European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811 (BCS-GH811-4), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D077486/02 — 2021/3057(RSP))
Date: 2022-03-09
Institutions: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, cotton, food safety, foodstuff, labelling, market approval, transgenic plant








C_2022347EN.01004801.xml










9.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/48






P9_TA(2022)0062
Genetically modified cotton GHB811 (BCS-GH811-4)
European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811 (BCS-GH811-4), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D077486/02 — 2021/3057(RSP))
(2022/C 347/05)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811 (BCS-GH811-4), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D077486/02,










—


having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,










—


having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 11 January 2022, at which no opinion was delivered,










—


having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),










—


having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 8 July 2021, and published on 16 August 2021 (3),










—


having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’) (4),










—


having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,










A.


whereas on 19 September 2018, BASF Agricultural Solutions Belgium NV, based in Belgium, which is a branch of BASF SE, based in Germany, submitted, on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC (‘the applicant’), based in the United States, an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811, (‘the GM cotton’) in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM cotton for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;










B.


whereas, on 8 July 2021, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to the authorisation of the GM cotton, which was published on 16 August 2021;










C.


whereas the GM cotton was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides (5); whereas HPPD inhibitor herbicides includes herbicides such as isoxaflutole, mesotrione and tembotrionine;










D.


whereas while the human consumption of cottonseed oil may be relatively limited in Europe, it can be found in a wide variety of food products, including dressings, mayonnaise, fine bakery wares, chocolate spreads and chips; whereas cotton is fed to animals mainly in the form of cottonseed cake/meal or as full fat cottonseeds (6); whereas cotton is also consumed in the form of cotton flour by humans;






Lack of assessment of the complementary herbicide








E.


whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 (7) requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide resistant plants;










F.


whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds (8); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM cotton will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest;










G.


whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate (9);










H.


whereas, according to EFSA, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several breakdown products of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing (10);










I.


whereas isoxaflutole is, according to the harmonised classification and labelling approved by the Union, very toxic to aquatic life and suspected of damaging the unborn child (11); whereas only isoxaflutole was used on the GM cotton for the purpose of the risk assessment; whereas, however, HPPD-inhibitor herbicides encompass a range of herbicides, including mesotrione, which according to EFSA, may be considered to have endocrine disrupting properties (12);










J.


whereas, according to an independent scientific analysis (13), due to the mode of action of the active ingredients of the complementary herbicides, it is plausible that the application of those herbicides will cause stress responses in the plants and thus impact gene expression and plant composition itself;










K.


whereas assessment of herbicide residues and their breakdown products found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘EFSA GMO Panel’) and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the breakdown products (‘metabolites’), can be impacted by the genetic modification itself (14);






Member State competent authority comments








L.


whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (15); whereas those critical comments include that on the basis of the evidence presented, it is not possible to conclude on the comparative assessment of the GM cotton or on its safety, that cultivation of the GM cotton entails increased exposure of operators in third countries to glyphosate, whose impact on health is currently in dispute but could be adverse, that information and data provided on toxicology is insufficient and that the monitoring plan does not relate the monitoring activities to relevant protection goals;






Upholding the Union’s international obligations








M.


whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health (16); whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (‘SDG’) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination (17); whereas authorising the import of the GM cotton would increase demand for this crop which is treated with glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides, thereby increasing the exposure of workers and the environment in third countries; whereas the risk of increased worker and environmental exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;










N.


whereas, according to a peer-reviewed study published in 2020, Roundup, one of the world’s most widely used glyphosate-based herbicides, can trigger a loss of biodiversity, making ecosystems more vulnerable to pollution and climate change (18);










O.


whereas a 2021 peer-reviewed scientific study carried out in Mexico demonstrated physiological, metabolic, and ecological effects of transgene introgression (19) in wild cotton and found that, inter alia, the expression of cp4-epsps (glyphosate tolerant) genes in wild cotton under natural conditions altered secretion levels of extrafloral nectar and thus its association with different ant species as well as the level of herbivore damage (20); whereas the study states that ‘If we want to conserve in-situ the primary gene pool of wild relatives, we must work to identify the ecological and evolutionary processes affected by the existence and permanence of these transgenes within their populations’ and that ‘upon the detection of these genes, mitigation strategies to reduce the magnitude of the damage can be promptly designed’; whereas the most effective strategy to mitigate transgene introgression and the associated risks to wild populations and biodiversity, in line with the precautionary principle, would be to avoid the cultivation of transgenic crops in the first place;










P.


whereas the Union, as a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), has the responsibility to ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States (21); whereas the import of the GM cotton should not be authorised given that its cultivation, and resulting transgene introgression, could unbalance delicate ecological interactions in ecosystems of wild cotton;










Q.


whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN CBD;






Undemocratic decision-making








R.


whereas the vote on 11 January 2022 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;










S.


whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;










T.


whereas, in its eighth term, the European Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, the European Parliament has already adopted 23 objections to placing GMOs on the market; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas the reasons for Member States not supporting authorisations include lack of respect for the precautionary principle in the authorisation process and scientific concerns relating to the risk assessment;










U.


whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;










V.


whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee (22);












1.


Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;












2.


Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (23), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;












3.


Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;












4.


Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops until the health risks associated with the residues have been comprehensively investigated on a case-by-case basis, which requires a full assessment of the residues from spraying such GM crops with complementary herbicides, an assessment of the herbicide breakdown products and any combinatorial effects, including with the GM plant itself;












5.


Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs (24); expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite ongoing objections by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;












6.


Calls on EFSA to request data on the impact of the consumption of food and feed derived from GM plants on the intestinal microbiome;












7.


Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs; reiterates its call for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’ (25);












8.


Highlights that the amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (26), which were adopted in Parliament as a basis for negotiations with the Council, state that the Commission shall not authorise GMOs when there is not a qualified majority of Member States in favour; insists that the Commission respect this position and calls on the Council to proceed with its work and adopt a general approach on this file as a matter of urgency;












9.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.






(1)  OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.

(3)  Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB811 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-ES-2018/154) , https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/6781

(4)  In its eighth term, Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:






—


European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).










—


European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).










—


European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).










—


European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).










—


European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).










—


European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).










—


European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).










—


European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).










—


European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).










—


European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).










—


European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293).










—


European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0365).










—


European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0366).










—


European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0367).










—


European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0368).










—


European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0369).










—


European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0080).










—


European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0081).










—


European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS–44406–6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0334).










—


European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 ×MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0335).










—


European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt 11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0336).










—


European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean GMB151 (BCS-GM151-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0024).










—


European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 (BCS-GHØØ2-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0025).





(5)  EFSA opinion, p. 1.

(6)  Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on assessment of genetically modified cotton GHB614× T304-40 × GHB119 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2014-122), EFSA Journal 2018; 16(7):5349, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5349 p. 22.

(7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (OJ L 157, 8.6.2013, p. 1).

(8)  See, for example, Bonny, S., ‘Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds, and Herbicides: Overview and Impact’, Environmental Management, January 2016; 57(1), pp. 31-48, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296738 and Benbrook, C.M., ‘Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years’, Environmental Sciences Europe; 28 September 2012, Vol. 24(1), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

(9)  See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887,
https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz017/5382278,
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219610, and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612199/

(10)  EFSA conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate, EFSA Journal 2015; 13(11):4302, p. 3, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302

(11)  https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.114.433

(12)  EFSA Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mesotrione. EFSA Journal 2016; 14(3):4419, p. 3, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4419

(13)  Testbiotech comment on Scientific Opinion on the assessment of genetically engineered cotton GHB881 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-ES-2018-154) by BASF,
https://www.testbiotech.org/content/testbiotech-comment-cotton-ghb881

(14)  This is indeed the case for glyphosate, as stated in the reasoned opinion of EFSA ‘Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005’, EFSA Journal 2018; 16(5):5263, p. 12, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5263

(15)  Member States comments, accessible via the EFSA register of questions: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/register-of-questions

(16)  https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/Pesticides.aspx

(17)  https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/

(18)  https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/widely-used-weed-killer-harming-biodiversity-320906

(19)  Transgene introgression is the permanent integration of transgenes from transgenic crops into a natural population through cross-pollination.

(20)  Vázquez-Barrios, V., Boege, K., Sosa-Fuentes, T.G., Rojas, P., Wegier, A.,. ‘Ongoing ecological and evolutionary consequences by the presence of transgenes in a wild cotton population’, Scientific Reports 11, 2021, 1959, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81567-z

(21)  Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 3: https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-03

(22)  The Commission ‘may’, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee, according to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (Article 6(3)).

(23)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(24)  https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf

(25)  European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal (OJ C 270, 7.7.2021, p. 2), paragraph 102.

(26)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0364.