Sunday

23rd Apr 2017

GMO opt-out plan remains in waiting room

A proposal to give member states the power to ban the use of genetically modified ingredients in food will likely stay stuck in a legislative limbo for several months.

The Maltese presidency has not planned the proposal to be discussed by agriculture ministers, whose approval is required for the plan to become law.

Dear EUobserver reader

Subscribe now for unrestricted access to EUobserver.

Sign up for 30 days' free trial, no obligation. Full subscription only 15 € / month or 150 € / year.

  1. Unlimited access on desktop and mobile
  2. All premium articles, analysis, commentary and investigations
  3. EUobserver archives

EUobserver is the only independent news media covering EU affairs in Brussels and all 28 member states.

♡ We value your support.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • Parts of civil society do not trust the scientific assessments that say GMO crops are as safe as non-GMO crops. (Photo: M Shields Photography)

Malta holds the rotating presidency of the council, where national governments meet, until 30 June 2017.

A source close to the presidency said, “there is quite some legislative work in the pipeline, so we will focus our energy on where we will see potential to move things forward”.

It will be the two-year anniversary of the European Commission's still to be finalised proposal during the Maltese presidency, although there is little to celebrate.

The commission announced the idea in April 2015, as a way to break the ideological deadlock that exists in Europe over the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in human and animal food products.

It wants to give member states the power to ban the use of GMO types, even if that GMO had received an EU-wide stamp of approval by the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) agency.

The commission had hoped the opt-out option would entice member states with an anti-GMO view to drop their opposition during votes on approving GMOs.

The outcome of these votes is nearly always the same, roughly a third of member states is in favour of following EFSA's scientific advice, a third votes against, and a third abstains.

As a result of the repeating deadlock the decision to approve GMOs falls on the commission, which in turn takes the blame from anti-GMO groups.

But at a meeting in July 2015, agriculture ministers heavily criticised the commission's plan as unworkable.

Some months later the European Parliament, whose consent is also needed, flat-out rejected the whole plan and called on the commission to withdraw it.

However, the EU's executive has made another attempt to convince national governments, sending them a legal study showing why it would work.

According to the presidency source, technical civil servants will look at the study, although their assessment needs to be finished first.

“We want to make sure the process is exhausted at a technical level before bringing the matter to the ministers for a final crystallisation,” the contact said.

“We would like to avoid the situation where discussions within the council will focus on technical aspects.”

Another diplomatic source explained to EUobserver in 2015 why member states are not keen on accepting the commission's solution.

The source, from an anti-GMO member state, said “we have found somebody else to actually take the decision. The commission over the years has been getting all the flak”.

“From the member states' point of view, it's absolutely marvellous … brilliant”, he said.

MEPs reject Commission plan on GMO opt-outs

Food safety commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis failed to convince the European Parliament. 579 of 751 MEPs voted to ask the Commission to withdraw the legislative proposal, which it refused to do.

Member states vary in EU 'polluter pays' rules

An EU directive aimed at supporting the "polluter pays principle" has resulted in a patchwork situation, but the European Commission is not yet ready to propose a change.

Column / Crude World

Nord Stream 2: The elephant in the room

The European Commission should provide a thorough impact assessment of Nord Stream 2, a project that appears to go against all of its Energy Union objectives.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersDeveloping Independent Russian-Language Media in the Baltic Countries
  2. Swedish EnterprisesReform of the European Electricity Market: Lessons from the Nordics, Brussels 2 May
  3. Malta EU 2017Green Light Given for New EU Regulation to Bolster External Border Checks
  4. Counter BalanceCall for EU Commission to Withdraw Support of Trans-Adriatic Pipeline
  5. ACCAEconomic Confidence at Highest Since 2015
  6. European Federation of Allergy and Airways60%-90% of Your Life Is Spent Indoors. How Does Poor Indoor Air Quality Affect You?
  7. European Gaming and Betting AssociationCJEU Confirms Obligation for a Transparent Licensing Process
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region and the US: A Time of Warlike Rhetoric and Militarisation?
  9. European Free AllianceEFA MEPs Vote in Favor of European Parliament's Brexit Mandate
  10. Mission of China to the EUXinhua Insight: China to Open up Like Never Before
  11. World VisionViolence Becomes New Normal for Syrian Children
  12. International Partnership for Human RightsTime to Turn the Tide and End Repression of Central Asia's Civil Society

Latest News

  1. France holds nail-biting 'anti-system' vote
  2. Le Pen-Putin friendship goes back a long way
  3. Mogherini should tell Russians their rights matter
  4. Le Pens Freunde aus dem Trump Tower
  5. Sexe et mensonges: l'information russe sur l'UE
  6. Report: Post-Brexit payments, ECJ jurisdiction could last years
  7. Oxford study raises alarm on 'junk' news in France
  8. Thousands to march in defence of science