EU envrionment ministers continued to disagree on whether member states
should be allowed to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive areas, although
they did concur on the need for better long-term environmental risk
assessment of GMOs.
Following a number of informal discussions earlier this summer, the EU-27
environment ministers debated the bloc's GMO authorisation procedure in a
Council meeting on 20 October.

But member states clashed on the issues of protecting sensitive and
protected territories and establishing GMO-free zones. Some delegations
underlined that the current legislative framework already allows for such
protection measures if there is scientific evidence of risk.

Others would like to retain control of their national territories and see
the subsidiarity principle better respected in this regard, allowing them to
establish GMO-free zones for sensitive eco- and agro-systems.

According to the French Presidency, the ministers agreed on the need for
better long-term environmental risk assessment. Several delegations also
said the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) guiding principles should
be revised. Its safety assessments would always take account of the latest
research findings as scientific knowledge evolves.

As for including socio-economic considerations in the GMO authorisation
process (such as cost-benefit analysis of the possible consequences of GMO
seeds entry into the overall agricultural system), ministers described this
as both an "important" and a "complex" issue. They underlined that if such
criteria were to be considered, they would need to respect EU's obligations
vis-?-vis the World Trade Organisation. Furthermore, some member states
underlined that such measures would never replace scientific evaluation as
the main authorisation criteria.

The ministers also underlined that there was no exact definition of
socio-economic criteria linked to GMOs. Therefore, an EU-level methodology
framework could be elaborated to identify and evaluate such criteria.

Positions:

Recent figures by the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio) on
biotech crop cultivation in Europe show that "more EU farmers are choosing
to go biotech to boost their competitiveness despite a 10 year moratorium on
new product approvals".

The association therefore urges EU ministers to end the moratorium on
cultivation approvals and give European farmers the right to choose the
products "which they believe are best to protect their crops and increase
their competitiveness".

According to EuropaBio, some 50 products are currently awaiting approval in
the EU, 19 of which are for cultivation.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace argues that member states should be allowed to
establish GMO-free areas and implement measures to avoid seed contamination.
It argues that the EU's current authorisation process is "fundamentally
flawed since it ignores the long-term effects of GMOs, evidence on their
biodiversity impacts, diverging scientific opinions and concerns from EU
member states".

Therefore, the NGO calls on environment ministers to ensure that EU legal
requirements on GMOs are respected and that "environmental risk assessments
are carried out by independent bodies with the necessary scientific
expertise".

Next steps:

Dec. 2008: Environment Council conclusions on the issue expected.
www.checkbiotech.org