17 Use of genetically modified maize
in Austria
| (a)
(30433)
6327/09
COM(09) 51
|
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)
(30434)
6330/09
COM(09) 56
|
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
|
| Documents originated | 10 February 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 12 February 2009
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 16 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| To be discussed in Council | 2 March 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 The deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) within the Community is subject to Directive
2001/18/EC.[49] 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majority not to support them, they must be repealed by the Member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.
17.2 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 the Directive, but
which had failed to achieve the necessary majority. These included
prohibitions by Austria on two varieties of genetically modified
maize (Zea mays L. Line T25, and Zea mays L. MON 810).[50]
17.3 After their enactment, each of these national
measures had been examined under the procedures laid down, but
it had been concluded that there was no new scientific evidence
beyond that taken into account in support of the original applications
for consent. However, as the Council was then engaged in amending
the enabling Directive, no further action was taken at that stage.
As a result, when the measures in question were eventually considered,
they took into account further evidence submitted by Austria in
2004. Despite this, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
concluded that nothing had been produced which would invalidate
the earlier risk assessments.
17.4 Further requests to Austria to withdraw its
safeguard actions on these two products were contained in proposals
put forward by the Commission in October 2006.[51]
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 had been
asked to gather further evidence and to re-assess whether the
measures were justified. However, the Commission said that the
EFSA had once more concluded that there was 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 therefore decided to maintain its earlier proposals.
17.5 The Council on 18 December 2006 again indicated
its opposition, and 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 put forward in October 2007 a third set of proposals,[52]
making it clear that the action which Austria was now being asked
to take related only to its prohibition on the import and processing
into food and feed products of these two maize lines (and did
not therefore require it to lift any prohibition on their cultivation).
In the event, these too did not result in a qualified majority
in the Council on 30 October 2007, leaving the Commission free
to adopt a Decision requiring the prohibitions to be lifted. In
the light of this, Austria finally did so, and amended its legislation
in May 2008.
The current proposals
17.6 However, Austria has since reintroduced its
prohibitions on the basis of new scientific advice it has provided,
and this has again been considered by the EFSA. As before, it
has concluded that there is no scientific justification for the
measures, and the Commission has accordingly put forward these
further draft Decisions, requesting Austria to withdraw its latest
safeguard action. These are due to be voted upon in the Council
on 2 March.
The Government's view
17.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 16 February
2009, the Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife
and Rural Affairs at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Huw Irranca-Davies) simply outlines the background
to these latest proposals, and points out that UK supported the
earlier proposals which had been voted upon in the Council, 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
17.8 The issues raised by these proposals are
similar to those which arose on the earlier documents which we
considered. 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.
49 OJ No. L 106, 17.4.01, p.1. Back
50
(26534) 8633/05 and (26541) 8641/05; see HC 34-i (2005-06), chapter
31 (4 July 2005). Back
51
(27897) 13764/06 and (27898) 13767/06: see HC 34-xl (2005-06),
chapter 3 (1 November 2006) and HC 41-i (2006-07), chapter 10
(22 November 2006). Back
52
(29876) 13701/07 and (29877) 13702/07: see HC 41-xxxvi (2006-07),
chapter 6 (24 October 2007). Back
|
