Bridges Trade BioRes Review • Volume 3 • Number 2 • October 2009

National Bans on GM Maize Highlight EU Fragmentation

by Lindsay Bass

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Despite the recent re-approval of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) maize by the EU’s food safety agency, broad civil society support for national state bans is making it difficult for the EU to create a uniform policy on GM cultivation across its bloc of 27 countries. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stands by its assessment that the GM maize (MON810) is as safe as its non-GM counterparts. MON810 is the only genetically modified organism that has been approved for cultivation in the EU.

The EFSA’s decision has been widely criticised by international green groups, which accused the agency of flawed assessments that ignore studies highlighting safety concerns. However, some researchers have levied similar charges at anti-GM advocates and politicians. While experts argue over good and bad science, the European Commission (EC) has been unable to build consensus among member state politicians to stop the bans.

Since a 2006 WTO ruling, which stated that the EU’s de facto ban on GM products violated world trade law, Brussels has been under pressure to get its member countries to allow farmers to produce MON810. Despite numerous attempts to force states to allow the use of the product, the EC has been repeatedly rebuffed by EU environment ministers (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 20 February 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/41093/ and 6 March 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/42458/).

EU food safety system unable to lift national bans on approved product

According to EU legislation, a ’safeguard clause‘ may be invoked by country if there is reason to believe that an approved genetically modified organism (GMO) presents a risk to human health or the environment. But, the risk must be supported by scientific evidence. However, in every case to date, the EFSA has repeatedly concluded that the evidence does not justify overturning the EU’s decision to authorize MON810. Yet, bans on the product remain in six states — Germany, France, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg, and Austria.

So far, the EU’s food safety system has had difficulty reconciling the political, social, and economic concerns of its member states with its own scientific assessments. In fact, comments by politicians suggest support for the bans is closely tied to concerns regarding national sovereignty. After the March vote to uphold the Austrian and Hungarian bans, Stefania Prestigiacomo - Italy’s Environment Minister - commented that the EU Council “did not vote to authorize the cultivation of GMOs but instead has ruled on the possibility of some countries making use of the safeguard clause that is expressly provided by the European Directive. We have deemed it necessary to defend this possibility.”

In June, Environment Ministers from eleven member countries went further calling for the right to opt-out of growing genetically modified (GM) crops. Noting the complex nature of EU decision-making and years of stalemate on biotech policy, they suggested amending relevant EU legislation to allow “opt-outs.” However, the suggestion runs counter to the principles of the single EU internal market, and, in practice, changing the EU’s strict rules on regulating the internal market would be extremely difficult, experts say.

The path to resolve the issue remains unclear. Given the positive opinion from EFSA, the EC is now required to propose renewal of the existing MON810 approval for cultivation. The proposal will be considered by the Regulatory Committee, comprising representatives of all 27 EU Member States.

Mixed results seen under current system

The EU’s resistance to genetically modified organisms (GMO) continues to strain relations with biotech industry and major exporters of GM products. Monsanto’s lawsuit against the German government over Berlin’s decision to ban the cultivation of MON810 is a recent example (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 1 May 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/45945/).

The ban was upheld by the German administrative court, which found that although the evidence presented did not prove that MON810 posed any health or environmental risks, it did indicate a “possible” risk and this was sufficient to uphold the ban. The court also said Berlin was not obligated to provide definitive scientific proof of a risk to human health or the environment to justify outlawing the crop.

In the EU, some member countries are finding ways to address the concerns of their citizens while adhering to the EU regulatory process. For example genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations put forward by Poland conform to EU laws and have been accepted by the EC.

Additionally, the July settlement between Canada and the EU regarding an ongoing trade dispute over Brussels’ restrictions on imports of GM products could be a sign of change. Canada dropped the complaint in exchange for increased discussions with the EU on issues relevant to trade in GMOs (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 7 August 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/52891/).

ICTSD Reporting; “Up in Arms,” NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, July 2009; “Green groups blast EU agency over biotech maize,” REUTERS, 29 JULY 2009; “EU to examine national opt-outs for GM crop growing,” REUTERS, 21 June 2009; “EC accepts Polish GMO regulations,” POLSKI RADIO, 29 May 2009.