What the European Commissioners said on GMOs and labelling thresholds for GM in seeds
On March 23rd 2005 the new Commission for the first time jointly discussed GMO issues, for which the Commissioners for Environment, Agriculture, Consumers, Trade and Research produced a statement, which vows to go ahead with pending GMO approvals but makes no clear statement on seed purity and co-existence issues. Internal Commission paper
 | Stavros Dimas, Environment |
June 16. 2005: The Commission might not introduce any legislation on GM seed thresholds, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas suggested. Responding to questioning from Environment Committee MEPs he said the Commission had not yet decided whether to legislate on GM seed thresholds and that action was not necessarily required. A Commission spokesperson confirmed that a number of different possibilities were being examined on the basis of their feasability and potential benefit, and that the option of not proposing legislation on thresholds had not been ruled out.
Question: According to current comitology procedures, in the absence of a qualified majority within the Council, the Commission can make a decision on the approval of a marketing licence for a new GMO variety. Would you be in favour of revising the comitology procedures in order to provide for the European Parliament to have a role in circumstances where there are clear and recurring political divisions within the Council of Ministers regarding such an approval? In order to ensure co-existence between GM and GM-free crops, the Parliament called for labelling thresholds to be set at the detection level (Resolution A5-465/2003 from 18.12.03). Will you respect the opinion of the Parliament if the Standing Committee and the Council fail to reach qualified majorities with regard to the Commission proposal?
Answer: Standard comitology procedures have been established for all fields of Community legislation. However, in 2002 the Commission proposed to amend these rules to put the European Parliament on a more equal footing with the Council in controlling the Commission’s implementing powers under legal acts adopted in co-decision. This proposal was favourably received by the Parliament, and the Commission is now awaiting the Council’s examination of the amended proposal which takes into account the amendments adopted by the European Parliament. If this is approved by Council, it will substantially meet the concerns of Parliament while respecting the Commission’s executive responsibility. In the meantime, the current comitology procedures for the approval of GMOs were agreed by Parliament and Council in co-decision and are laid down by Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs. These rules already give the Parliament the right of scrutiny before adoption of any Decision on approval of GMOs. It is important to establish labelling thresholds for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, in particular to ensure practical co-existence between genetically modified, conventional and organic crops. As you will know, the Commission has not yet adopted a decision, and it is not possible to tell, at this stage, what this proposal will be.
Source: Answers to European Parliments questionnaire, part B (October 2004)
At the Hearing of the European Parliaments Committee on Environment on Wednesday 29. September 2004 Mr. Dimas explicitly confirmed that he was in favour of the threshold of 0,1% as also proposed by the Committee. "That is the logical threshold," he said according to Dow Jones.
 | Mariann Fischer Boel, Agriculture Speech on co-existence at the Committee of the Regions (27 June 2005) |
Question: What is your position on GMOs, including the issue of coexistence between genetically modified, traditional and organic crops, and that of GMO contamination of organic seeds (what limit would you advocate)? How far do you intend to encourage organic farming? Will you defend production and processing of high- DV/539144 PE 348.076 7 quality foodstuffs, to protect consumers’ health and also the culinary traditions that are specific to Europe, and will you continue with the policy of enhancing the value of local products through the PDO-PGI system?
Answer: I believe that no form of agriculture (GMO or non-GMO) should be excluded in the EU (“co-existence”) in the future. The challenge is to ensure that farmers can choose between GM and non-GM crops while complying with EU labelling and traceability requirements. GMO and non-GM production are not naturally separated; measures must be taken to prevent their admixture at all stages. Co-existence does not concern human health or environmental risks, which are addressed in the GMO authorisation process, but potential economic damage caused by the accidental spreading of GMOs to non-GM crops and appropriate and cost-effective measures to reduce admixture. We must manage adventitious presence, like all other GMO regulatory issues, on the basis of scientific advice and ensure that our approach is robust enough to effectively regulate what happens in the real world. We have formal EU scientific advice that very low levels of adventitious presence can be tolerated within explicit regulatory thresholds. The challenge would be to finalise those threshold values in such a way that reconciles our need for secure organic and conventional farming and our farmers' need for enough seed at competitive prices. Organic farming is important to promote environmentally friendly and quality production. Organic farmers can receive support from the CAP’s first pillar. It is fully integrated in the rural development policy, the CAP’s second pillar, and has a prominent place in the agrienvironment measures. The CAP reform has provided the framework for the future development of organic farming and made a range of instruments available to Member States. The Commission has published the “European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming”. With this Communication, it intends to assess the situation and provide an overall strategic vision for organic farming.
Products that present specific qualities linked to natural and production conditions and to human know-how can be given added value thanks to the PDO/PGI system (Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications). This name protection constitutes a real tool for rural development and also responds to consumer demand. I will defend this system. Producers and processors who want to produce under such restrictions and who comply with the control rules and the general food safety and public health requirements, should be allowed the exclusive use of product names that are protected at European level.
Source: Answers to European Parliments questionnaire, part B (October 2004)
 | Markos Kyprianou, Health and Consumer Protection (replaced by Androulla Vassiliou on 10 April 2008) Curriculum vitae |
Question: Consumers should be enabled to make an informed choice when buying food products. The Community legislation on food labelling plays a key role for this choice, especially with regard to nutritional labelling, health claims, labelling of food quality and production processes like the use of GMOs. Which measures will you take in order to inform consumers in an appropriate way and to avoid misleading marketing, especially towards children?
Answer: The current general food labelling legislation was originally designed in 1978. It needs to be reviewed and updated, because today’s consumers want to be better informed. Food labels tend to be complex and unclear, which goes against the desired objective, and creates additional difficulties in application and control of the applicable provisions. An evaluation has been launched to consider existing food labelling provisions. This will provide the basis for an in-depth discussion with all interested parties. I see the key challenges here as developing a framework for clear language labelling, which is accurate and comprehensible to the citizen, with strong safeguards against abuse and misleading statements. We need to work to find an approach that emphasises key data needs, so that consumers are not overwhelmed with a plethora of less important and often confusing information affecting their informed decision.
Source: Answers to European Parliments questionnaire, part B
