1 Marketing of maize genetically
modified for glyphosphate tolerance
| (25530)
8235/04
COM(04) 193
| Draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of a maize product (Zea mays L. line NK603) genetically modified for glyphosphate tolerance
|
| Legal base | Article 18(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC; QMV
|
| Document originated | 26 March 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 7 April 2004
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 6 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote 4
|
| To be discussed in Council | 26 June 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
1.1 Until recently, the deliberate release into the environment
of genetically modified organisms was subject within the Community
to the provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC,[1]
and, whilst that Directive was in force, four consents relating
to maize imported for use in animal feed were granted in the period
up to 1998. The Directive has now been replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC,[2]
which introduces a number of procedural changes,[3]
and this document —
which would permit the importation of a variety of maize genetically
modified for increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosphate,
and its subsequent use in animal feed —
is the first proposal for a consent to be granted under the new
Directive, following an application submitted to the relevant
Spanish authority.
The current proposal
1.2 Under the procedure laid down, the Spanish authority
conducted an initial assessment of the notification. This concluded
that there was no scientific evidence of any risk to human health
or the environment, though, when it was forwarded by the Commission
to the other Member States, a number raised objections based on
the molecular characterisation of the product, its allergenicity,
and the arrangements for its monitoring, labelling and detection.
However, the European Food Safety Authority took the view that
the product is as safe as conventional maize, and the Commission
therefore proposed to the relevant Committee of Member States
set up under Directive 2001/18/EC that approval should be given,
subject to the necessary steps being taken to ensure the product's
labelling and traceability. Since that Committee failed to give
a favourable opinion, the matter has now been referred to the
Council, which has three months in which to act, failing which
the Commission would be obliged to adopt the measure.
The Government's view
1.3 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 6 May 2004,
the Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment) at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot
Morley) says that the Government consulted the statutory Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), which in turn
sought comments from the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs
(whose views were incorporated into the two sets of ACRE advice,
produced in March and August 2003). He says that ACRE concluded
that "the risk to human health and the environment arising
from marketing of this product for importation and processing
in the UK will be no different from that of [any] other maize
imported for processing and animal feed purposes".
1.4 The Minister adds that the proposal would not
permit cultivation within the Community, and that the UK opinion
subsequently submitted to the Commission reflected ACRE's advice,
in that it contained no safety objections to the application,
but it did raise two issues which the UK believed needed to be
considered before marketing consent was given — traceability
and labelling, and post-market monitoring. He says that the first
of these concerns is met by a provision in the draft Decision
requiring consent to be withheld until new measures, as set out
in Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003, are in full effect, thus requiring
any animal feed intentionally containing the maize line in question
to be labelled. In the case of post-market monitoring, the Minister
says that the UK would have preferred a reporting interval of
six months, rather than the annual interval specified in the Decision,
but has concluded that the longer period would be sufficient,
given a general requirement in Directive 2001/18/EC to report
adverse effects immediately. It was therefore among the Member
States which supported the proposal when it was first considered.
1.5 The Minister also draws attention to a provision
in the draft Decision which prevents the granting of a consent
unless and until a separate authorisation, currently being assessed
for the use of the maize line in question in human food, has been
obtained under the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No.
258/97. He describes this as a prudent measure, which ensures
that authorisations for animal feed and food uses will remain
in step with one another.
Conclusion
1.6 Following the recommendation in our Report
of 10 March, a draft Council Decision authorising the placing
on the market of sweet corn from genetically modified maize[4]
was debated in European Standing Committee C on 26 April, and
we recognise that, to some extent, that proposal gives rise to
similar concerns to the one now before us. Nevertheless, as we
noted in our earlier Report, any proposal involving the marketing
of genetically modified crops is inevitably of considerable interest,
particularly at the present time. In view of this, and the fact
that the current proposal is the first of its kind relating to
animal feed since 1998, we think that, on balance, it too should
be debated (in European Standing Committee A).
1 OJ No. L 117, 8.5.90, p.15. Back
2
OJ No. L 106, 17.4.01, p.1. Back
3
(18909) 6378/98; see HC 155-xxvi (1997-98), para 5 (29 April 1998)
and HC 34-iii (1998-99), para 1 (9 December 1998). Stg Co Deb,
European Standing Committee A, 24 March 1999. Back
4
(25336) 5916/04; see HC 42-xii (2003-04), para 1 (10 March 2004).
Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee C, 26 April 2004. Back
|
