6 Use of genetically modified maize in
Austria
| (a)
(28976)
13701/07
COM(07) 589
|
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)
(28977)
13702/07
COM(07) 586
|
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
|
| Document originated | 9 October 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 15 October 2007
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 18 October 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes 22 and 23
|
| To be discussed in Council | 30 October 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 The deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) within the Community is currently subject
to Directive 2001/18/EC.[21]
In particular, a Member State is permitted to restrict or prohibit
provisionally the use and/or sale of a GMO as (or in) a product
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 are then 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by the requisite majority not to support them, they must be repealed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.
6.2 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 the Directive then in force (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).[22]
6.3 After their enactment, each of these national
measures had 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 which had not been taken
into account in the risk assessments which had supported the original
applications for consent. 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.
6.4 As we noted in our Report of 4 July 2005, when
the draft Decisions were put to the Regulatory Committee in November
2004, the UK had voted in favour. However, since they illustrated
the continuing differences of view within the Community over the
use of genetically modified organisms, we though it right in clearing
them, to draw them to the attention of the House.
6.5 Further requests to Austria to withdraw its safeguard
actions on these two genetically modified maize products were
contained in proposals put forward by the Commission in October
2006.[23] The need for
these had 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 was asked to gather
further evidence and to further assess whether the measures taken
were justified. However, the Commission said that the EFSA had
once more concluded that there was currently no reason to believe
that the marketing of these two maize lines was likely to cause
adverse effects for human or animal health or the environment.
It had therefore decided to maintain its earlier proposals.
6.6 After obtaining clarification from the Government
on the basis for the views taken by the UK and other Member States
on the proposals, we again cleared these on the basis on a Report
to the House on 22 November 2006, noting that the UK intended
to support them, after having taken into account the scientific
advice and available evidence.
The current proposals
6.7 In these latest documents, the Commission is
for the third time proposing that Austria should be requested
to withdraw the action it has taken as regards these two genetically
modified maize products. It has done so in the light of the discussion
in the Council on 18 December 2006 on the two most recent proposals.
On that occasion, the Council had again indicated its opposition,
and, in doing so, had suggested that "the different agricultural
structures and regional ecological characteristics in the European
Union need to be taken into account in a more systematic manner
in the environmental risk assessment". In view of this, the
Commission has in these latest proposals made it clear that the
action which Austria is now being asked to take relates only to
its prohibition on the import and processing into food and feed
products of these two maize lines (and does not therefore require
it to lift any prohibition on their cultivation).
The Government's view
6.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 18 October 2007,
the Minister of State for the Environment at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Phil Woolas) simply outlines
the background to these latest proposals, and points out that
UK supported the proposals which had been voted upon in the Environment
Council in June 2005 and December 2006, as being consistent with
the scientific evidence and the advice of both the European Food
Safety Authority and the UK's Advisory Committee on Releases to
the Environment.
Conclusion
6.9 The issues raised by these proposals are similar
to those which arose on the corresponding documents which we considered
in July 2005 and November 2006, except insofar as the Commission
has on this occasion explicitly limited the request to Austria
to the prohibition on the import and use of these two maize lines,
and has thus made clear that the request does not relate to any
prohibition on their cultivation. Given the extensive background
to these latest documents, we see no reason to withhold clearance,
but we again think it right to draw them to the attention of the
House.
21 OJ No. L 106, 17.4.01, p.1. Back
22
(26534) 8633/05 and (26541) 8641/05; see HC 34-i (2005-06), para
31 (4 July 2005). Back
23
(27897) 13764/06 and (27898) 13767/06: see HC 34-xl (2005-06),
para 3 (1 November 2006) and HC 41-i (2006-07), para 10 (22 November
2006). Back
|
