The Reform of the EU Legislation on GMOs: A Journey to an Unknown Destination?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Poli

The recently enacted Directive 2015/412 is a long waited piece of legislation. This legislation introduces a new provision in Directive 2001/18, Art. 26 b, which gives Member States the regulatory freedom to decide whether genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) should be cultivated or not in their territory. One month after the publication of this act in the Official Journal of the EU, the Commission issued a Communication in which it illustrates further legislative changes to the legislation on genetically modified food and feed (“GM food and feed”). On the same day, the Commission has tabled a proposal for a Regulation, amending Regulation 1829/2003 (the “proposed reform of GM food and feed”) that envisages the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of GM food and feed on their territory. The proposed act is described as a complement to Directive 2015/412 and is inspired by the same principles.

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blanca Salas Ferer

In April 2015, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) adopted a package on the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (hereinafter, GMOs) as food and feed in the EU. The package, which derives from the Political Guidelines presented to the European Parliament in July 2014 on the basis of which the current Commission was elected, consists of a Communication (titled Reviewing the decision-making process on genetically modified organisms) and a legislative draft (i.e., Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory, and hereinafter, the Proposal).


2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewelina Żmijewska ◽  
Dariusz Teper ◽  
Anna Linkiewicz ◽  
Sławomir Sowa

Abstract Maize can be a valuable source of pollen when plants attractive for bees are not available. Honeybees can forage from conventional maize as well as from genetically modified (GM ) maize. The Court of Justice of the European Union (EU ) ruled that pollen in honey must be treated as a food ingredient and therefore falls within the scope of Regulation 1829/2003/EC on GM food and feed and requires authorization. GM pollen unauthorized in the EU cannot be present in honey at any level, and honey must be labelled if it contains more than 0.9% of pollen from authorized GM plants in relation to total pollen content. However, currently available analytical methods allow only for estimation of GM pollen quantity in honey. Therefore, Directive 2001/110/EC related to honey needs to be amended so that pollen can be regarded as a natural constituent of honey. Because the EU is a big honey importer, validated and harmonized detection methods are necessary for the control of GM pollen in honey.


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 620-627
Author(s):  
Roberto Defez

Purpose The debate around the use and study of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is so complex that frequently people miss that the outcome of some political/social/economic decisions are taken in such a way that the legal/agricultural/medical coherence is lost. The purpose of this text is to underline the contradictions in the European approach to GMOs, when for the past 20 years the European Union (EU) has been using and importing GMOs but rejecting its study or cultivation. Design/methodology/approach The approach follows the distance among public declarations against GMOs from most of the political representatives, followed by decision on our health, nutrition and economic development going exactly in the opposite direction. The arrival of the new genome-edited plants cannot solve all requirements, as in many cases an entire new function should be added and, at present, this will be again a GMO irrespective to the technique used to add a new gene. The delay in taking these decisions are now posing a hazard on the cultural and economic development of the EU. Findings The laws (directives) on GMOs in the EU are far too restrictive and suffer from an over-regulation that prevent any attempt to come to a science-based approach on genetically modified (GM) plants. The basis for the definition and the restrictions is on the technology and not on the final product. However, on the other hand, the GMOs are the only product where the safety analysis is on the final product (which is not the case for organics productions). The paradox is that all restrictions are concentrated on GM plants to be cultivated in Europe, as if the main hazard would be on the environmental impact of local cultivation. Meanwhile, the EU has no concern if the same environmental damage happens abroad and EU is the final user of the technology as 68 different GMOs are imported and used even for human consumption in Europe. Originality/value Fighting against the EU over-regulation would appear to be a position supporting multinational seed companies (none of them based in the EU), described as polluters. The proposed approach is the opposite, asking for a more restrictive regulation to show to the consumers that: most local EU high quality food products are derived from GM-fed animals; GM cotton is potentially far more risky than any GM food; and reducing GM plants cultivated in Europe increases the pesticide sold by chemical companies (mostly based in the EU).


10.5912/jcb4 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldine Schofield

The European Commission has proposed two new regulations to deal with the labelling and traceability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These deal with both food and animal feed. The intention is to provide information to the consumer, to ensure transparency of GM ingredients in the food chain and to encourage the unblocking of an (unofficial) moratorium on GM crops. This paper describes where the proposals are in the EU system, the issues and the problems industry will face if they are implemented in their present format.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Poli

Member States wishing to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been a minority in the EU. Only eight out of twenty-seven have experienced transgenic agriculture. Throughout the years, the opposition to this form of farming has become a genuinely transnational phenomenon given that many regions of different European countries declared themselves GMO-free. Moreover, Member States such as Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Poland and, most recently, Hungary officially banned transgenic agriculture within their borders altogether. France and Germany suspended the cultivation of GM maize MON 810, respectively in 2008 and 2009.In addition, the EU has previously authorized only two GM crops: GM maize MON 810 (authorization renewed in 2008) and GM potato EH92-527-1 (2010), known as the ‘Amflora potato.’ The cautious approach towards transgenic farming is also witnessed by the long and contested process of renewal of the permit to cultivate GM maize MON 810 and the issue of the authorization for the Amflora potato.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 20-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda GEELHOED

AbstractThis article analyses the recent reform to the EU’s genetically modified organisms (GMO) regime which allows Member States to restrict the cultivation of GMO on their territory for reasons that do not relate to issues of health and safety or the environment. By allowing for national differentiation – although on legally questionable grounds – new Article 26b of Directive 2001/18/EC has been presented as a solution to overcome the impasse in GMO decision-making. However, this article finds that the reform fails to provide a solution for the EU regime’s most pressing problem, namely its disregard for scientific uncertainty and disagreement.


Author(s):  
Elze Matulionyte

This paper analyses the clash between two multilevel governing systems – the EU and the WTO – on the regulation of genetically modified organisms’ (GMOs’) authorisation and seeks to answer a question whether a workable solution can be found through existing dispute settlement procedures. In the first part of the paper the development of the dispute will be introduced together with a brief history of the events. The emphasis is put only on the most recent events that followed the US complaint in the WTO. The second part depicts and gives an analysis of the main EU legislation in the field of biotechnology and its implementation, which caused this WTO dispute. The fourth part seeks to answer whether the WTO is a proper forum for this dispute because of its insensitivity for numerous non-economic issues, which are at stake in this case. Further on in the fourth part possible outcomes of the dispute are modelled.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Poli

The Commission has proposed to legitimise the renationalization of the cultivation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) accepting the request of a group of Member States who raised concerns at the Environment Council of June 2009 regarding the EU-wide decisions on GMO2 cultivation.


2002 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrycja Dabrowska

The first directives regulating the use and trade of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were adopted at the Community level in 1990. These acts formed a core of the Community gene technology legal regime and harmonised the authorisation procedures prior to both contained use and deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Accordingly, no GMO may be placed on the European Union market without obtaining a written consent for it and only after an appropriate environmental risk assessment has been carried out. Under the old Deliberate Release Directive 90/220, 18 GM products were allowed to be placed on the Community market following either the Commission decisions or Member States consent and over 1000 were notified to the Member States authorities for experimental purposes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document