The European Parliament on Tuesday (January 13) voted for a new rule which gives each EU member state the power to ban the cultivation of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) on their own territory, even if such a crop has been approved at EU level. The main political groups, the Centre-Right, Socialists and Liberals, said that this will give more power to the member states. However, the Greens voted against the new scheme, arguing that it will ease the introduction of GMOs in Europe.

480 members of the European Parliament voted in favour of this new scheme for the authorization of GMOs in the EU. 159 voted against and 58 abstained.

“Freedom of choice to member states” has been put forward in this new legislation. Right after the vote, Frédérique Ries, the Belgian Liberal who pushed the legislation through the Parliament said: “This agreement will ensure more flexibility for member states who wish to restrict the cultivation of the GMOs in their territory. It will, moreover, signpost a debate which is far from over between pro- and anti-GMO positions.”

During the procedure of authorization of an GMO crop, member states can demand to be excluded from the application field of this authorization. Once an GMO is authorized, countries might also put a limit or ban its cultivation by justifying this to the Commission with reasons, like environmental policy or a socio-economic impact.

Gesine Meissner, German member of the Liberals and Democrats Group at the European Parliament, backed the vote, just as her group did.

“We agreed on that because now it is the opt-out solution all the member states can decide: Do I want GMOs in member state, in my country, or don’t I want it? So, they can decide,” Meissner said.

However, the Greens voted against the new scheme. “EU will become a patchwork of GMO regimes,” the party stated and criticized the renationalisation of the decisions about GMO cultivation.

The Green food safety spokesperson, Bart Staes, said that “this new scheme will ease the way for GMOs in Europe”.

According to him, two main points have not been taken into consideration in this new legislation: the coexistence between one country, which authorizes GMOs, and another which doesn’t, and the responsibility of possible damage to non-GMO fields. (audio in French)

“There will be a problem, for example, if Flanders authorizes and France doesn’t. Then all the border between Flanders (the Westhoek) and France will be problematic. The same for France and Germany. However, between France and Spain there will be less problems, because there are the Pyrenees, because there are less contaminations possibility. So, the coexistence is not ruled, but what is also not ruled is the financial responsibility. It is clear that when we cause damages by polluting other farmers that are cultivating non-GMO crops, there is a financial responsibility and this is not ruled as well,” Staes explained.

Business interests could increase

The Greens also voted against this new scheme because it would “improve the process for authorizations of GMOs,” Staes argued.

In fact, in the first phase of the authorization process, GMO crop company discuss indirectly, through the European Commission, with the member state about the exact geographical area of cultivation of the concerned GMO crop.

Staes doesn’t consider this really democratic. (audio in French)

“It is clear that a phase where there are contacts, even indirectly with the European Commission, between member states and the producers (of GMO), it is not really democratic, ” he stressed. “There is always a possibility of blackmail or of negotiation. And I think to give the possibility to commercial agents to intervene in an authorization process is not rally democratic,” Staes said.

However, for Meissner, this authorization process is not problematic.

“Well, of course there can always have been interests, but it is normal in our world that wherever you have a business, business is always having interests and member states can have interests as well, but I think that there is no danger that member states can be kind of bought by business, that is what some people fear,” she said. “I don’t share this fear, I really think that is a good solution to really inform themselves, as member states, governments, and then decide with the people,” Meissner stressed.

The law has been already on the table since 2010, but has been deadlocked for four years due to disagreement between pro- and anti-GMO member states.

Currently, 19 member states are against GMO, five are in favour and four doesn’t have a position.

Author: Laeticia Markakis, Euranet Plus News Agency

Suggested Euranet Plus stories

Right of a EU member states to say No to GMO crops in question | October 17, 2014 | Euranet Plus News Agency | English

So far a majority of member states of the European Union would like to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from their territory. This so-called op-out clause is at the centre of a huge discussion on European rules to be established by next year. But regardless, the outgoing Commission could meanwhile give green light to new GMO crops.

Agreement on GMOs gives opt-out right in EU | July 8, 2014 | Euranet Plus Central | Beyond Borders Euranet Plus Special in four languages

Four years after the adoption of the European Commission proposal, EU environment ministers have finally reached a political agreement on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The deal contributes to breaking the deadlock on the GMO cultivation proposal. This means that a new legal basis will give the EU member states the choice to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Despite this, the EU-wide risk assessment will remain as strict as it is to ensure a high level of protection for human health, animal health and the environment. How will the system work? Will the countries who want to ban GMO cultivation need to ask for applicant companies’ approval? Do member states have to justify their choice?