1 Cultivation of
genetically modified maize
| (a)
(30620)
—
—
|
Draft Council Decision regarding the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of a maize product (Zea mays L.line Bt11) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests
|
| (b)
(30621)
—
— |
Draft Council Decision regarding the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC, of a maize product (Zea mays L.line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests
|
| Legal base | Article 18(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EMs of 6 May 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2009
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Committee
|
Background
1.1 The deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) is subject to Directive 2001/18/EC.[1]
This provides that, where a GMO is to be placed on the market,
consent should initially be sought from the competent authority
of the Member State concerned. If it is minded to recommend approval,
it has to forward its assessment to the Commission, and thence
to the other Member States: if no objections are received within
a stated period, it may give written consent, but, if objections
are raised, the matter has to be considered by the Regulatory
Committee of Member States set up under the Directive, on the
basis of a draft Commission Decision. If that does not achieve
a qualified majority, it has to be referred to the Council (which
must take a decision by qualified majority within three months),
failing which the Commission may adopt the Decision.
1.2 The Regulatory Committee recently considered proposals
to approve the cultivation within the Community of two maize lines
(Zea mays Bt11 and 1507) which have been genetically modified
to be resistant to certain insects,[2]
but, as these failed to secure the requisite qualified majority,
they are being referred to the Council under the procedure described
above. We have yet to receive official texts of the draft Council
Decisions, but these are expected to follow closely the draft
proposals put to the Regulatory Committee, which the Government
has made available to us.
The current proposals
1.3 The two proposals would approve applications
first made to the French and Spanish competent authorities (CA)
in 1996 and 2001 respectively to place genetically modified maize
on the market for cultivation. The lines in question are already
authorised for feed and food use, and, if agreed, the Decisions
would require the consent to be granted, permitting their cultivation
in all Member States. The consent would, however, be subject to
a number of conditions, including the need to monitor the emergence
of any tolerance on the part of both target insects and others,
the planting of adjacent "refuge borders" (designed
to reduce the exposure of non-target species to pollen from the
genetically modified maize), and the use of the herbicide glusofinate.
1.4 After conducting an initial assessment, the
competent authorities in question concluded that there was no
scientific evidence to indicate any risk to human or animal health
or the environment, and that consent should be given. Those assessments
were duly conveyed to the Commission and other Member States,
following which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) consulted the UK's statutory Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). When ACRE first considered
the applications, it felt that the possible impact of the insect
resistance trait on non-target insects had not been adequately
addressed in the environmental risk assessment or in the case-specific
post market monitoring plan, and it therefore advised that consent
for cultivation should not be issued at that stage. However, after
revised post market monitoring plans had been submitted, the Committee
was satisfied that its concerns had been addressed.
1.5 DEFRA also consulted the Food Standards Agency,
the Health and Safety Executive, the statutory conservation bodies
and the GM Inspectorate, and their comments, together with the
advice from ACRE, were subsequently reflected in the opinions
submitted by the UK, which contained no safety objections and
agreed to the issuing of the consents for these two maize lines.
However, as some Member States maintained objections, the Commission
consulted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which concluded
that there was no evidence to indicate that the placing of the
lines in question (and derived products) on the market was likely
to cause adverse effects on human or animal health or the environment
in the context of their proposed use.
1.6 The EFSA subsequently added two Annexes to
each of its opinions. The first provided clarification for Member
States on issues where they raised particular concerns, in particular
on the potential for adverse effects on non-target organisms:
and the second responded to a request from the Commission to consider
relevant scientific papers which had been published since the
Authority published its original opinion. In both cases, it concluded
that this information did not invalidate the former risk assessment,
a view which was shared by ACRE.
1.7 On the basis of this scientific advice, the
UK voted in favour of each of these proposals at the Regulatory
Committee on 25 February 2009, but, as noted above, no qualified
majority was reached in either case, with six Member States (including
the UK) voting in favour, seven abstaining, twelve voting against,
and two being absent. (According to the Government, nine Member
States voted on purely political grounds rather than basing their
decisions on whether there is any new scientific evidence of risk
to human health and the environment, whilst one abstained as it
had not received Ministerial approval to vote due to administrative
problems, but claimed that it would have voted in favour.)
The Government's view
1.8 In his Explanatory Memoranda of 6 May 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) notes that the proposed
course of action is in line with the requirements of Directive
2001/18/EC, and the Government's GM policy statement of 9 March
2004. However, he points out that, although Northern Ireland agreed
with the UK having voted in favour of these consents being granted,
the Scottish Government was unable to support this "on the
grounds that the Scottish Government believes that the precautionary
principle and our own commitment to a clean and sustainable natural
environment make any cultivation of GM crops unacceptable and
undesirable. In the best interests of Scotland and our citizens
we would wish to oppose and would vote accordingly were we in
a position to do so." Also, although Wales agreed to the
UK voting position in these instances, the Welsh Assembly Government's
policy is to take the most restrictive approach to GM crop cultivation
which is consistent with UK and EU legislation. He adds that bilateral
ministerial meetings have been held with Wales and Scotland to
discuss how to reach an agreement on how the UK should vote on
future GM applications, and a round table meeting of all four
ministers is to be scheduled shortly: if differences cannot be
resolved, the matter will need to be brought before a Ministerial
Committee.
Conclusion
1.9 On the grounds that they involve matters
in which there is a considerable public interest, we have in recent
years drawn to the attention of the House as a number of applications
relating to the use of imported genetically modified crops
in food and feed within the Community, but, as these have not
in the main raised any particular or novel issues, we have usually
cleared them as not requiring further consideration. These two
proposals are however different, in that they involve the cultivation
of genetically modified crops within the Community, and hence
give rise to a number of additional considerations which are reflected
in the terms of the proposed consents.
1.10 Furthermore, there are two points specific
to the handling of these applications within the UK which raise
important questions. First, the Minister has highlighted a difference
of view between the UK Government and Northern Ireland on the
one hand, and Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government
on the other, over the approach which should be taken to applications
of this sort. We note that the Scottish Government in particular
is apparently unwilling to endorse the views of the Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment or the European Food Safety Authority.
Quite apart from this fundamental difference between the various
administrations in the UK over the principle of allowing the cultivation
of genetically modified crops, such an approach also strikes us
as being at odds with the long-standing UK approach, in this (and
other) areas, of taking full account of scientific advice when
reaching policy decisions of this kind.
1.11 Secondly, when we dealt recently with
a report[3] by the
Commission on the steps being put in place by Member States to
tackle the need to segregate genetically modified crops from conventional
and organic agriculture, we noted that the UK was one of the relatively
small number of Member States which had not introduced legislation
in this area, and that there also appeared to be differences of
opinion on the need for such legislation between the Scottish
Government and the other devolved administrations and DEFRA. We
were also told that, although the intention —
at least in England and
Northern Ireland — was to finalise such plans once further
information was available, no commercial GM cultivation was expected
in England for several years, and that it remained the intention
to have appropriate coexistence measures in place beforehand.
The question which now arises is whether such measures could be
put in place sufficiently quickly if the consents for these two
maize lines were to be granted, and also whether it would in that
event be possible for the Scottish Government to prevent their
cultivation in Scotland.
1.12 In view of these considerations, we are
recommending these documents for debate in European Committee.
1 OJ No. L 106, 17.4.01, p.1. Back
2
Notably the European Corn Borer. Back
3
(30533) 8420/09: see HC 19-xv (2008-09), chapter 9 (29 April 2009). Back
|
