Genetic modification is a highly contentious issue for both the citizens of Europe and the member states. There are various reasons why governments may choose to not cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on their territory, and these sovereign decisions – whether it be for environmental or economic reasons – must be respected.
This piece of legislation, which has been a long time in the making due to a three year wait for the council’s response to the parliament’s first reading, was in theory proposed as a means to offer member states the possibility to opt out of cultivating GMOs on their territory.
Unfortunately, I fear that the compromise arrived at is a messy one, which does not offer the necessary watertight legal guarantee to governments to make these choices without fear of biotech companies taking them to court.
The two phase system to come out of the council was highly problematic. Phase one introduced the ridiculous concept of a member state having to politely request that the biotech company seeking authorisation of a GMO product does not include their territory within that request.
"I fear that the compromise arrived at is a messy one, which does not offer the necessary watertight legal guarantee to governments to make these choices without fear of biotech companies taking them to court"
Due to pressure from parliament, the final text has somewhat improved the wording from request to demand, but realistically this is mere window dressing. There is now a formal role created for biotech companies in EU decision making which I find deplorable, but, unfortunately, not surprising.
Phase two is a safety net for governments, which is supposedly there for member states to use once a GMO has been authorised by the European food safety authority (EFSA).
I would like to point out that, to date, the EFSA has yet to reject a single GMO authorisation request. Therefore, given the weakness of phase one, this stage is crucial for governments to be able to stop GMOs being grown in their territory. Phase two offers governments a list of justifications to use for requesting that an authorised GMO is not grown in all or part of their territory.
Of these justifications, ‘environmental reasons’ is perhaps the most significant, as it would probably be the primary reason for a member state to opt out of growing GMOs. Here, the devil is in the detail.
While the parliament’s environment committee wanted to give member states the option of using environmental grounds complementary to those examined during the authorisation process by the EFSA, the council and commission were pushing for them to be ‘distinct from’ these grounds.
The compromise reached was to take both references and put them in the recitals, reading, ‘complementary and distinct from the environmental impact examined [during the authorisation process]’.
This bad wording is clearly contradictory and leaves open a very worrying legal loophole for biotech companies to take governments to court. If successful, any merit this piece of legislation was aiming to achieve for protecting governments’ sovereign right to decide on GMO cultivation would be lost. This was simply not a risk I was able to vote for.
Parliament went in with a strong, well-worded text, even building on the excellent first reading document from the previous legislature. I feel that through pressure from the council and the commission, the parliament capitulated on some of the most important elements of our position from committee, resulting in watered down legislation which may undermine the democratic choices of elected governments.