6 Cultivation of genetically modified
maize
| (35528)
16120/13
COM(13) 758
| Draft Council Decision regarding the placing on the market for cultivation, 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
|
| Document originated | 6 November 2013
|
| Deposited in parliament | 15 November 2013
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 25 November 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| Discussion in Council | January 2014
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
6.1 The deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is subject to Directive
2001/18/EC. 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.
6.2 On 25 February 2009, the Regulatory Committee
considered a proposal to approve the cultivation within the EU
of a maize line (Zea mays 1507) which had been genetically
modified to be resistant to certain insects, but, as this failed
to secure the requisite qualified majority, our predecessors were
told that it was being referred to the Council under the procedure
described above. Although an official text of the draft Council
Decision had not yet been received, this was expected to follow
closely the draft proposal put to the Regulatory Committee, which
the Government had made available, and our predecessors therefore
used this as the basis for the Report they made to the House on
13 May 2009.[10]
6.3 That Report noted that the proposal would approve
an application first made to the Spanish competent authority (CA)
in 2001. The maize line in question had already been authorised
for feed and food use, but, if the Decision were to be agreed,
its cultivation would be permitted in all Member States, 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.
6.4 After conducting an initial assessment, the Spanish
authority had 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. That assessment was 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), the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive,
the statutory conservation bodies and the GM Inspectorate. Their
comments were subsequently reflected in the opinion submitted
by the UK, which contained no safety objections and agreed to
the issuing of the consent. However, as some Member States maintained
objections, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA), which also concluded that there was no evidence
to indicate that the placing of the line 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 its
proposed use.
6.5 In the light of this advice, the UK voted in
favour of the proposal at the Regulatory Committee on 25 February
2009. However, the Government's Explanatory Memorandum noted that,
although the proposed course of action was in line with the requirements
of Directive 2001/18/EC, and its GM policy statement of 9 March
2004, the Scottish Government had been unable to support this.
Also, although Wales had agreed to the UK voting position in this
instance, the Welsh Assembly Government's policy was to take the
most restrictive approach to GM crop cultivation consistent with
UK and EU legislation.
6.6 Our predecessors commented that, as proposals
involving genetically modified crops were the subject of considerable
public interest, they had drawn to the attention of the House
a number of applications relating to the use of imported
genetically modified crops in food and feed, but, since these
had not in the main raised any particular or novel issues, they
had usually been cleared as not requiring further consideration.
However, this proposal was different, in that it involved the
cultivation of genetically modified crops within the EU,
and hence gave rise to a number of additional considerations.
Furthermore, there was the added dimension of the differences
of view within the UK, together with the fact that the UK was
one of the relatively small number of Member States which had
not introduced legislation in this area, raising the question
whether such a measure could be put in place sufficiently quickly
if the consent for this maize line were to be granted (and whether
it would in that event be possible for the Scottish Government
to prevent their cultivation in Scotland). In view of these considerations,
the document was recommended for debate in European Committee,
and this took place on 16 June 2009.
The current proposal
6.7 Although the Commission should then have put
the proposal to the Council within three months of the decision
taken by the Regulatory Committee, it did not in fact do this,
largely (it would seem) as a result of the widespread political
opposition from a number of Member States. As a result, the company
which had developed the line in question (Pioneer Hi-Bred International)
brought a case[11] against
the Commission in the General Court of the European Union for
its failure to take the necessary action, and the Court has subsequently
ruled that the Commission was at fault for not having referred
the issue to the Council within the relevant three month deadline
prescribed. As a result, the Commission has now put to the Council
this formal proposal, which is for all practical purposes identical
to that rejected by the Regulatory Committee in February 2009.
The Government's view
6.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 25 November
2013, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord de Mauley) says that
this particular GM crop is of no practical interest for UK farmers
as the pests it is designed to control are not an issue here.
Consequently, it is not expected that the seeds in question would
be marketed or grown in the UK, even if EU authorisation were
to be granted.
6.9 Notwithstanding this, the Minister says that
the UK Government is open to the commercial cultivation of GM
crops, provided that human health and the environment are not
compromised, and he notes that, in this case, both EFSA and ACRE
have advised that this maize line is unlikely to have an adverse
effect. He adds that, as decisions under Directive 2001/18 should
be based on safety considerations, the UK Government is minded
— as was the case with earlier Regulatory Committee vote
in 2009 — towards voting in favour of the proposal, when
it comes before the Council, in line with its published policy
position. However, the UK position will not be finalised until
DEFRA has consulted fully with the Devolved Administrations.
Conclusion
6.10 As this proposal is identical to that which
our predecessors reported to the House in May 2009, and which
was subsequently debated in European Committee, it does not raise
any new issues which require further consideration, particularly
as we understand it is unlikely that the crop in question would
be grown in the UK. However, in view of the obvious political
interest in genetically modified crops, we think it right to draw
the proposal to the attention of the House, and we are also holding
it under scrutiny, pending further information on how the UK intends
to vote in the light of the further discussion between the UK
Government and the devolved administrations. We would also be
interested to know, in the event that the Council does not agree
the proposal, whether the Commission will exercise its powers
to adopt the measure in its own right.
10 See (30621) -:HC 19-xvii (2008-09), chapter 1 (13
May 2009). Back
11
T-164/10
Back
|
