GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAIZE: USE AND SALE
IN HUNGARY AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED CARNATIONS: PLACEMENT ON THE
MARKET (15786/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Ian Pearson
MP, Minister of State for Climate Change & Environment, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
At its meeting on 22 November 2006 2006 Sub-Committee
D considered your Explanatory Memorandum dated 7 November 2006
on the above subjects.
We feel assured given the significant level
of assessment undertaken that neither Proposal represents a threat
to human health or the environment. Nevertheless, we do continue
to take the matter of genetically modified products very seriously
and we would ask that, when submitting EMs on similar proposals
in the future, you provide information on why other Member States
may have particular objections.
We will therefore release both of the proposals
from scrutiny, but we would be grateful if you could let us know
the final outcome of discussions.
29 November 2006
Letter from Ian Pearson MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 29 November regarding
the Explanatory Memoranda on the above two proposals. You cleared
these proposals from scrutiny but asked to be informed of the
final outcome of discussions.
These two proposals were both voted on at Environment
Council on 20 February. No qualified majority was reached either
for or against the GM carnation so the Commission will now issue
a consent in line with its scientific assessment. This is the
agreed procedure laid down in the Comitology procedures.
In relation to the proposal to lift the ban
on the use and sale of GM maize MON 810 in Hungary a qualified
majority against the proposal was reached. The UK voted in favour
of the proposed Council Decision based on the opinions of various
scientific bodies (including the European Food Safety Authority
and the UK's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment)
which have concluded that there is no new relevant scientific
evidence in support of the safeguard action. Most other Member
States have again voted along political lines, rather than on
the basis of sound law or science. The safeguard action will,
therefore, stay in place. This is the second time that the Council
has voted against lifting safeguard actions taken by other Member
States. Such actions call into question the credibility of the
scientific basis of the EU GMO regulatory system.
5 March 2007
| 
