Brussels, Belgium
February 20, 2007
Source: Press
release of the Council
of the European Union
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/92864.pdf
The
Council was invited to act, by qualified majority, relatively to
two decisions proposed by the Commission:
a) requesting Hungary to repeal
the prohibition of use and sale in its territory of a
genetically modified maize
(Zea mays
L. line MON 810) expressing the
Bt cry1a(b) gene (15786/06);
b) authorizing the placing on the
market of a carnation (Dianthus
caryophyllus L.,
line 123.2.38) genetically modified for flower colour (16434/06).
Hungarian Zea mays L. line MON 810
Concerning the maize MON 810
provisionally prohibited in Hungary, the Council adopted, by
qualified majority (1),
a decision rejecting the proposal from the Commission.
The Council justified its
decision on the grounds that:
– Maize line MON 810 had been
approved according to Directive 90/220/EC, which has since been
replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC, which contains harmonized
environmental risk assessment criteria for GMOs and that these
two products have not yet undergone a procedure of re-approval
and re-assessment in accordance with the new Directive;
– where the conditions set out in
the relevant legislation apply, a Member State may restrict the
use and/or sale of a GMO in accordance with Article 23 of
Directive 2001/18/EC (safeguard clause);
– the different agricultural
structures and regional ecological characteristics in the
European Union need to be taken into account in a more
systematic manner in the environmental risk assessment of GMOs.
Commission Decision of 22 April
1998 gave consent for the placing in the market of
Zea mays
L. line MON 810.
On 3 August 1998, the French authorities granted such consent.
On 20 January 2005, Hungary informed the Commission of its
decision to provisionally prohibit the use and sale of
Zea mays
L. line MON 810,
justifying the decision.
The European Food Safety Authority(2)
concluded, on 8
June 2005, that the information submitted by Hungary did not
constitute new scientific evidence sufficient to invalidate the
environmental risk assessment of
Zea mays
line MON 810
justifying a prohibition of its use and sale in Hungary.
On 24 June 2005, the Council
rejected, by qualified majority, a Commission proposal
requesting Austria to repeal a similar safeguard clause and
presented its reasons in a statement, calling on the Commission
to gather further evidence on the GMO in question.
In November 2005, EFSA was
consulted again by the Commission, being, in particular,
requested to take account of any further scientific information
that had arisen subsequent to the previous scientific opinion.
In its opinion of 29 March 2006, EFSA concluded that there is no
reason to believe that the continued placing on the marked of
MON 810 maize is likely to cause any adverse effects for human
and animal health or the environment under the conditions of its
consent(3).
Therefore, the Commission
prepared a proposal for a decision asking Hungary to repeal the
safeguard measures concerning
Zea mays
L. line MON 810, now
submitted to the Council, which has a period of three month(4)
to act by
qualified majority.
It is recalled that a similar
proposal inviting Austria to repeal identical measures was
rejected by a qualified majority of the Council (5)
on 18 December
2006.
Carnation Dianthus
caryophyllus L., line 123.2.38, genetically modified for flower
colour
Concerning the genetically
modified carnation, the Council could not reach qualified
majority in favour or against the Commission proposal,
consequently, it will be up to the Commission to take the
decision.
The Dutch authorities received a
notification concerning the placing on the market of a carnation
genetically modified for flower colour. They forwarded to the
Commission their assessment report, concluding that the
genetically modified carnation should be placed on the market
for import, distribution and retailing as for any other
carnation.
The Commission forwarded the
assessment report to all other Member States, some of them
having objections to the placing on the market in terms of
monitoring plan, allergenicity and toxicity, and detection of
the product.
In the light of these objections
the EFSA was consulted and concluded, on 27 June 2006, that cut
flowers of the genetically modified carnation
Dianthus caryophyllus
are unlikely to
have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the
environment in the context of its proposed ornamental use. EFSA
also found that the scope of the monitoring plan is in line with
the intended use of the carnation.
On 18 September 2006, the
Commission consulted the Regulatory Committee on the deliberate
release into the environment of GMOs. Despite the favourable
opinion delivered by the EFSA, the committee was unable to give
an opinion. Consequently, on 5 December 2006, the Commission
submitted a proposal to the Council, which has to act by
qualified majority within a 3-month period of time from that
date (6).
(1)
FIN, UK, NL and SE
voting against and Romania abstaining.
(2) Which replaced the relevant scientific committees, see
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en.html.
(3)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/gmo/gmo_opinions/1439.html
(4) Ends on 22
February 2007.
(5)
See
16164/06.
(6)
Ends on 5 March
2007. |
