WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/03 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Impact of genetically modified crops on nature.
Date: 2003-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural production policy, cultivation system, environmental impact, environmental research, environmental risk prevention, genetically modified organism, transgenic plant

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/797

Proposals for the Iberian high-speed rail links are included among the priority projects. The Lisbon/Porto-
Madrid high-speed line is proposed as an extension to priority project 3 (south-west European high-speed
rail link), which since 1994 has included the Madrid-Barcelona-Montpellier and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax links.
This project has also been extended northwards in the form of the Montpellier-Nîmes and Dax-Bordeaux-
Tours sections. Furthermore, the entire Iberian peninsula high-speed rail network (project 19), including
the Vigo-Porto link, has been proposed as a priority project since 2001.

The projects regarded as priorities also include the Sines-Madrid-Paris rail freight link (project 16), which
includes the Sines-Badajoz railway line and the Pyrenees rail crossing. All of these rail projects help to
interconnect Portugal and Spain and to link them to the rest of the trans-European network.

The Iberian peninsula will also be able to benefit from the potential of the ‘motorways of the sea’, which
are also included as a priority project (project 21) in the Commission’s proposal of 1 October 2003.

In addition, in the framework of the European growth initiative launched by Mr Prodi, the European
Council of 16 and 17 October 2003 invited ‘the Commission, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the
relevant formations of the Council to establish, without prejudice to the priorities identified in the
Commission proposal, a “quick-start programme” identifying a list of projects in an enlarged Union’. The
‘quick-start programme’, adopted by the Commission on 11 November 2003 (2), does not call
into
question the priorities which the Commission has already defined, which must be adopted by Parliament
and the Council by co-decision procedure, but is rather an initiative to give a quicker start to a number of
advanced cross-border links to act as a fulcrum for all of these projects, all of which retain priority status.
The projects included in this programme include the Lisbon-Madrid, Vigo-Porto and Perpignan-Figueras
high-speed train links and the motorways of the sea. The Commission will present its proposal for the
‘quick-start programme’ in its report to the European Council in December 2003 on the European growth
initiative.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
(2) COM(2003) 690 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Impact of genetically modified crops on nature

Week 42 saw articles published e.g. in The Financial Times and on the BBC’s website about the sensational
findings of an investigation into how far genetically modified crops impact on nature. The investigation
was based on trials in England and documents that fields with GM crops in many cases destroy natural
conditions to an even greater extent than conventional farming. It showed, for example, that there were
fewer birds, butterflies and bees in the vicinity of fields containing GM crops when compared with fields
containing conventional crops.

This being so, will the Commission explain how these frightening findings affect EU policy with particular
reference to authorisation of GM products? Does it intend, in the light of these findings, to carry out new
studies into GM production and its adverse impact on nature and does it believe that the rules for
co-existence between GM crops and non-GM crops ought to be reviewed in the light of these findings?
Lastly, will it indicate how GM producers are to be made financially liable for the negative changes they
are imposing on nature?

C 78 E/798

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

On 16 October 2003, eight reports on extensive crop trials carried out in the United Kingdom over the
last three years, known as the Farm Scale Evaluations (hereafter FSE) research, were published. This work
investigated the impact of the cultivation of three genetically modified (GM) Herbicide Tolerant Crops
(hereafter HTC) (maize, spring-sown oilseed rape and beet) on the abundance and diversity of some key
components of farmland wildlife in comparison with their conventional non-herbicide tolerant equivalents.
fields, one half having been sown with
During three years treatments have been made to several
conventional seeds and the other half with GM seeds of the same crop. Both field halves have been
managed by farmers as they would do under commercial agricultural practices.

As a main result, the FSE indicate that the effects from using HTC on the field biodiversity varied between
crops. HT-maize was more positive to the field biodiversity than a conventional crop while HT-oilseed
rape and HT-beet were more negative than conventional crops.

The United Kingdom trials were classified as experimental treatment releases. Such releases are now
regulated under Part B of Directive 2001/18/EC (1) (previously Part B of Directive 90/220/EEC (2), which
was replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC on 17 October 2002). The authorisation of these releases involves a
‘decentralised’ procedure. This requires that the Member State in which the release is to take place has to
conduct an environmental risk assessment prior to approval of the release. This Member State has sole
including appropriate management and inspection/control measures.
responsibility for such releases,
Results of experimental releases of GMOs should be included in notifications for the placing on the market
of the same GMOs.

Taking the above into account it is, therefore, important to consider the ACRE (the British Government’s
statutory advisory body on the release of GMOs) opinion of the implications of the results for any existing
or pending or future releases of GM crops.

It should also be kept in mind that the FSE results are only applicable to the three crops studied and under
the herbicides regimes applied. Potential extrapolation of the results to other types of GM crops would
need further examination.

‘there is no evidence that adverse effects on biodiversity have arisen from the
As stated in the report:
cultivation of a crop which has been modified through modern biotechnology.’ The different impact
between the conventional half-field and the transgenic half-field could be explained by the change in
herbicides regimes used on HTC and conventional crops.

Each GMO, before being released into the environment for research or commercial purposes, has to be
assessed on a case-by-case basis. That means that each GMO is assessed in a specific way depending on the
parental crop (maize or oilseed rape, etc.) and its biological characteristics (self-pollinating/cross-pollinating
crop, insect-/wind pollinating crop, annual/biennial crop, etc.), on the newly inserted GM trait (herbicide
tolerance, insect tolerance, etc.) as well as on the receptor environment.

In the case where new scientific data, with regard to the risks of the GMO(s) to human health or the
environment, become available after consent has been granted, the notifier shall immediately take the
measures necessary to protect human health and the environment, and inform the competent authority
thereof in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2001/18/EC.

These FSE reports do not provide relevant information for the management of co-existence. However,
three further studies on gene flow from GM crops to non-GM crops have been published by the United
Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (3). The studies were based on modelling
and field experiments. Their results are important to judge the efficiency of farm-scale management
measures to limit admixture of GMOs in other crops. In this respect these studies could be of interest in
the discussion on co-existence.

The Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003, on the guidelines for the development of national
strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and
organic farming (4) addresses the question of responsibility for implementing the farm management
measures necessary to limit the gene flow. As a general principle, during the phase of introducing a new

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/799

type of crop in a region, this responsibility should be born by farmers who introduce the new production
type. As regards liability in the case of economic damage resulting from admixture of GMOs to other
crops the Commission recommends that Member States should examine their civil liability laws to find out
whether the existing national laws offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard.

(1) 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, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2) Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(3) DEFRA press release: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/031013b.htm
(4) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0848)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3298/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Effect of climatic change on cod stocks

There is widespread anecdotal evidence, supported by the fishermen with the real experience of fishing
northern waters, that stocks of cod are moving north as sea temperatures increase. This is supported by
scientific research including, notably, that which was published in Science Magazine vol. 296 No 5573
relating to work done by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science.

Does the Commission intend to factor in any such new evidence when making its recommendations to the
Council prior to this December’s Fisheries Council meeting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission values the knowledge and experience of commercial fishermen and encourages them to
make their views available to the scientific agencies that advise the Commission as well as directly to the
Commission. However, when making a basis for conservation proposals that will have a large impact on
fishing communities,
it is appropriate to accord higher importance to the results of systematic and
scientifically-designed surveys and monitoring systems than to anecdotal observations.

The work referred to indicates a northward shift in copepod distributions and the effect of this on
distributions of
the remaining
fish is not clear. However, both science and industry concur that
aggregations of cod are now located further north than their historic distribution patterns. In previous
cases of stock collapse it has been the case that as fish stocks become smaller their area of distribution
shrinks as the last few fish aggregate in the most favourable areas.

Indications of a reduction in the distribution of fish onto a smaller area are therefore an additional warning
sign that the stock is at a low level and very vulnerable to exploitation.

The Commission will effectively have such factors in mind when preparing relevant conservation
proposals.