GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Japan's first genome-edited food, a tomato, gets green light for distribution

  • New report shows EFSA systematically ignores risks of GM crops and foods

  • Brexit voters reject lower food standards

  • Victory in fight against deregulation of GMOs in Italy

  • France has not backed deregulation of gene-edited crops

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods
  • Dangers of gene-edited foods

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Commission tries to revive GMO opt-out for food and feed

Details
Published: 09 December 2016
Twitter

Plan would give national governments the power to ban the use of GMOs as ingredients in human food and animal food, even if the European Food Safety Authority says they are safe

Environmental groups have criticised the EU Commission’s plan to allow member states to opt out of GMOs in food and feed on the grounds that it is unclear how any member state ban would hold up to the EU internal market rules or international trade agreements.

The plan is widely seen as unworkable.
—

Commission tries to revive GMO opt-out proposal

By Peter Teffer
EUobserver, 6 Dec 2016
https://euobserver.com/environment/136169

The European Commission has made one more attempt to convince member states that they should accept its proposal to give national governments the power to ban the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food.

But according to an EU source close to the Slovak presidency of the Council, where national governments meet, the file will not be discussed before the end of the year.

Last week, the commission sent the council a confidential document that analysed the legal implications of the proposal, something which the member states were missing when it was tabled in April 2015.

The plan would give national governments the power to ban the use of GMOs as ingredients in human food and animal food, even if the European Food Safety Authority had given its stamp of approval.

But when agriculture ministers discussed the plan in July 2015, they heavily criticised the proposal, calling it “not useful” and “unworkable”.

In October 2015, the European Parliament flat-out rejected the proposal. Without support in both the parliament and the council, it cannot be adopted as law.

Since then, the file has laid still in the legislative plumbing, waiting either for the commission to pull the plug, or the council to come to a common position.

The EU source said the file is not on the agenda for next week's agriculture ministerial meeting, but that the institution's civil servants are “scrutinising” the commission's paper.

“I think we will not cover it during the Slovak presidency. It is quite feasible that there is no time to go through it,” the source said.

A second source said that the council currently had “no timetable for a possible technical examination of the paper”.

The commission had hoped that its plan would break the traditional deadlock which occurs when member states vote on whether or not to authorise the use of a GMO.

The issue is so culturally determined, that member states rarely reach a majority view, with votes in favour, against, and abstentions split three-ways.

The deadlock then results in a “no opinion” from the member states, leaving it to the commission to take the decision to authorise the GMO in question - and to receive the flak from the GMO-sceptic parts of European society.

European Food Safety Authority

The commission bases its decision on scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority, whose executive director Bernhard Url visited Brussels on Tuesday (6 December).

He told EUobserver the deadlock is not of concern to his agency.

“That happens after we have given our scientific opinion,” Url said in an interview.

“It is a political decision-making process that may be efficient or not, it's not for me to judge that. We produce the best available science and then policy steps in.”

Url said that he did not feel that some member states' reluctance to authorise GMOs, even if they have Efsa's approval, are undermining his agency's authority.

However, he did note that it was important that Efsa's scientific process was recognised as independent.

“If we come with a scientific opinion, let's say on a GMO or on glyphosate, which parts of the European Parliament do not like because it does not fit to their political agenda, what I would like to achieve is that they say: 'OK, I don't like the outcome of your opinion, but I trust the process'.”

Url also said it was “dangerous” if scientific evidence would be viewed as “just a scientific opinion, not more”.

“We cannot go beyond the age of evidence. We'd go back to the Middle Ages,” he said.

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design