Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 102kWORD 18k
7 December 2018
Question for written answer E-006173-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Mark Demesmaeker (ECR)

 Subject:  New breeding techniques
 Answer in writing 

In a judgment of 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that ‘new breeding techniques’ are genetically modified organisms and are therefore covered by Directive 2001/18/EC.

This judgment has significant implications.

On 30 October 2018, a group of third countries raised the detection and trade problems that ensue from the judgment in a letter to the World Trade Organisation.

On 13 November 2018, the Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors published a short statement.

1. Will the Commission ask the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors to draw up a scientific opinion?

2. Following the judgment of the Court of Justice, does the Commission still regard the EU definition of ‘genetically modified organism’ as being compatible with the definition of ‘living modified organism’ in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

3. If the Court of Justice’s ruling leads to a discrepancy between these two definitions that has operational consequences, how will the Commission address it?

Original language of question: NL 
Last updated: 19 December 2018Legal notice