Motion for a resolution - B9-0490/2023Motion for a resolution
B9-0490/2023
European Parliament

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

4.12.2023 - (D092595/03 – 2023/2995(RSP))

pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Members responsible: Martin Häusling, Anja Hazekamp, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Günther Sidl

Procedure : 2023/2995(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected :  
B9-0490/2023
Texts tabled :
B9-0490/2023
Debates :
Votes :
Texts adopted :

B9‑0490/2023

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(D092595/03 – 2023/2995(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D092595/03),

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council[1], and in particular Article 11(3) and Article 23(3) thereof,

– having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[2],

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 15 March 2023, and published on 26 April 2023[3],

– having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)[4],

– having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

A. whereas on 8 February 2021, BASF SE, based in Germany, submitted on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, based in the United States, an application to the Commission for the renewal of the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (‘GM’) oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3;

B. whereas on 26 April 2023, EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion;

C. whereas the GM oilseed rape has been engineered to be tolerant to glufosinate;

Lack of assessment of the complementary herbicide

D. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013[5] requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide-tolerant plants;

E. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified so that they are tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without the crop dying, as would be the case for a non-herbicide tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds[6];

F.  whereas  herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, and does so by charging a premium for GM seeds that can be justified only if farmers purchasing such seed also spray the complementary herbicide; whereas heightened reliance on dicamba on farms planting the GM oilseed rape will accelerate the emergence and spread of dicamba- resistant weeds, thereby triggering the need for even more herbicide use, a vicious circle known as ‘the herbicide treadmill’; whereas, as a consequence, the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen on soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

G.  whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘EFSA GMO Panel') and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

H. whereas the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen on soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

I. whereas, as part of its safety assessment of GMOs, the EFSA GMO Panel did not take into account the real-life conditions for growing these plants, including the large amounts of herbicides that would be applied in practice, the residues from spraying with complementary herbicides as well as the impact of more intense spraying on the overall plant composition;

J.  whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council[7] whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018;

Stakeholder comments

K. whereas detailed analysis by an independent research organisation concluded that the opinion of EFSA has to be rejected due to major flaws and substantial gaps and new evidence that shows that the opinion of EFSA is not conclusive;

Upholding the Union’s international obligations

L.  whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health[8]; whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination[9]; whereas authorising the import of the GM oilseed rape would increase demand for this crop, which is designed to be treated with dicamba, thereby increasing the exposure of workers and the environment in third countries; whereas the risk of increased worker and environmental exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

M. whereas the Union, as a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), has the responsibility of ensuring that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States[10];

N.  whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN CBD;

Undemocratic decision-making

O.  whereas the vote on 24 October 2023 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

P.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

Q.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament has already adopted 36 objections to placing GMOs on the market whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas the reasons for Member States not supporting authorisations include lack of respect for the precautionary principle in the authorisation process and scientific concerns relating to the risk assessment;

R.  whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

S.  whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee[11];

1. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council[12], to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision and to submit a new draft to the committee;

4. Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs; reiterates its call for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’[13];

5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs[14]; expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite ongoing objections by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

6. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the import of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, due to the increased use of complementary herbicides, and the associated risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health;

7. Highlights that the amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011[15], which were adopted in Parliament as a basis for negotiations with the Council, state that the Commission shall not authorise GMOs when there is not a qualified majority of Member States in favour; insists that the Commission respect this position and calls on the Council to proceed with its work and adopt a general approach on this file as a matter of urgency;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

 

Last updated: 4 December 2023
Legal notice - Privacy policy