10 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
|
| Department
| Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 25 November 2013 and Minister's letter of 20 January 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report
| HC 83-xxii (2013-14), chapter 6 (27 November 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council
| 28 January 2014
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared |
Background
10.1 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.
10.2 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.[45]
10.3 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. It also noted that
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.
10.4 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 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.
10.5 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.
10.6 Our predecessors commented that
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
involved the cultivation of genetically modified crops
within the EU, and hence gave rise to a number of additional considerations,
as well as the added dimension of the differences of view within
the UK. In view of these considerations, the document was recommended
for debate in European Committee, and this took place on 16 June
2009.
10.7 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[46]
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 put to the Council
in November 2013 this formal proposal, which is for all practical
purposes identical to that rejected by the Regulatory Committee
in February 2009.
10.8 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, but the UK Government told us
that, provided human health and the environment are not compromised,
it is open to the commercial cultivation of GM crops, and that
both EFSA and ACRE have advised that this maize line is unlikely
to have an adverse effect. Consequently, as it considers that
decisions under Directive 2001/18 should be based on safety considerations,
it was minded — as was the case with earlier Regulatory
Committee vote in 2009 — towards voting in favour of the
proposal, when it came before the Council. However, the UK position
would not be finalised until DEFRA had consulted fully with the
Devolved Administrations.
10.9 As we noted in our Report of 27
November 2013, this proposal is identical to that which our predecessors
reported in May 2009, and which was subsequently debated in European
Committee. Consequently, it does not raise any new issues which
require further consideration. However, in view of the obvious
political interest in genetically modified crops, we thought it
right to draw the proposal to the attention of the House, and
to hold it under scrutiny, pending further information on how
the UK intended to vote in the light of the further discussion
between the UK Government and the devolved administrations.
Minister's letter of 20 January 2014
10.10 We have now received a letter
of 20 January 2014 from the Parliamentary Under- Secretary at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord de
Mauley) regarding the UK's intended voting position.
10.11 He says that the devolved administrations
have been consulted, and have urged the Government to vote against
the proposal, or, failing that, to abstain, this being consistent
with their broader position that the EU authorisation regime should
allow for non-safety considerations to be taken into account.
He says that, after giving this careful consideration, the Government
has nevertheless resolved to vote for approval, given the Directive
2001/18/EC requires the decision to be taken on safety grounds,
and that the scientific advice is clear that this maize line does
not pose a serious risk. He adds that established UK Government
policy recognises that it will only agree to the planting of GM
crops, the release of other types of GM organism, or the marketing
of GM food and feed products if a robust risk assessment indicates
that it is safe for people and the environment.
10.12 The Minister adds that the Greek
Presidency has confirmed that the Council is expected to vote
on this proposal on 28 January, and that, if the Council vote
is inconclusive, with no qualified majority for or against (as
is likely to be the case), the relevant legislation obliges the
Commission to grant EU authorisation.
Conclusion
10.13 We are grateful to the Minister
for this clarification, in the light of which we are now clearing
the proposal.
45 See (30621) -: HC 19-xvii (2008-09), chapter 1
(13 May 2009). Back
46
T-164/10. Back
|
