Green MEP Martin Häusling warns that the Parliament's rapporteur is going rogue in her support for deregulation
In the run-up to the final negotiations between the Council of the EU, the Parliament and the Commission (trilogue) scheduled for 3 December on the European Commission's legislative proposal on the deregulation of new genomic techniques (NGTs), it is clear that the European Parliament's key concerns are not being adequately defended by the Parliament's conservative rapporteur in the negotiations. The rapporteur, Jessica Polfjärd, is deviating arbitrarily from the Parliament's mandate on several points – currently on the hotly debated issue of patents.
Martin Häusling, the Green Group's negotiator on new genetic engineering, commented:
“I strongly criticise the fact that the conservative negotiator of the European Parliament has caved in on the European Parliament's key position of excluding patents. The European Parliament has decided by a large majority that genetically modified plants of category NGT1 [claimed by developers to be equivalent to conventional plants] should not be patentable. Patents would lead to legal uncertainty, high costs and monopoly-like structures, and consequently to less seed diversity.
“Given the political majorities and the agrarian-economic implications, it is extremely risky for the Council and the Commission to ignore this position and for the EP negotiator to fail to defend her mandate with sufficient determination. It cannot be ruled out that the patent issue will determine the Parliament's final approval of the trilogue outcome. The final trilogue is currently scheduled for 3 December.
“As a negotiating partner in the trilogue, we have been warning for over two years that the European Commission's proposal in its current form is not acceptable. The existing EU legislation on genetic engineering works – it follows the precautionary principle and protects agriculture, the environment and consumers.
“Several experts have pointed out that the scientific basis for far-reaching deregulation is insufficient. A webinar taking place today highlights the existing gaps in knowledge and shows that key questions about risks, detectability and traceability remain unresolved.
“The proposed deregulation, on the other hand, would mean that genetically modified plants, including organisms produced using CRISPR/Cas, would end up on European fields and plates without risk assessment. Particularly worrying is that, according to the current state of negotiations, there will be neither mandatory consumer labelling nor transparent traceability.”
A report in Politico (no link, subscription only) said the Danish Council presidency is threatening to stop the trilogue talks entirely and push the European Commission's deregulation proposal straight to a second reading in the Parliament if MEPs won't surrender their stance on patents, labelling and traceability. In this case, MEPs would only have a few months to approve the current text, reject it, or try to rewrite it.
Politico says the Danish presidency believes that a parliamentary majority would back the Council's position, as the far-right will vote in favour of deregulation.
Politico is following the line that the French Socialist MEP Christophe Clergeau is blocking agreement on deregulation by refusing to soften the Parliament's red lines – but the publication ignores the fact that there is widespread disagreement among MEPs on those issues.
The precautionary sector of MEPs have backing from many NGOs. Heike Moldenhauer, secretary general of the European Non-GMO Industry Association, told Politico that the Parliament’s original position “was crystal clear: no patents on all NGTs, and full traceability and labelling for all NGTs”. She said that stepping back now “would come at the detriment of farmers, small breeders, the food sector and consumers”.