Asynchronous GM Approval questioned
28 September 2007
In an Oral Question to the Commission, Jim Allister MEP raised questions about the lengthy timescale for approval of new GM crop varieties for use in Europe. This seems to be another case of EU bureaucracy in action.
The full text of the question, and the Commission's response follows:
ORAL QUESTION H-0614/07
for Question Time at the part-session in September II 2007
pursuant to Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure
by Jim Allister
to the Commission
Subject: Approval procedures for GM crops
Why does it take 30-36 months to approve GM crops within the EU, when such approval procedures take only 9-18 months in the
Will the EU move to synchronised approval of GM varieties, so that EU procedures are not disadvantaged by inflated livestock feed costs resulting from delay in approvals?
Tabled: 22.08.2007
en
Reply to oral question
H-0614/07
by Mr Allister
September II 2007
The reasons why authorising a Genetically Modified (GM) crop takes on average longer in the EU than in Third Countries are complex. They deserve a specific analysis. The Commission would mention different factors:
One is that the current system for the authorization of GM food and feed is applicable only since April 2004 and, just like any new mechanism, needed some time to optimize its functioning. This is also true for the biotech companies which had to familiarize with new regulatory requirements.
Second, in order to provide an answer to the concerns of the EU citizens on the safety of GM crops, the new regulatory framework has put in place an evaluation system which is far more demanding than any other in the world. This obliges companies to prepare specific dossiers and to reply to a series of scientific questions eventually posed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) during the risk assessment procedure.
A third element is the lack of support on the conclusions of the scientific evaluation and hence the Commission proposals for the approval of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) by Member States. The difficulty to get the support of a qualified majority of Member States obliges the Commission to follow the path of the comitology procedure in its entirety, i.e. to involve the Council.
Against this situation, the position of the Commission has always been clear. It is determined to fully implement the legislative framework avoiding any possible deadlock in the authorisation procedure without compromising on the principle of a very strict risk assessment.
Along this line, and as a consequence of the experience gained in these three years, relevant improvements have already been registered.
For example, the time taken by EFSA to carry out its completeness check on any new dossier has been reduced and the Authority has recently taken the commitment to finalise this section of the risk assessment within six weeks from the submission of the application.
A similar positive trend occurred in the validation of the detection methods, another crucial part of the process.
Furthermore the Commission has taken different initiatives to gain more support from Member States. Following the College debate on GMOs of April 2006, a specific action plan has been defined with the objective of improving the scientific consistency and transparency of the decisions on GMOs. For instance the GMO Panel of EFSA is now systematically providing explanations on how the comments raised by Member States have been taken into account in its opinions. Recent votes have shown an improvement in the support of Member States to authorisation proposals.
