EU states able to accept or reject GM crops
Because some EU member states, such as Britain, are firmly in favour of growing GM and others, such as Austria, are implacably against, only one such crop is grown commercially in Europe despite several being declared safe by the European Food Safety Agency.
But after four years of negotiations, the stalemate was broken in overnight talks that will allow countries to decide for themselves whether to allow GM crops to be grown – provided they have been authorised by the EU first.
However, environmentalists say this will create an impossible situation for countries and regions that want to remain GM free, as some seeds can spread across borders and contaminate natural crops.
Marco Contiero of Greenpeace said the rules to prevent contamination were limited to borders area and meant that growers of non-GM will not be protected, especially as some seeds can travel long distances.
Ireland officially changed its policy to favour the new GM regime three years ago and support for the new system was confirmed two years ago by the Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan.
The IFA has been lobbying for the change for some time and in April said that the EU position on both GMOs and hormones in meat was costing farmers.
Now the compromise agreed means that once a decision is made to permit a GM product, a member state has 45 days to announce they will ban it, or alternatively they can request the company producing the GM not to sell it in their country.
However, the compromise has been criticised by both the industry and environmental groups. EuropaBio, the European body for GM industries, said it allows countries to reject safe products approved at EU level.
“Rejecting modern technologies on non-scientific grounds sets a dangerous precedent for the internal market and sends a negative signal for innovative industries worldwide considering whether or not to invest and operate in Europe”, said Beat Splath of EuropaBio.
But Greenpeace’s agriculture expert, Mr Contiero, said the agreement is designed to prevent countries banning GM on their territory. “The legal basis is so weak that it will fail when the industry challenges it in the European Court”.
The deal excludes environmental reasons for banning GM and instead relies on a very general and poorly defined wording on “developing agricultural practices offering better potential to reconcile product with eco system sustainability. This is an extremely weak basis – how can such general and undefined terms be used to justify a national ban on a GM product in court. It will be impossible for a country to win,” he said.
Bart Staes of Green Food agrees and says that shifting to a denationalisation of decisions on GMO cultivation must be accompanied by a totally legally watertight basis for those countries wishing to opt out. “Otherwise it risks being aTrojan horse and could undermine the hand of those wanting to say ‘no’ to GMOs”.
The dead will be discussed by member states representatives later this month and is expected to be agreed and voted on in the European Parliament in the new years.
