Immediate Release 10th March 2006

Today’s EC Communication [1] on the ”coexistence” of GM and non-GM crops indicates that the Commission is prepared to plough-on with its deeply unpopular proposals to force EU Member States to adopt measures that would make GM contamination of crops routine across the whole of the EU.

The EC has rejected half the “coexistence” proposals submitted by EU Member States to date because they do not fully comply with the Commissions Recommendation of 2003 [2] which set a 0.9% GM contamination threshold (identical to the labelling threshold) for growing crops including organic ones and stated that “measures should not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the labelling threshold laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Directive 2001/18/EC in order to avoid any unnecessary burden for the operators concerned”.

To date, the UK has not put forward any “coexistence” proposals but recent correspondence from Margaret Beckett indicates that they will largely follow the EC recommendations to the letter. [3]

The EC’s recommendations to set a crop threshold based on the same level of contamination agreed for labelling has been described by a leading QC as “legally irrelevant”. The legal opinion [4] describes the Recommendations as “fundamentally flawed” and to have “no basis in Community legislation and are wrong in law”.  The opinion makes it clear that coexistence schemes must aim to protect the environment and human health as well as dealing with economic aspects of contamination of non GM crops.

The EC approach allows member states to develop their own scheme to introduce “appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products”.  However, some Member States have indicated that the 0.9% is unacceptable and want much lower thresholds and to avoid GM contamination by setting tough conditions for growing GM crops including liability.

At yesterday’s Council of Ministers meeting the EC’s approach and role in approving GM applications came under attack by several Member States including the use of their power to force through approvals despite the lack of a qualified majority in the Council for any GMO application in the last two years [5].

The demand for GMO free status is also growing fast with 172 regions and 4500 municipalities and local councils calling for the right to prevent GMO cultivation in their area [6].

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said

“Today’s EC communication shows that we are dealing with closed minds in Brussels.  Faced with a legal opinion that condemns its approach, massive political support for zero contamination and the right to set up GM-free areas, the Commission just ploughs on with its blueprint for contamination which benefits biotech companies ahead of the European citizens.  To make matters worse it appears to be trying to force through an EU wide set of rules without giving the European Parliament the chance to vote on it. 

The Commission’s approach is designed to allow GM crops to be grown not to protect the rights of people to grow and buy food free from contamination.

In most of Europe “coexistence” is an impossible concept and the real choice lies between GM contamination or not growing GM crops.  Politicians across Europe need to join with consumers and farmers to make sure the right to GM-free food and crops is not taken away by the GM dogma which permeates Brussels”

ENDS

Calls Pete Riley 07903 341 065.

NOTES

1. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence

of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

{SEC (2006) 313}

Copy available on request

2. 2003/556/EC dated 23 July 2003, Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

3. Letter dated 14^th February 2006 to GM Freeze, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, National Federation of Women’s Institutes,  GeneWatch UK and the Soil Association. Available on request.

4. Summary of Advice of Paul Lasok in relation to Coexistence, Traceability and Labelling

March 2005 for Friends of the Earth (EWNI), The Soil Association, Greenpeace, Which?, GeneWatch UK and GM Freeze

Co-existence

European legislation gives Member States the power to introduce co-existence measures¹. The power is very broadly described, allowing member states to take “appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products”.

In July 2003 the European Commission issued a ‘Recommendation’² which gave the Commission’s views on how member states should use that power. Although not having force of law the Recommendation is important because it sets out the Commission’s thinking and because it is being relied on by Member States throughout Europe, including the UK, in drawing up their co-existence strategies. The Recommendation tried significantly to narrow the power given to Member States. In particular, the Commission stated that:

            1. Member States are not allowed to take into account environmental and human health matters in preparing their co-existence measures. The only issues allowed to be dealt with in coexistence measures are ‘economic issues’. This is because the Commission believes that environmental and health matters are already fully addressed during the consent process for each crop;

            2. Member States are not allowed to make their co-existence measures stricter than is necessary to keep contamination below 0.9%. This is because 0.9% is the level of contamination at which products must be labelled as containing GMOs.

Paul Lasok QC looked at the arguments and concluded that:

The Recommendation is ‘fundamentally flawed’ (para. 55) and that the approaches of the Commission (and the UK Government in following the Recommendation) have ‘no basis in Community legislation and are wrong in law’ (para. 20). In particular:

            a. The labelling thresholds (0.9%) are ‘legally irrelevant’ to deciding how to implement co-existence measures (para. 25, 26).

            b. The objectives of coexistence must not be restricted to ‘economic issues’ only. Member States must have regard to the aims of protecting human health and the environment in adopting any coexistence measures. (para. 38)

            c. Any co-existence measures that were based on the labelling threshold of 0.9% would make it extremely difficult for operators to avoid labelling their products as containing GMOs even where their products contained GMOs at less than 0.9%. (para. 42-45)

            d. The Organic Regulation provides that, in order to be labelled or referred to as organic, a product must not contain GMOs in any quantity. If co-existence measures were to operate to a “baseline norm” (such as the 0.9% labelling thresholds) there is a very real risk that the “organic” label could become defunct” (para 52).

Full opinion at http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/legal_opinion_in_the_matte.pdf

¹ Art. 26a of Directive 2001/18

² 2003/556/EC dated 23 July 2003, Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

5. Ministers urge more change for GM crop rules Environment Daily 2055, 09/03/06

6.  http://www.gmofree-europe.org/