11 MARKETING OF OILSEED RAPE GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOR RESISTANCE TO GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM
(27135)
—
—
| Draft Council Decision concerning the placing on the market, in accordance
with Directive 2001/18/EC, of oilseed rape products (Brassica napus L. lines
Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide
glufosinate-ammonium
|
| Legal base | Article 18(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 11 January 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| To be discussed in Council
| 9 March 2006 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
11.1 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,[33]
but that Directive has now been replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC.[34]
This document —
which would permit the importation and use of three oilseed rape
products genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium
—
is the latest proposal for a consent to be granted under the new
Directive.
The current proposal
11.2 These products were first notified to the relevant
Belgian authority in 1996 under Directive 90/220/EEC, when the
scope of the application also included cultivation. No decision
was taken at that time, and the products were re-notified in February
2003 under the new Directive. Under the procedure laid down, the
Belgian authority conducted an initial assessment of the notification,
and concluded that there were no reasons to withhold consent for
the marketing of these lines, provided certain conditions were
met, but that the part of the request relating to cultivation
should not be granted. It also recommended that authorisation
for use in animal feed should be granted under another Regulation
(1829/2003/EC). The notification did not cover the use of these
three lines as (or in) food, but the marketing of processed oil
from genetically modified oilseed derived from these lines was
approved in 1997 under the Regulation (258/97) concerning novel
foods.
11.3 The Belgian authority's assessment was subsequently
transmitted in August 2003 to the Commission and to the other
Member States, and, since some of these raised and maintained
objections, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA). Having assessed the available information, the
Authority concluded in September 2005 that the three lines were
unlikely to have any adverse effect on human or animal health
or, in the context of their proposed use, on the environment.
The Commission accordingly published a draft Decision, authorising
the placing on the market of these products, but, when that was
considered by Member States' officials in the appropriate Regulatory
Committee on 5 December 2005, the vote was inconclusive. Under
the relevant rules of procedure, it is now to be referred to the
Council for a decision: and, if a sufficient majority either to
adopt or reject the proposal is not forthcoming in the Council
within three months of referral, it will go back to the Commission
for a final decision.
The Government's view
11.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 January
2006, the Minister of State (Environment and Agri-Environment)
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Elliot Morley) says the next Environment Council is scheduled
for 9 March, and that, although the draft Council Decision has
yet to be received, he believes that any amendments to the draft
Commission Decision —
which he has made available —
will be minor.
11.5 The Minister says that the Government consulted
the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
(ACRE) in 1997 and 1999 on the original application. At that stage,
the Committee concluded that further information was needed about
the impact of cultivation on biodiversity, but was content about
the safety of importing the products, and using them in feed:
it also confirmed in 2000 that it remained content that the rapeseed
in question remained safe for use in feed.
11.6 The updated application was then considered
by ACRE in November 2004, when, notwithstanding the views expressed
by some other Member States, it concluded that "sufficient
information has now been provided by the notifier to demonstrate
that this GM oilseed rape does not pose a greater risk to human
health and the environment than conventional oilseed rape".
This advice was based on the exclusion of cultivation from the
application, but, because the Belgian authority had recommended
that use for animal feed should be dealt with separately under
Regulation 1829/2002, ACRE did not review that aspect again. However,
following the EFSA's opinion which did cover animal feed, the
Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) was asked to
consider this aspect of the application, and subsequently concluded
that meal derived from these lines could be expected to behave
as any other commercial rapeseed variety when fed to livestock.
On the basis of this advice, the UK has supported the authorisation.
Conclusion
11.7 As we have noted in our recent Reports on
the authorisation of the marketing of genetically modified products,
any proposal of this kind is inevitably of public concern, and
gives rise to differences of view between Member States. In view
of this, we have in a number of such instances recommended the
proposal for debate in European Standing Committee. However, in
this case, we note that the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment has since 1997 consistently supported the granting
of a consent of the sort now proposed for these oilseed rape lines;
that the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs is content
for them to be used in animal feed; and that an authorisation
has since 1997 been in place for the marketing of processed
oil from genetically modified oilseed derived from these lines.
We are therefore content to clear the proposal.
33 OJ No. L.117, 8.5.1990, p.15. Back
34
OJ No. L.106, 17.4.2001, p.1. Back
|
