National bans of Mon 810

								versus

The European Commissions proposal to force France, Hungary, Austria and Greece to allow the cultivation of Mon 810

The European Commission has submitted draft decisions to order the waiving of national bans in Hungary, Austria, France and Greece on the cultivation of Monsanto's genetically engineered maize variety Mon 810 (and in Austria of GM variety T25 by Bayer, which is no longer commercially available anyway). The decisions on Hungary and Austria were taken on Monday, March 2nd in the Council of Environment Ministers. To overrule the Commissions proposal  a qualified majority of 255 out of 345 votes was required and achieved by 22 member states, representing 282 votes.

Excerpts from the provisional minutes of the meeting:

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
The Council was invited to act on three decisions proposed by the Commission so as to lift national safeguard clauses against genetically modified organisms:
– Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Hungary of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON810) expressing the Bt cry1Ab gene, pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5685/09)
– Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line T25) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6327/09)
– Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON810) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6330/09)

The Council adopted, by qualified majority, three decisions rejecting the three Commission proposals (1).
The Council justified its decisions on MON810 on the grounds that:
– Maize line MON 810 was approved according to Directive 90/220/EC, which has since been replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC, which contains harmonized environmental risk assessment criteria for GMOs. Maize line MON 810 has not yet undergone a procedure of re-assessment in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC. 
– Where the conditions set out in the relevant legislation apply, a Member State may restrict the use and/or sale of a GMO in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC.
– Finally, the Council in its conclusions adopted on 4 December 2008 underlined the possibility, under existing authorisation procedures of GMOs for cultivation, of taking case specific management or restriction measures, including prohibition measures, in order to ensure biodiversity protection in fragile ecosystems and/or in regions with specific agronomical and environmental characteristics.
The Council's justification of the decision concerning T25 is identical, but relates to T25.

(1) With EE, FI, NL, UK voting against all three Council decisions. RO voted against the Council decision on T25 only while SE voted against the Council decisions on MON810 only.

The national bans have been in place for years now. The approval for Monsanto's Mon 810, which was issued in 1998, has expired. It must be re-evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission would then have to make a proposal whether or not to extend the approval. Neither has happened so far. Planting Mon 810 is only legal because the approval extends until the Commission makes a decision, once Monsanto has applied for reauthorization. Although the European authority and the Commission have not done their homework, they still want to overturn the national bans, claiming that there was no new evidence that Mon 810 could cause harm to the environment or human health. A bulk of scientific evidence, which indicates that Mon810 could indeed be harmful has been individually dismissed by the EFSA over the past years. The Council of Ministers has called for a more comlprehensive and transparent risk assessment. It has also confirmed that socio-economic considerations should be taken into account as well as risk issues, and it has emphasised that specific regional conditions must be taken into account.

The French government has issued a memorandum to all member states defending its ban, which contains useful arguments with respect to all the pending bans.

On December 18th 2006 the Council of Ministers already rejected (with a qualified majority) an identical proposal of the European Commission to waive the Austrian ban on Mon 810 and another GM maize line (T25). This Council Decision states:

Maize line MON 810 was approved according to Directive 90/220/EC, which has since been replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC, which contains harmonized environmental risk assessment criteria for GMOs. Maize line MON 810 has not yet undergone a procedure of re-approval and reassessment in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC.
(...)
Finally the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics in the European Union need to be taken into account in a more systematic manner in the environmental risk assessment of GMOs.
Therefore the Council considered there were sufficient grounds for rejecting the Commission's proposal and that the use of the temporary precautionary measures was justified.

This situation has not changed since. (Full background on the 2006 decision at Euractiv.com)

On February 20th 2007 the Council (by qualified majority) rejected the Commission's proposal to waive Hungary's ban on Mon 810 with the same justification. Council decision 20 February 2007

On December 4th 2008 the Council of Minister unanimously adopted Conclusions on Genetically Modified Organisms which confirm reservations regarding the present approval system as well as the right of member states to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs under certain conditions.

Hungarian ban
French ban
Greek ban
Austrian ban: German   English