10 Use of genetically modified maize
in Austria
| (a)
(27897)
13764/06
COM(06) 510
|
Draft Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line T25) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC
|
| (b)
(27898)
13767/06
COM(06) 509
|
Draft Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON 810) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC
|
| Legal base | Article 23(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 6 November 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xl (2005-06), para 3 (1 November 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | December 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 The deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) within the Community used to be subject
to Directive 90/220/EEC,[31]
and, whilst that Directive was in force, a number of consents
were granted in the period up to 1998 relating to imported maize
and rape. The Directive was eventually replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC,[32]
which introduced a number of procedural changes. In particular,
a Member State is permitted to restrict or prohibit provisionally
the use and/or sale of a GMO in its territory if new scientific
evidence comes to light of risks to human health or the environment
which have not previously been considered. Any such measures then
have to be considered by the Member States as a whole within the
Regulatory Committee set up for this purpose under the Directive,
and, if the Committee decides by the requisite majority not to
support them, they must be repealed by the Member State in question.
10.2 In April 2005, the Commission put forward to
the Council eight documents, which had been referred in November
2004 to the Regulatory Committee set up under Directive 2001/18/EC,
but which had failed to achieve the necessary majority. These
sought to repeal measures taken by various Member States over
a period of years to prohibit or restrict the use and sale of
certain GMOs which had previously been approved for use within
the Community under Directive 90/220/EEC, and included prohibitions
by Austria on two varieties of genetically modified maize (Zea
mays L. Line T25, and Zea mays L. MON 810).[33]
10.3 Each of these national measures had originally
been examined under the procedures laid down in Directive 90/220/EEC,
and the Scientific Committee on Plants had concluded that there
was no new scientific evidence additional to that provided for
the original consent applications. However, as the Council was
then engaged in the negotiations which led eventually to the adoption
of Directive 2001/18/EC, no further action was taken at that stage,
and, as a result, the measures in question had had to be considered
under the procedures laid down in the new Directive. According
to the Commission, that consideration had taken into account further
evidence submitted in 2004 by Austria relating to maize, but the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had concluded that no new
evidence had been produced in terms of risk to human health or
the environment which would invalidate the earlier risk assessments.
10.4 As we noted in our Report of 4 July 2005, when
the draft Decisions were put to the Regulatory Committee on 29
November 2004, the UK had voted in favour of the Commission's
proposals. However, since this illustrated the continuing differences
of view within the Community over the use of genetically modified
organisms, we though it right in clearing the documents to draw
them to the attention of the House.
10.5 These latest two documents again deal with a
request to Austria to withdraw its safeguard actions on genetically
modified maize (Zea mays L. Line T25) and genetically modified
maize (Zea mays L. MON 810). The need for this has arisen because
the previous proposals had been rejected by a qualified majority
of Ministers at the Environment Council in June 2005, following
which the Commission had been asked to gather further evidence
and to further assess whether the measures taken were justified.
However, the Commission says that the EFSA has again concluded
that there is currently no reason to believe that the marketing
of these two maize lines is likely to cause adverse effects for
human or animal health or the environment. It has therefore maintained
its earlier proposals, but, as these again failed to achieve the
necessary qualified majority at a recent meeting of the Regulatory
Committee, they have once more been referred back to the Council.
10.6 As we noted in our Report of 1 November 2006,
the current proposals are expected to be voted upon at the Environment
Council in December 2006, and, if no qualified majority is reached
then, they will be referred back to the Commission for adoption.
We also noted that the UK had supported the Commission's proposals
when they had been voted upon in the Environment Council last
year, and that the UK's Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment (ACRE) continued to agree with the EFSA that there
is no new evidence to support these safeguard actions by Austria.
We inferred from this that the UK again intended in the Council
to vote in favour of the proposals (and hence to rescind the prohibition
on the use and sale in Austria of these two lines of genetically
modified maize). However, since it appeared in this respect to
take a different view to a majority of other Member States, we
asked for the Government's comments on this.
Minister's letter of 6 November 2006
10.7 We have now received a letter of 6 November
2006 from the Minister for Climate Change and Environment at the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ian Pearson)
in which he says:
"As Member States do not specify why they are
voting in a particular way at Council, I cannot give you a definitive
view as to why other Member States took the position they did
when a vote was taken at Council in June 2005. All Member States
have committed themselves to a common approvals process, and have
a duty to be bound by the collective decisions taken under this
process.
"However, when voting on the safeguard actions
Member States appeared to be casting their votes in accordance
with their own domestic policy or for reasons of solidarity with
the Member States that had taken out safeguard actions, rather
than basing their decisions on whether there was any new scientific
evidence of risk to human health and the environment.
"The UK voting position in favour of the proposed
Council Decisions was entirely consistent with our policy of assessing
applications on a case-by-case basis, taking into account scientific
advice and available evidence. The UK will again be voting in
favour of Council Decisions when the next vote is taken at Environment
Council."
Conclusion
10.8 We are grateful to the Minister for this
explanation, and we now clear the documents.
31 OJ No. L 117, 8.5.90, p.15. Back
32
OJ No. L 106, 17.4.01, p.1. Back
33
(26534) 8633/05 and (26541) 8641/05; see HC 34-i (2005-06), para
31 (4 July 2005). Back
| 
