Activities of Alberto CIRIO related to 2010/0208(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs (A8-0038/2014 - Frédérique Ries) IT
Amendments (20)
Amendment 39 #
Council position
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Under that legal framework, GMOs for cultivation are to undergo an individual risk assessment before being authorised to be placed on the Union market in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC, taking into account the direct, indirect, immediate and delayed effects, as well as the cumulative long- term effects, on human health and the environment. The aim of that authorisation procedure is to ensure a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment, biodiversity and consumer interests, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market. A uniform high level of protection of health and the environment should be achieved and maintained throughout the territory of the Union.
Amendment 73 #
Council position
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU, Member States areshould therefore be entitled to have a possibility, during the authorisation procedure and thereafter, to decide to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their territory with the effect of excluding cultivation of a specific GMO in all or part of that Member State's territory. In that context, it appears appropriate to grant Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, more flexibility to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMO crops on their territory without affecting the risk assessment provided in the system of Union authorisations of GMOs, either in the course of the authorisation procedure or thereafter, and independently of the measures that Member States are entitled to take by application of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products on their territory and in border areas of neighbouring Member States. The grant of that possibility to Member States should facilitate the decision-making process in the GMO field. At the same time, freedom of choice of consumers, farmers and operators should be preserved whilst providing greater clarity to affected stakeholders concerning the cultivation of GMOs in the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market by revising the rules governing food labelling.
Amendment 81 #
Council position
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) To ensure that the cultivation of GMOs does not result in the unintended presence of GMOs in other products, effective co-existence measures are needed , which must not, however, run counter to other measures authorised or encouraged subject to certain conditions in a Member State. Member States should therefore be required, under Directive 2001/18/EC, to adopt rules applicable to their territories to avoid such unintended presence. Particular attention should be paid to any possible cross-border contamination from a Member State or a region where cultivation is allowed into a neighbouring Member State or region where it is prohibited. The Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 provides guidance to Member States for the development of national co-existence measures, including in border areas.1a __________________ 1aCommission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crop (OJ C 200, 22.7.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 107 #
Council position
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In addition, and only where the notifier/applicant has refused to adjustWithout prejudice to the possibility of a Member State requesting adjustment of the geographical scope of thea notification/application of a GMO as requested by, a Member State, there should balways have the possibility for that Member State toof acting as risk manager and adopting reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thata GMO once authorised in all or part of its territory, on the basis of grounds distinct from those assessed according to the harmonized set of Union rules, that is Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003r of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs, in all or part of its territory, on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other compellinglegitimate grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio- economic impacts, co-existence and public policyhe socio- economic consequences, if these factors are not covered under the harmonized procedure set out in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, or the persistence of scientific uncertainty. These measures should be duly justified on the basis of scientific reasons or reasons relating to factors of health, economic, social and ethics that might arise from the deliberate release or placing on the market of GMOs. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply.
Amendment 112 #
Council position
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The level of protection of human or animal health and of the environment chosen in the Union allows for a uniform scientific assessment throughout the Unioncannot be diverged from by a Member State, and this Directivprinciple should not alter that situationbe maintained. Therefore, to avoid any interference with the competences which are granted to the risk assessors and risk managers under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a Member State should only use grounds related toin line with environmental policy objectives which do not conflict withcomplement the assessment of risks to health and the environment which are assessed in the context of the authorisation procedures provided in Directive 2001/18/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, such as the maintenance of certain type of natural and landscape features, certain habitats and ecosystems, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services.
Amendment 116 #
Council position
Recital 11 a (new)
Recital 11 a (new)
(11a) Member States should be allowed to base the measures that restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on duly justified grounds relating to environmental impacts and respect for traditional agricultural methods, or on grounds relating to risk management. Those grounds may include the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; the invasiveness or persistence of a genetically modified variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestically cultivated or wild plants; the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features; the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including on biodiversity.
Amendment 118 #
Council position
Recital 11 b (new)
Recital 11 b (new)
(11b) The grounds relating to socio- economic impacts may include the impracticability or the high costs of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions such as those characterising small islands or mountain zones, the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production or the need to ensure seed purity, the availability of plant propagation materials, as well as the preservation of conventional and organic farming methods.
Amendment 120 #
Council position
Recital 11 c (new)
Recital 11 c (new)
(11c) Member States should be allowed to base measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs also on other grounds that may include land use, town and country planning, or other legitimate factors including those relating to cultural traditions.
Amendment 128 #
Council position
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Member States' measures adopted pursuant to this Directive should be subject to a procedure of scrutiny and information at Union level. In light of the level of Union scrutiny and information, it is not necessary to provide, in addition, for the application of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1. Member States may restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO in all or part of their territory as fromprior to the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation and no later than two years after the date whenfor the whole duration of the consent/authorisation is granted, provided that an established standstill period, during which the Commission was given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures, has elapsed. The Member State concerned must therefore communicate to the Commission the measures proposed at least 75 days before consent is given, so as to give the Commission an opportunity to comment, and during this period should refrain from implementing and adopting these measures. Upon expiry of the standstill period, then such Member State should take measures such as originally proposed or as modified to take into account the comments of the Commission. __________________ 1 Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.).
Amendment 135 #
Council position
Recital 15 a (new)
Recital 15 a (new)
(15a) Given the importance of scientific evidence in taking decisions on the prohibition or approval of GMOs, the Authority and the Member States should make use of accredited public and private research institutions so as to guarantee constant information and regular publication of the results of research regarding the risk or evidence of any accidental presence, contamination or danger to the environment or human health of GMOs.
Amendment 174 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
1. During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may request, viaask the Commission, the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of its, informing the notificationer/applicantion submitted in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. This request shall be motivated by factors such as those indicated in paragraph 3 of this article. This shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 390 days from the date of the circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall communicate the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay and within no more than 30 days.
Amendment 180 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 196 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
3. Where the notifier/applicant opposes the adjustment of the geographical scope of its notification/application corresponding to a request made by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, that Member State may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of that GMO in all oithout prejudice to paragraph 1, a Member State may, further to the risk assessment conducted under this Directive or under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, acting as risk manager, adopt measures restricting or prohibiting in all or part of its territory the cultivation of a GMO or a group of GMOs defined by their pvart of its territoryiety or characteristics, or of all GMOs, once authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, provided that such measures are in conformity with Union law, reasoned, proportional and non- discriminatory and, in addition, are based on compelling grounds such as those related to:
Amendment 207 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) environmental policy objectives distinct from the elements assessed according to this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; relating to environmental impacts which might arise from the cultivation of GMOs and which are complementary to the impacts examined during the scientific risk assessment conducted according to this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; those grounds may include: – the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; – the invasiveness or persistence of a genetically modified variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestically cultivated or wild plants; – the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; – the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services; – the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including on biodiversity; – the protection of bees.
Amendment 213 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) socio-economic impacts such as the impracticability or the high costs of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions such as in the case of small islands or mountain zones;
Amendment 217 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point e
(e) avoidance of GMO presence in other products without prejudice to Article 26a;
Amendment 221 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
(f) agricultural policy objectives; those grounds may include: – the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production; – the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; – the need to ensure seed purity.
Amendment 241 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, with the exception of the ground set out in point (g) which cannot be used individually, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply, but shall, in no case, conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
Amendment 287 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b a (new)
Article 26 b a (new)
Article 26ba Liability requirements and financial guarantees Member States shall establish a general mandatory system of financial liability and insurance guarantees which applies to all operators and which ensures that the polluter pays for effects or damage, which may be unintended, that might occur due to the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs
Amendment 294 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 c – paragraph 2
Article 26 c – paragraph 2
2. Where the application is pending and the notifier/applicant has explicitly or tacitly agreed to such a request within 30 days from the communication of that request, the geographical scope ofCommission has accepted the request of the Member State, duly communicating it to the notificationer/application shall be adjusted accordingly. The written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall be issued on the basis of the adjusted geographical scope of the notification/application as explicitly or tacitly agreed by the notifier/applicantnt, to adjust the geographical scope, the effects of that adjustment shall be produced before the entry into force of the written consent issued under this Directive.