European Parliament rejects re-nationalisation of GM decisions

MEPs backed the stance taken by the parliament’s environment committee and its vote coordinator (rapporteur), Giovanni La Via, a centre-right Italian MEP, on the issue.

The parliament asked the Commission to go away and come back with new proposals, which at present the Commission is refusing to do, leading to something of a political stalemate. The parliament must back the proposals for them to go forward – but they must also be backed by the EU Council of Ministers, representing member states, many of which support the plan to nationalise these decisions.

La Via claimed the Commission put forward this proposal even though it knew it would not be supported in the parliament. He doubted whether the Commission would come back with a new proposal: 577 MEPs rejected the Commission’s proposals. The parliament also voted in favour of an amendment, requesting the Commission come up with a new proposal. But an amendment seeking a moratorium on further GMO approvals, was rejected by the parliament.

Speaking to the press following the votes, La Via said: “The Commission talks about better regulation and not wanting to increase administrative burdens, but this attempt to balkanise and divide the internal market would lead to member states re-introducing individual Customs points and the parliament could not accept that.”​

Earlier, La Via told MEPs the Commission’s proposals raised serious concerns in that they were not compatible with the principle of a borderless EU single market, they lacked support from any impact assessments and were impracticable when it came to implementation.

He warned, should the Commission’s proposals be approved, they would have a negative impact on food production and animal and livestock production in the EU in particular, where farmers depend heavily on imported GM protein feed for their livestock.

In the debate, not one MEP spoke in favour of the Commission’s plans. MEPs complained the proposals would lead to a re-nationalisation of trade policies, as they would undermine the European single market and the Customs Union, in introducing internal border controls to check the movement of GM food and feed.

German Christian Democrat MEP Peter Liese described the Commission proposals as “impractical and unimplementable”​.

Defending the proposals, the EU health and food safety commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said the Commission was trying to break a political logjam at the Council of Ministers under the current system of approving or rejecting GM food or feed for the whole of the EU. The council currently has the prime responsibility to make decisions, but member states generally have been unable to muster enough votes (roughly representing 66% of the EU population) needed to ban or accept GM products.

Under this ‘comitology’ system, the unelected Commission can then make a decision – which Andriukaitis said generated a “democratic deficit”​.

But La Via warned strong anti-GM decisions from national governments opposing the technology for feed could damage the competitiveness of the European livestock industry.

Meanwhile, MEPs also called for proposals for clearer labelling of GMO food and feed.