EU may Question National GMO Bans

EU environment ministers agreed last week to re-open discussions on a legislative proposal that would allow member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in all or part of their territory, even after they have been authorised at the EU level.

The move, linked to a recent controversial court case on GMO authorisation, revives a proposed cultivation ban that the European Commission originally put forward in 2010.

GM crops have long been the subject of bitter division within the EU, often resulting in a political deadlock surrounding their approval. Such crops have proved unpopular with environmental and consumer groups alike in the trading bloc, who cite negative biodiversity and health impacts respectively.

Years of controversy

Just two strains have been given the green light for commercial cultivation in the EU, compared with more than 90 GM varieties cleared for use in the US, and 30 in Brazil. Both EU crops - the Monsanto maize variety known as Mon 810, and a potato dubbed Amflora - have continued to spark controversy since their approval.

Although the modified potato is no longer grown in Europe - BASF withdrew the product in 2012 in the face of widespread opposition to the technology - it was subsequently the subject of a court ruling last December, which found that the Commission had incorrectly applied the bloc’s rules when giving approval for the product in 2010.

To date, seven member states have introduced national “safeguard” bans on growing Mon810, which can be invoked by a country based on assessed risks to human health or the environment, supported by scientific evidence. The move runs against the views of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), which deemed the product as safe as its non-GM equivalents.

A 2006 ruling by the global trade arbiter found that the EU’s application of its GMO approval process from 1999 to 2003 effectively violated international trade law by causing “undue delays” in approving such products. The panel also rejected Brussels’ defence of national-level bans as precautionary measures, given that there was not sufficient scientific evidence for carrying out an adequate risk assessment.

Pioneer 1507 limbo

Member states failed last month to conclusively approve or reject an insect-resistant maize known as Pioneer 1507. The strain is the result of a joint effort by DuPont and Dow Chemical, which first applied for its European-level approval 12 years ago.

Although ministers and diplomats from 19 of the EU’s 28 members opposed the new strain, this was not enough to secure an outright rejection, given the bloc’s system of country-weighted voting. Shortly before the vote, Germany announced it would abstain. Countries pushing for approval reportedly included Spain and the UK.

Reacting to the news, Dupont released a statement saying the EU had “a legal obligation to itself, to its farmers and scientists, and to its trade partners” to support the approval of safe new agricultural products.

The Commission is now legally obliged to approve the crop, based on a ruling last September by the bloc’s second-highest court. At the time, the General Court found that the EU executive had failed to act on the original 2001 Pioneer 1507 request, which had been forwarded to a Standing Committee but not to the Council of Ministers.

Previously, the Commission had indicated in January 2013 that it would not green light any new GM crop prior to member-state agreement on the cultivation ban legislation. At the time of the General Court’s ruling on Pioneer 1507, EU health commissioner Tonio Borg issued a statement emphasising that the case confirmed “the urgency of reconciling strict and predictable European authorisation rules for GMO cultivation, and at the same time taking into account in a fair way national context in member states.”