Today if a member state prohibits the cultivation of a genetically modified organism (GMO) on its territory it is systematically condemned by the EU court of justice following a complaint from Monsanto, a leading producer of genetically engineered seed. The directive adopted by the parliament on 13 January is a game changer.
In the absence of this directive, the current situation would remain, whereby the commission authorises the cultivation of GMOs due to the lack of a common position in the European council. This situation could not last. It systematically pressurised member states, like France, that wish to say no to GMOs. Of course, I would have preferred a European moratorium on GMOs, but such a decision would not have reached a consensus in the council in the face of support from member states advocating GM.
"Authorisation decisions for GMOs will be based on independent and evidence-based evaluations"
Despite the long and difficult negotiations with an inflexible council, the parliament was able to enhance the protection of consumers, farmers and member states, with the help of Frédérique Ries, rapporteur on genetically modified organisms (GMOs): possibility for the member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.
This directive means more security for member states that oppose GMOs. By spring 2015, member states may restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory, citing environmental reasons, agricultural and socioeconomic factors. This ban will be possible without having to negotiate with GM companies. This is one of the greatest victories for the parliament and in future member states will have the last word, not Monsanto. There is also more security for farmers and traditional or organic farming techniques. Within two years, member states shall take measures to prevent contamination of traditional crops by GM crops in bordering areas.
The European commission will quickly assess national practices for financial compensation to farmers in cases where contamination occurs. However, a European compensation fund should be created to protect our farmers. The directive provides more security for European consumers and the commission has committed to reviewing and strengthening the risk assessment rules conducted by the European food safety authority in two years. Authorisation decisions for GMOs will be based on independent and evidence-based evaluations. This is reassuring news for the 58 per cent of Europeans opposed to GMOs. Another great victory for European consumers is that the parliament has convinced the commission not to grant authorisation for any new GMO crops before the entry into force of this directive, which is 20 days after publication in the official journal of the European Union.
Even if we do not manage to persuade all 28 EU member states that this directive should be adopted under the prism of 'environment' rather than 'internal market', we did actually succeed in 'greening' the legislative proposal. This was a very difficult fight but we got there. This directive is only the beginning and will obviously be strengthened in the coming years in light of future studies on the environmental and the health dangers of GMOs.