EU deregulation proposal fails to comply with Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, says law professor. Report: Claire Robinson
A legal opinion commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture concludes that the abolition of labelling requirements for plants modified with new genetic engineering techniques and their products would violate international law. The legal opinion examines the compatibility of the EU deregulation proposal for new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs) with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Its verdict is that it fails to comply with the Protocol.
The legal opinion is written by Freiburg professor of international law Dr Silja Vöneky. It was published shortly before the start of the final round of EU negotiations on the deregulation proposal.
The legal opinion says of NGT 1 plants – which deregulation proponents claim are conventional-like and thus should be exempt from GMO regulations: "To ensure compliance, a future EU regulation should maintain notification and documentation requirements for NGT 1 plants under the conditions set out in the Cartagena Protocol; and it should require labelling of all NGT 1 plants and their products, which includes the obligation to ensure their traceability within the EU."
Karl Bär, member of the Green parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, commented on the legal opinion in a press release: "The EU Commission's plans to deregulate genetic engineering in food are ill-conceived. So bad, in fact, that they violate international law. The current requirement for GMO labelling on food and traceability along the production chain is to be abolished. This means that consumers can no longer find out whether their food is genetically modified. And this is only so that international seed companies can make more profits.
"Without labelling, European companies cannot tell their trading partners whether their goods are genetically modified. However, the Cartagena Protocol makes this mandatory under international law. If the draft regulation is adopted, as envisaged by the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers, it will violate the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol.
"For ideological reasons, the Commission is ignoring all possible problems with new genetic engineering. As a result, questions of liability, the patenting of seeds and international trade relations remain unresolved. The costs are being passed on to companies across sectors like breeding, agriculture, food processing and trade. The EU-level negotiations with the European Parliament starting at the beginning of May are the last chance to correct this."
While GMWatch welcomes this aspect of the legal opinion, we take issue with Dr Vöneky's view that risk assessments for NGT 1 plants can be generalised. She states, "it is scientifically justifiable to determine risks associated with NGT 1 plants as a group of cases and then to verify, on the basis of pre-determined criteria, whether a specific plant falls within this group". But in reality, this is scientifically unjustifiable as the risks of each new GMO will vary depending on the types of changes, both intended and unintended, in the plant, and their effects on consumers and the environment. So each new GMO needs to be risk assessed on a case-by-case basis, as emphasised by scientists qualified in the topic.
A series of other legal and expert scientific opinions have variously concluded that the current EU deregulation proposal violates the precautionary principle and consumer protection rules, and is scientifically unjustifiable if it excludes new GMOs from risk assessment.
Link to the legal opinion by the Federal German Agricultural Ministry
More information (in German) on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Image: Shutterstock (licence available on request)