Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 17 December 2003 - Strasbourg

12. Coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0465/2003) by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the coexistence of genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops (2003/2098(INI)).

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, this is an own-initiative report tabled by Parliament at the request of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It is therefore not a response to a legislative proposal from the Commission. Rather, we feel that this matter requires action and that is why we have taken the trouble to draft this report. The report represents a compromise achieved through cooperation by all groups and one that has been adopted with overwhelming support by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. At this point, I would like to thank each of my co-rapporteurs: Mrs Schierhuber, Mrs Scheele, Mr Olsson, and Mr Garot. We have all sought to allow objectivity to rule while working on this Parliamentary task.

Let me emphasise once again that this report does not ask whether genetic modification should be allowed. It focuses on coexistence. It has already been decided, in consultation with this House, that genetically modified organisms will exist and will be released. The question we are considering here is how there can be cooperation, coexistence, and freedom of choice both for farmers and for consumers, for that will become the issue if we release genetically modified organisms in plants or animals. Nature does often tend towards exchange – it will not make any allowances for genetically modified organisms. So, rather than concentrating on the fact that very soon there will be a release of genetically modified plants and animals, we now need to ensure there are GMO-free plants and animals to allow freedom of choice. That is what this report is about. We need to make sure that all procedures are clarified before they are implemented. The Commission has not put forward any legislative proposals to this end – instead guidelines have been proposed. We are now trying to implement those guidelines, as stated in the report.

We call on the Commission to investigate the technical requirements, to consult scientific experts, and also to address the question of potential liability. The fact is that, while industry is perfectly entitled to make money, it cannot be allowed to do so if, lower down the chain, farmers are suing one another. There must be clarity. The reactions to this legislation indicate that some regions want to declare themselves GM-free, because they are concerned about the possibility of contamination between small plots – this relates to Article 26 of the release directive, introduced as a result of Parliament’s efforts, which states farmers must have the right to establish a GMO-free region provided they have established that food and feed with over 0.9% contamination will be labelled as genetically modified.

All those who want to operate on the market – not just the organic holdings, which are legally required to be GM-free, but also large sections of conventional agriculture – see this as part of their market. They are fully entitled to do so. Everyone has to make their own choice on this matter, and we have to ensure that they can do so.

This is why we are now proposing regulation for liability. I hope that a large majority in this House will approve this report tomorrow, that the Commission will then meet our expectations and that these questions about coexistence will be dealt with using the codecision procedure, as happened with the legislation on genetic modification. This will allow us to be included and use our expert knowledge – which is evident in this report – to come up with reasonable legislation that does not allow coexistence to become a Trojan horse. We do not want to fund ourselves a couple of years down the line concluding with regret that our approach has not worked. We need to guarantee the long-term nature of coexistence and freedom of choice for farmers and consumers.

I hope that the Commission will take our work seriously and that we will soon have a legislative proposal on this subject for this House to discuss.

One last thought: a key factor in this area is whether non-GM seed lines remain free of genetically modified organisms. There is no doubt that genetically modified seed will exist. We have legislation on the subject. However, we also need to ensure that GM-free seed exists. This, then, is the crux for coexistence. Our report places great emphasis on this point.

(Applause)

  Nielson, Commission. – Mr President, I would like to start by apologising as I see from the timetable that I have been allocated two and a half minutes, but in fact I have a prepared statement which is somewhat more thorough. Not having known this in advance, I feel obliged to go for substance rather than time management.

Firstly I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, and the Members of Parliament who have contributed to this own-initiative report. The Commission welcomes this report as a timely contribution to the discussion on coexistence. I fully share the opinion that coexistence is a highly important issue that needs to be addressed in a transparent and open-minded way.

With the new GMO authorisation procedure and the legislation on traceability and labelling, the European Union has created a comprehensive regulatory framework that should clear the way for the introduction of GMOs in agriculture. By establishing the conditions for coexistence we must ensure that farmers who want to use conventional and organic farming methods should be able to do so.

The report comes at a time when several Member States are in the process of preparing national and regional approaches to coexistence. It also comes at a time when the Commission is seeking to further clarify how it can best engage with the Member States in supporting this process, following the publication of the Commission recommendation on guidelines for coexistence last July.

While the Commission welcomes the own-initiative report as a valuable overall contribution to the discussion in terms of the individual statements and recommendations put forward, there are only a few we can wholeheartedly endorse. I shall comment briefly on some of them.

Concerning thresholds for seeds, we would agree that information on the presence of GMOs in seeds is necessary for the proper implementation of the GMO legislation, especially regarding labelling and traceability. However, the thresholds apply only to adventitious traces of authorised GMOs that have undergone extensive environmental and health-risk assessment. They are not meant to be a risk management tool.

We also recognise the importance and urgency of defining thresholds for the adventitious presence of GMOs in seed lots of non-GM varieties and we are currently working on a proposal. In doing so, we are basing ourselves on sound scientific advice building on the preparatory work that has been carried out over the last two years.

I am pleased to see that the report has replaced a previous draft text recommending a 0.1% threshold for seeds by a new text that takes account of scientific assessments regarding practical applicability. The Commission has always been of the opinion that thresholds should be feasible and practicable in a GMO environment. It has always insisted on the fact that sound scientific advice was needed in order to set thresholds.

Regarding the request for uniform and binding rules for coexistence at Community level, we are not convinced that this would be a feasible solution. Given the diversity that characterises European agriculture, we believe that it would be impossible to establish uniform rules that can be applied across the board. A 'one size fits all' approach is not appropriate.

Scientists have repeatedly supported the subsidiarity-based approach, also at the preliminary hearing on coexistence organised in September 2003. Member States also increasingly see this as the appropriate way forward. Moreover, with the insertion of an Article on coexistence into Directive 2001/18/EC at the request of the European Parliament, Member States now have the possibility to adopt measures for coexistence. With this clause for national coexistence measures in place and the Commission guidelines available, we believe that the framework for national solutions to coexistence is sufficiently elaborated. Coexistence cannot be a reason to further delay the authorisation of new GMOs.

I do not share the opinion expressed in the report that Member States should be obliged to put in place legislation to ensure coexistence. On the contrary, we should leave it up to them to explore the use of different policy instruments, including voluntary agreements and soft-law approaches and to choose the combination of instruments and depth of regulation that best suits them under their specific conditions.

On the question of who should be responsible for implementing the necessary measures we are in complete agreement. In fact, the Commission guidelines state that the farmers who introduce a new production type should bear this responsibility. This principle is mutual, although at the beginning it will mainly concern farmers who want to grow GMOs.

Regarding liability, I have difficulty understanding why Community-wide civil liability rules should be necessary. The question of liability cannot be dealt with in isolation. Liability is conditioned by the overall approach to coexistence taken by the Member State. It should therefore be addressed as an integral part of the package of national coexistence measures.

A general levy on GM seeds and feed, to cover administrative expenditures, as well as the testing and monitoring costs associated with GMO legislation, would not be compatible with the principle of the common market. As a general principle, the marketing of products that are authorised under Community legislation and found safe for human health and the environment, should not be restricted or impeded by the Member States. Of course taxation is here to stay – we tax many things in terms of economic activity as a whole, and so, logically, I would say that this discussion is not so strange.

The report asks the Commission to establish legally-binding definitions of the terms 'adventitious' and 'technically unavoidable'. Our legislation is clear on this: operators must be in a position to show that they have tried to avoid the presence of GMOs.

Concerning the issue of cross-border effects, the Commission could agree that this needs to be further examined. We will reflect on how this can be done and what contribution the Commission can make. We can also establish whether drawing up a public register of national strategies and best practices with cross-border impacts would be useful.

As regards GMO-free zones, we have a different view. We strongly feel that a blanket ban of all types of GMOs from a region is not possible, unless it is on a voluntary basis. The regional restriction of certain types of GMOs needs to be scientifically justified on a crop-by-crop basis and should only be a last resort if farm-level management measures are insufficient. The Commission agrees that more research is needed on coexistence. It therefore supports scientific studies conducted by the joint research centre and under the sixth framework programme for Community research. These studies will cover cost analysis, good farming practices for coexistence and liability issues. However, a comprehensive report covering all economic aspects of coexistence under the different cost conditions in the EU will only be possible once the Member States have more practical experience.

The Commission will ensure a coordination role and facilitate the exchange of information concerning best practices and concrete experiences with coexistence among Member States, including cross-border aspects. Based on this collection of data it will report to the European Parliament and the Council in two years' time. The Commission will then, if appropriate, also make an assessment of possible and necessary steps to take.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to give this thorough response.

  Scheele (PSE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, nearly six months have passed since the question of coexistence last played a leading role in this House. Back then we were discussing the regulation on genetically modified food and feed. I was the rapporteur, and we had to battle with the Commission and certain Member States in order to secure the flexibility in the form of Article 26a. We were successful, and I congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, whose own-initiative report on the subject sends another important political signal from this House.

I think it is incredibly important that we now call on the Member States to make use of and give shape to that flexibility which we in Parliament fought for on their behalf. However, I also agree with Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf that it will be necessary to establish European regulations on coexistence. I do not understand how the Commission can say it is able to authorise this centrally, and has the competence to do so, when it does not know the answers to the questions raised by coexistence.

Another reason that I think Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s own-initiative report is incredibly important is that very soon there will be a vote on the Seed Directive under the comitology procedure, which, unfortunately, leaves Parliament out of it. I also think that the section in which we state that the pollution value for seeds is determined by the proximity value is extremely important. We should not reproach ourselves: the threshold value we agreed – 0.9% – is very hard to maintain, even if we do not require absolute seed purity. Consequently I hope that tomorrow this House will be able to send this important political signal.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for genuinely taking the initiative in producing this own-initiative report on coexistence, and for successfully bringing together all points of view in one report. The fact is that opinions on coexistence vary from one country to the next, and even within my group we cannot agree on the subject.

Let us be clear: it was a long time now that the question stopped being about whether we say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to genetic engineering. The rapporteur has said that. That question has long been decided. We need to look ahead and are already discussing how there can be coexistence between GM and non-GM crops, and how to ensure that all parties can operate side by side without anyone being disadvantaged. Coexistence ought to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and clear rules need to be created for the benefit of all European farmers, allowing each to make an independent choice about which different farming methods to use, and ensuring those methods can coexist without generating problems.

After intensive cross-party and internal discussions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs has reached a compromise and has approved a report containing specific, clear demands. Our own-initiative report calls for comprehensive regulation at Community level, since the guidelines proposed by the Commission are a collection of non-binding recommendations. We therefore expect the Commission, where policy is determined at Community level, as in the case of agricultural policy, to provide a common regulatory framework.

Another important feature in our report is the call for the Commission to submit a proposal for Community-wide liability and insurance. Provision must be made in advance to cover the possibility of adventitious contamination, rather than simply leaving the farmers to sort it out between themselves, and the devil take the hindmost. There is no way the question of liability should be left to the farmers to resolve.

In addition, GMO contamination in seed must be established using technically viable and accurate threshold values, in order to ensure that agricultural production complies with the existing labelling threshold of 0.9% for food. This subject has already been addressed by Mrs Scheele.

An own-initiative report is one way in which Parliament can send a clear political signal. If we now water down the demands and comments made by the Committee on Agriculture and unwrap the existing package, our demands will no longer be clear. Instead, we will have a hotchpotch of vague statements without any clear shape. As MEPs, we need to ask ourselves whether we really want to send out a political signal with no actual content.

I therefore join the rapporteur in hoping that this own-initiative report will be adopted tomorrow with a genuinely convincing majority, since it has already received so much support in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

(Applause)

  Olsson (ELDR). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, we are not concerned here with the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms. I am among those who believe that neither humanity as a whole nor its merely European component can do without this knowledge and technology. It is, however, very important that we apply the precautionary and ‘polluter pays’ principles and that we respect people’s anxiety faced with something new. We must therefore be able to label GMOs and provide proper information about them.

We have had, and still have, different views on the point at issue, but I nonetheless wish to congratulate Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf on this report. We have substantially been able to agree upon an attitude to be adopted by the European Parliament, and I hope that this will give a signal to the Commission and the Council.

I think that the report is very well balanced, but I have some comments to make. I am disappointed when I hear the Commissioner so positively come out against paragraph 3 on common rules. The wind does in actual fact blow across national borders. It is not sensible to have one rule apply on one side of a national border and another rule on the other side. We are concerned here with life and with what life consists of. If we wish to achieve something by what we are doing, we must have common rules. Think about it in the Commission before you make any over-hasty decisions.

I am able, however, to go some way towards agreeing with the Commission when it comes to paragraph 9. I believe it would be dangerous to continue with a moratorium if we do not get what we want. I actually agree with paragraph 9, but I consider that it perhaps goes a little too far. I am not prepared to vote in favour of that paragraph. It is the only paragraph in the report about which I take a different view.

When it comes to regional renunciation, the Commissioner says that it can only become a reality if it is voluntary. In my simplicity, I had imagined that democratic decisions were always voluntary. Does that not, then, mean that there can be no cause for concern? I believe that a region or country is entitled to say ‘we do not want this’. We cannot compel people to use a technology if they do not wish to do so, even if I consider the technology to be a sound one.

It is very important that we give out this signal and that we can be in relative agreement tomorrow when we take a decision. We certainly have different views on the continued existence, or otherwise, of genetically modified organisms, but we wish to be cautious. We now wish to come up with a proposal on how to arrange for coexistence, and this with a view to our being credible in the eyes of all those who have to live on the food that is produced in either one way or another.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental issue we are addressing here is whether coexistence between genetically modified crops and conventional and organic crops is truly possible. Unless we find a practical and precise answer to this question, there can be no basis for the much-vaunted freedom of choice. Farmers who produce conventional and organic crops will have no choice and consumers will have no choice if genetically modified crops affect conventional and organic crops. We must not allow our hand to be forced by a powerful lobby consisting of an increasingly limited group of huge multinationals that market genetically modified crops and which seek to control agriculture and food production against the wishes of European farmers and consumers who, in countless opinion polls, have already expressed their reservations and even fear about genetically modified organisms.

I therefore welcome this own-initiative report by Parliament, which is all the more important because the Commission itself was delaying this debate. The report also opens the way for the de facto moratorium that has existed since 1998 to be lifted. As a matter of fact, this is a demand that I myself made in a joint-initiative resolution with members of my group in March 2003. Everyone is aware of the inherent risks of contamination from the release of GMOs into the environment. Scientific studies on cross-pollination and the dissemination of GMOs are still too limited for us to have a precise and reliable evaluation of all the consequences. Throughout this debate, however, bearing in mind the opinions presented at the parliamentary hearing, the conclusion we are bound to reach is that contamination cannot really be avoided in the large-scale presence of genetically modified crops, with consequences ranging from the loss of biodiversity to economic damage to conventional and organic farming.

Consequently, despite the risk of dissemination varying according to the type of genetically modified crop, their management cannot be efficiently and viably contained. A farm that opts for a genetically modified crop cannot then revert to conventional or organic farming. Our experiences with animal disease, specifically BSE and Foot-and-Mouth disease should serve as warnings of the problems of reliability and cost that will face the monitoring systems that are put in place. Consequently, as the rapporteur states in his report – on which I congratulate him – the most effective and economic way of ensuring coexistence is the renunciation, whether voluntary or restricted at regional level, of GMO cultivation.

Furthermore, the Community provisions established cannot jeopardise every Member State’s right to ban genetically modified crops throughout their territory or in geographically limited areas. What is obvious in this entire process is that, if coexistence is not possible, the moratorium should remain in place in order to observe the precautionary principle. We should consequently support at least item 9 of this report and I personally hope that Parliament will tomorrow adopt the report in its entirety.

  Andersen (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, I have added two amendments to the report. These would entail the Member States being instructed (paragraph 7 a [new]) or recommended (paragraph 7 b [new]) to introduce a levy on GMO seed and GMO feed. The revenue would cover day-to-day administration and the testing of farmers’ organically farmed and non-GMO conventional land. The revenue would also compensate for damage caused by GMO pollution which occurs despite correct practice on the part of GMO farmers. I would emphasise that the damage occurring despite correct practice must also be covered by the polluter and not by the public authorities via taxes paid by innocent citizens. It must, however, be possible for a Member State to be exempted if a decision to that effect is taken at a public national parliamentary sitting in the Member State concerned and is presented by the Head of Government to an EU Council meeting. In this way, the Member States’ sovereignty would be guaranteed, at the same time as its being possible for a grassroots-based environmental campaign to achieve results across borders.

  Souchet (NI). – (FR) Mr President, taking into account the extent of the various problems posed by GMOs, on which there are no obvious and convincing scientific conclusions, the issue of the coexistence of GMO production and non-GMO production should be thought of as a long-term issue and not as a temporary situation which we have to manage while we wait for GMO production to assert itself as the dominant, or even exclusive, method of crop production.

It is conventional farming and organic farming which are the rule, and GMO production which is the exception under observation, and not the other way round. We need to ask questions, not about the viability of non-GMO production, but about the precautions to be taken to protect that production from contamination by GMOs. The rapporteur is right to emphasise the proven insufficiency of our knowledge in a series of crucial areas, which should encourage us, admittedly, to continue the research, but also to behave with great caution. We are looking here at cross-fertilisation (outcrossing), overwintering of seed, soil concentration, resistance, diffusion and dissemination. We must be extremely vigilant in order to avoid a situation in which the provisions adopted on authorisation, traceability and labelling are circumvented by other provisions, on coexistence, which are too vague, uncertain or unclear, thereby creating a fait accompli which would sweep away all those precautionary provisions.

Let us be careful not to place our farmers in the position of sorcerer’s apprentices, to which public opinion would undoubtedly attribute the negative consequences of any generalised dissemination of GMOs. They have already sacrificed much, with animal meal and Gaucho insecticide. Let us ensure, therefore, that we do not make the continued use of traditional crop production methods so complicated that farmers will be driven to abandon them in favour of GMO production. It is up to the person who introduces a high-risk crop to assume responsibility for all the consequences of that risk. It is the person who takes the risk of possible contamination who must bear the costs of preventing and managing that risk to other crops and to the users of those crops, and who alone must shoulder the responsibility for having taken that risk.

This question of how to manage the coexistence of the various production methods is set to become an issue of vital importance in regional planning. It must be possible to have the freedom to choose specific guidelines at national or regional level. If, for example, elected representatives, farmers and others involved at regional level in a certain area want that area to be GMO-free, they must be able to decide that in complete freedom, without the Commission putting obstacles in their path in the name of heaven knows what distortion of competition which may be to a greater or lesser extent imaginary. Therefore, Mr President, we shall be voting in favour of this initiative report, which asks some valid questions on a subject which is vitally important to our society.

  Maat (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, first of all, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on having drafted an excellent report by way of good cooperation, the urgent need for which is evident from the Commissioner’s reaction. He did indeed note that it is a topical subject, but is, at the same time, increasingly pushing the responsibility away from the Commission. This responsibility is said to lie with the Member States and others. However, this is a subject par excellence for action at Community level. Commissioner, Parliament is on your side and, in the discussion about the European Constitution too, it would be very beneficial if the Commission and Parliament could reach sound agreements in good cooperation.

Something else struck me in the Commissioner’s reaction. He mentioned organic farming. But, Commissioner, the European Union’s own knowledge centre has calculated that in the event of the uncontrolled use of this genetic technology, also in traditional farming, costs would rise from 1 to 41% depending on the crop, because we have no idea how the consumer will react. This is also why, before we obtain further legislation, we should examine the implications more closely, not only on the farm but also in the sale of the products. How does the consumer react? We know too little about this. It is essential that we should acquire this very piece of knowledge before we can launch into using this technology in Europe. Not only do we need to know what the impact on organic farming is, but also on traditional farming, and also how the consumers will react to this. After all, we have a House with a common agricultural policy that boasts many regional products and a large diversity in Europe, greater than anywhere in the world. This means that the risks involved in using this technology will also be greater than anywhere in the world. This means that we need Community policy in this area more than ever. In the light of Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s sterling report, I would ask the Commission, in its capacity as an important European institution, to accept this task with renewed dynamism and table sound proposals following thorough research, in order to achieve truly sound legislation.

  Patakis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, today's debate clearly shows how the pressure exerted by Bush last summer is being fleshed out. Not only for the movement of genetically modified organisms, but also for their free cultivation in the European Union. I should like to state from the outset our categorical opposition to the cultivation of genetically modified products and to point out for the umpteenth time the hypocrisy of the Commission which, at a time when it is implementing the reform of the CAP, supposedly with the basic principle of improving the quality of agricultural produce in order to guarantee healthy and safe food, environmental protection etc., it is, on the other hand, promoting the cultivation of modified products. The most typical example of its hypocrisy is tobacco for which, on the pretext of protecting public health and sustainable development, subsidies are being slashed in a bid to abolish the crop definitively.

Recently, Mr Michael Meacher, the minister for the environment in the first Blair government, made a statement, which was published in the British newspaper The Independent, in which he said he could not see how the Blair government could responsibly issue licences for modified crops. All the evidence from research has proven negative and this position on the part of Mr Meacher is particularly significant in that in 1999 – while he was minister – he started up extensive trial crops of genetically modified plants. Of the 210 fields cultivated, half were modified and half were conventional. The results of the research are particularly revelatory of the possible risks to the environment and consumer health. Even the basic argument of the multinational companies which produce genetically modified seed, mainly in the USA, has proven to be trite. During the course of the trials, which lasted several years, not only was there no reduction in the need for insecticides, but also the special insecticides required for the genetically modified crops proved to be more harmful than those required for conventional crops.

Research has shown that modified rape, maize and sugar beet plants damage the flora and fauna far more than conventional crops. In addition, the Nobel prizewinner Professor Sherwood Rowland, has typically remarked that, as soon as modified organisms are released into the environment and it is ascertained that they are damaging the environment, it is impossible to stop their harmful effect. Modified organisms will continue, constantly multiplying, to wreak havoc as weapons of mass environmental destruction.

The objective of the report by the European Parliament is essentially to get the idea across that genetically modified organisms can coexist with conventional and ecological products, raising certain questions concerning the preconditions and arrangements for coexistence, while it knows full well that numerous studies point out that it is exceptionally difficult, impossible if you like, to protect against contamination when these crops coexist. As for hypocritically citing the 'polluter pays' principle, I do not understand, on the one hand, what calculations can be used to evaluate either the possible environmental cost and the damage to consumer health while I fear, on the other hand, that they will ultimately heap the blame indirectly, if not clearly, on the producers themselves.

Finally, Mr President, the European Parliament has just one obligation vis-à-vis European farmers, consumers and the environment – to say a categorical and overall ‘no’ to the cultivation of modified crops. Only thus could it fulfil its role, by allowing pressure from the USA, the objective of which is to serve the interests of its multinationals, so that they can amass profits at the expense of the peoples' health and the environment, to fall on stony ground.

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, we would like to commend you for working so hard on this subject. As you have heard, we do not agree with you, but had you already shared our views, we would not have had to compile this report. This debate is just beginning, and I hope we will see a genuinely positive process between the Commission and Parliament. Please pass this on to those colleagues who deal with this area.

(Muted applause)

  President. – That concludes the debate.

The vote will be at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow.