WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/03 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. GM crops.
Date: 2003-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South West (England), Upper Austria, agricultural production policy, environmental risk prevention, genetically modified organism, market approval, organic farming, protection of plant life

C 84 E/498

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Commission adopted a decision on 8 September 2003 enjoining Greece to send it any relevant
information concerning the privatisation of Olympic Airways. The Commission received a reply from the
Greek authorities, dated 11 September 2003. This is now being examined.

As the Commission does not have all the details of the proposed privatisation, it cannot give an opinion
on its compliance with Community law. Moreover, at this stage no information is available on the social
aspects of the plan, or the arrangements for winding up activities which will not be taken over by the new
company.

The Commission is still in close contact with the Greek authorities, who have undertaken to send it the
final privatisation plan before it is implemented, so that the Commission may give an opinion on its
compliance with Community law.

(2004/C 84 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2861/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: GM crops

in response to a request for the banning of GM crops in Upper Austria,
On 2nd September 2003,
Commissioner Wallström said ‘I have, of course, full respect for the concerns of the Austrian authorities
for the protection of the environment and human health, and have no problem to recognise that
co-existence is an important issue to be addressed. However, I would like to point out that these are
common concerns, shared by many regions across Europe, for which it is possible to find a viable
response within the existing legal framework.’

Would the Commission please tell us what it considers to constitute a ‘viable response’ for regions such as
Upper Austria or the south-west of England, where organic farming is an important sector of agriculture?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

The Commission is fully aware of the need to ensure co-existence between conventional, organic and
genetically modified crops. This is reflected by the commitment of the Commission under Action 17 of its
Communication on Life Sciences and Biotechnology (cid:1) A strategy for Europe (1), to address co-existence.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that the protection of human health and the environment, is
and has always been taken into account as part of the risk assessment under the authorising legislation for
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). If an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment was
identified during this assessment then approval of that GMO would either not be granted or conditions
included in the consent to address that risk.

Since only authorised GMOs can be cultivated in the Union, and the environmental and health aspects are
covered by Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive
90/220/EEC (2),
the pending issues still to be addressed in the context of co-existence concern the
economic aspects (monetary losses) associated with the admixture of GM and non GM-crops.

A new article to address co-existence from this perspective will be introduced into Directive 2001/18/EC
allowing Member States to take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other
products. This article was adopted in the framework of negotiations during the second reading of the
proposal (3) on GM food and feed.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/499

However, Member States are not free to take any measure they want. The measures have to be consistent
with Community legislation and the principles of the Common Market. Member States are, for instance,
not allowed to contravene Article 22 a of Directive 2001/18/EC, which states that Member States may not
prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of authorised GMOs.

Furthermore, in July 2003, the Commission produced a Recommendation on guidelines for co-existence (4)
in order to assist Member States in the development and implementation of appropriate measures. The ‘key
word’ for the proposed co-existence measures is proportionality, which means that the measures must be
proportionate with respect to the goal they are intended to achieve.

Consequently, the guidelines provide the necessary recommendations to address co-existence. In terms of
economic risk, the guidelines provide the principles on which Member States and their regions can operate
in terms of national measures and include an indicative list of management measures which, depending on
local or regional factors, could be implemented. These measures include, for example, isolation distances
between fields, buffer zones or pollen barriers, crop rotation and planting arrangements for different
flowering periods, etc.

The Commission has no objection to voluntary local arrangements between farmers and between farmers
and the industry to ensure the absence of GM crops. Co-existence is not a new issue in agriculture and
farmers have ample experience with the implementation of farm management practices to ensure purity
standards in seed production or to segregate agricultural production lines. Specific varieties of crops, which
deliver ‘quality traits’ are grown for example under voluntary arrangements between adjacent farmers and
contractual requirements.

This constitutes the ‘viable response’
Environment referred to on 2 September 2003.

to which the Member of

the Commission responsible for

(1) COM(2003) 96 final.
(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(3) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
(4) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3042/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Installation of telecommunications masts

The rapid expansion in telecommunications has created a greater need for masts. Has the European
Commission issued any guidelines on the siting of such masts, given the heightened awareness of the
possible health risks? If not, is the European Commission aware of any guidelines issued by Member
States?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The siting of mobile phone masts is an issue, which as mentioned by the Honourable Member, is giving
rise to further public concern. The Commission has already received several parliamentary questions on
this topic (e.g. E-1155/03 by Mr Mauro and Mr Gargani (1), E-2821/02 by Mr Maaten (2), E-2900/02 by
Mrs Breyer (3) and E-2901/02 by Mrs Breyer (4)).