Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Agriculture in the European Union

Global Jurist ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Chiarabolli

The objective of the research is to analyse the way the European Union is addressing the issue of the coexistence between traditional, organic, and GM crops.In the European Union no form of agriculture, whether conventional, organic, GM, should be excluded. Farmers are free to choose the production type they prefer, without being forced to change patterns already established in the area, and without spending more resources.Today EU rules on genetically modified crops are very rigid; in particular, before starting a GM crops commercial cultivation, it is compulsory to obtain a specific European Commission authorisation (based on a safety risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority), and GM food and feed (threshold 0,9%) must be labeled (to inform consumers) and traced.Coexistence is the weak point of the European legislation in the field. The European Commission defines the term coexistence as the farmers’ ability to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labeling and/or purity standards. In simple terms, coexistence is a way of allowing farmers to choose between the three agricultural systems. Farmers’ choice to grow GM or non-GM crops depends not only on technical aspects related to the productivity gains and agronomic benefits to be gained from adopting this technology, but also on consumers’ preferences. Particularly in Europe, consumers continue to be concerned about the potentially adverse implications of widespread GM crop production for the environment and food safety. According to Directive 2001/18/EC (Article 26 bis), Member States may organise measures to avoid the unadventitious presence of GMOs in other non-GM products. In order to help the Member States to organise national coexistence measures, the European Commission adopted the Recommendation 2003/556/EC on the guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The act establishes that the approaches to coexistence need to be developed in a transparent way, based on technical guidelines and in co-operation with all stakeholders concerned. The guidelines are based on experiences with existing segregation practices and, at the same time, they ensure an equitable balance between the interests of farmers of all production types. Further, they state that management measures to ensure coexistence should be efficient and cost-effective, without going beyond what is necessary to comply with EU threshold levels for GMO labeling. Today it is accepted that total isolation of GM material, certainly once agricultural biotechnology is widespread in the EU, is impossible; coexistence focuses on the practices used to decrease the adventitious GM presence. The implementation of coexistence measures is a complex process owing to the diversity in field, farming and natural conditions extending over Europe.On 13 July 2010, the European Commission adopted a new coexistence package that consists of a coexistence Communication, a new Recommendation on co-existence of GM crops with conventional and/or organic crops, and a draft Regulation proposing a change to the GMO legislation. The new approach aims to achieve the right balance between maintaining an EU authorisation system and the freedom for Member States to decide on GMO cultivation in their territory. The new flexible European scenario will give to the Member States the possibility to decide whether to cultivate biotech crops, maintaining at the same time an EU wide science-based authorization system.

Author(s):  
T. Tkachenko ◽  
◽  
V. Tsedyk ◽  
V. Kornienko ◽  
V. Ischenko ◽  
...  

The development of biotechnology in the field of GMOs requires states to take specific decisions to regulate the spread of genetically modified crops. In the European Union all GM crops that circulation are subject to mandatory registration, which regulates the placing on the market and circulation of genetically modified raw materials, food and feed. The article presents systematized data about the registration of genetically modified soybean, maize and rapeseed in the European Union. It was established that most of the GM crops have introduced genes that give them tolerance to herbicides of different groups. The register of the European Union currently includes 12 events of soybean (GTS 40-3-2, A2704-12, Mon 89788, MON87705, DP 356043, A5547-127, FG 72, SYHTOH 2, DAS-44406-6, DAS-68416- 4, Mon 87708, BPS-CV127-9), 5 events of maize (MZHG0JG, DAS-40278-9, GA 21, NK 603, T 25), 3 events of rapeseed (GT 73, T45, TOPAS 19/2) with tolerance to herbicides. It has been shown that a significant number of registered GM plants have a combination of several events, including tolerance to herbicides and resistance to certain insects or improving quality features of crops. Among them are one event of soybean (DP305423-1), 9 events of maize (TC 1507, DP 4114-3, MON 87411-9, MON 87427, MON 88017, DAS59122-7, Bt 176, Bt 11, DAS 1507) and one event of rapeseed (MS8xRF3). Many GM crops (one event of soybean and 6 events of maize) have introduced genes that determine the plant's tolerance to insects. Only a tiny amount of GM crops are being with altered consumer or technological qualities. In the register of genetically modified crops, all events of GM crops are currently authorized for usage for food, supplements, feed and other product. А single event of maize (Mon 810), that was allowed for cultivation at the time of this analysis was at the stage of renewal of the permit.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 1250013 ◽  
Author(s):  
DENISE GALLO PIZELLA ◽  
MARCELO PEREIRA DE SOUZA

Brazil is the second largest producer of genetically modified crops (GM crops) and the National Technical Commission on Biosafety (CTNBio) the decision making agency on this matter. The country uses Risk Analysis (RA) and project EIA as tools for biosafety evaluation. This paper aims to review the appropriateness of these tools for evaluating the environmental impacts of GM crops, also considering institutional aspects. An overview of the process of release of GM crops in Brazil along with important operational and institutional aspects is provided. The results indicate that project EIA could be applied to GM crops in specific sites and RA could give support to the evaluation of GM crop itself. Regarding institutional issues, it is concluded that decisions should be made by the environmental bodies, and not by the CTNBio.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.


Author(s):  
Petr YAKOVLEV

The decision on Britain’s secession from the European Union, taken by the British Parliament and agreed by London and Brussels, divided the Union history into “before” and “after”. Not only will the remaining member states have to “digest” the political, commercial, economic and mental consequences of parting with one of the largest partners. They will also have to create a substantially new algorithm for the functioning of United Europe. On this path, the EU is confronted with many geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which should be answered by the new leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament.


2021 ◽  
pp. 126-143
Author(s):  
Tereza Čejková

After expressing concerns about the state of democracy and civil rights in Poland and Germany in recent years, the European Commission proposed to implement the so-called rule of law condition in the 2021–2027 multiannual financial framework scheme, under which EU budget funding would not be allocated to those Member States which do not comply with the condition. This work will examine the financial and legal aspects of this condition and assess the impact of its application on the economy of the European Union.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns

This chapter examines the European Commission’s functions and structure, along with its role in policy making. The Commission initiates legislation, may act as a mediator, manages some policy areas, is guardian of the Treaties, is a key actor in international relations, and the ‘conscience of the European Union’. The chapter proceeds by discussing the debate on the extent to which the Commission is an autonomous political actor or simply an agent of the member states. Finally, it analyses the increasing challenges faced by the Commission in securing effective implementation of EU policies and its response to concerns over its financial management of EU programmes.


2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-145
Author(s):  
Ursula G. Sauer ◽  
Roman Kolar

In 1999, the European Commission presented its second report on the numbers of laboratory animals used in the European Union (EU). The plausibility of the data and the usefulness of the format of the registration tables remain questionable, for reasons previously discussed in connection with the Commission's first statistical report. In addition, it is impossible to derive sound information on trends in animal use in the EU and its Member States from the second statistical report. The European Commission and the Member States have agreed on new tables to be used for future statistics on the use of experimental animals in the EU. These new tables have been significantly extended and improved. Several categories of little relevance have been revised, and ambiguous expressions have been clarified. However, several problems either persist or have been newly created. Moreover, some important data (i.e. categories for pain and distress, as well as for several specific purposes of use; the origin of some animal species; types of institutions; and the use of genetically engineered animals) are still not required. Nevertheless, these are highly relevant to animal welfare and must be regarded as indispensable for a well-aimed application of the statistics to set priorities concerning the Three Rs.


2009 ◽  
pp. 203-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Devos ◽  
Matty Demont ◽  
Koen Dillen ◽  
Dirk Reheul ◽  
Matthias Kaiser ◽  
...  

elni Review ◽  
2009 ◽  
pp. 79-82
Author(s):  
Ana Barreira

The European Commission has recognised that “[l]aws do not serve their full purpose unless they are properly applied and enforced”. In addition “[t]he European Institutions and the Member States should continue to develop their work to ensure that Community law is correctly applied and implemented”. There are diverse tools for guaranteeing compliance such as compliance indicators, compliance and enforcement strategies and environmental inspections, the purpose of which is to supervise compliance. This article focuses on the latter. Firstly, the way in which this instrument was incorporated under Community environmental policy is examined. Secondly, the current status of environmental inspections at EU level is briefly analysed. Thereafter, it will concentrate on the proposals for the review of this tool, ending with some recommendations on how environmental inspections should be regulated in the European Union with a focus on the demands of European Environmental Bureau (EEB) on this matter.


2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Thomson ◽  
René Torenvlied

Three perspectives on delegation in the European Union are presented in this article. The transaction-costs perspective focuses on information asymmetries between policy makers and implementers. According to the commitment perspective, policy makers delegate authority as a solution to commitment problems. The consensus-building perspective views the decision to delegate as a trade-off between decisiveness and inclusiveness during the bargaining process. Hypotheses are derived from these perspectives regarding the amount of delegation to both the European Commission and to member states in legislation. From detailed information on eighty-six EU laws, there is some evidence for the transaction-costs perspective as an explanation of delegation to the Commission. With respect to delegation to member states, there is some evidence for both the transaction-costs perspective and the consensus-building perspective.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document