not correspond to the state of the art in genetic engineering; insufficient labelling.

(soil) organisms; possible accumulation of

C 78 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Luxembourg raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning the antibiotic resistance gene,
possible resistance development
in target organisms and the need for a mandatory resistance
management programme. Luxembourg stressed that genetically modified organisms should only
contain the minimum of transgenes needed for their desired functioning.

Germany raised essentially the same issues as Austria concerning enhanced antibiotic resistance
development, potential
impact on non-target organisms, possible resistance development in target
organisms and accumulation of Bt-toxin in soils.

(cid:1) Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (C/UK/95/M5/1),

Greece claimed that seeds would be lost, even if cultivation is not intended; spreading would be
facilitated because of the mild climate in Greece which allows for overwintering; outcrossing into
weedy wild variants and relatives, which are used as food, with unpredictable health effects; at a later
stage risk of multiresistant weeds; loss of effectiveness of herbicides; spreading into natural habitats
with unpredictable consequences; lack of risk assessment of progeny resulting from crosses between
Topas 19/2 and non-GM (genetically modified) oilseed rape.

France raised the same issues as for oilseed rape MS1, RF1 (C/UK/94/M1/1).

(cid:1) Concerning insect (Bt-toxin) resistant maize Mon 810 (C/F/95/12-02),

Austria put
forward potential unintended effects on non-target organisms; possible resistance
development in target insects; lacking proof of the resistance management’s effectiveness; insufficient
scope of the monitoring plan.

(cid:1) Concerning herbicide (glufosinate) tolerant Maize T25 (C/F/95/12-07)

Austria stressed the lack of a monitoring plan; lack of protection of ecological sensitive areas; lack of
evaluation of herbicide application under realistic conditions; outcrossing into surrounding non-GM
maize fields.

United Kingdom claimed the possibility to grow organically pure maize as well as to protect the
integrity of other non-GM maize crops in Wales.

The opinions of the Scientific Committees are publicly available on line at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm7/out02_en.html).
fs/sc/scp/outcome_gmo_en.html and at
The national safeguard measures can be found in the Official Journals of the above mentioned Member
States.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Promise programme

The Promise programme, which ended in 2002, provided funds totalling EUR 25 million for projects
involving the exchange of information, technology and good practice with a view to improving the
security of telecommunications networks. What projects have been funded under this programme, with
particular reference to Italy? Would the Commission list in full the companies, undertakings and public
bodies that submitted projects under the programme, and the companies whose applications were
successful? Was the successful completion of the projects monitored, and were their results assessed?