------------------------- EU divisions continue over GM crop approvals Environment Daily 1520, 30/09/03 ------------------------- Strong opposition by some EU governments to genetically modified (GM) crops resurfaced at an agriculture ministers'' meeting on Monday, when countries with strong anti-GM feelings said they would oppose new product approvals until EU-wide rules on coexistence between GM, conventional and organic farming were in place. Presenting European Commission coexistence guidelines issued in July, EU agriculture commissioner Franz Fischler rejected the need for such rules. He insisted that coexistence and liability would be best dealt with at national level (ED 24/07/03 http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=14883). In response to requests that member states be allowed to set GM-free zones, Mr Fischler said he welcomed "cooperation among farmers in a region" leading to GM-free zones set up by farmers on a voluntary basis. Ahead of a new agriculture ministers'' meeting in mid-October - and with a US-led World trade organisation legal challenge against the EU''s de facto approvals moratorium looming - Mr Fischler urged member states to "not close the door to... biotechnology in European agriculture". The Commission had hoped to move swiftly towards lifting the moratorium on new GM authorisations, once an agreement on traceability and labelling regulations had been reached (ED 02/07/03 http://www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=14751). Follow-up: European council of ministers http://www.consilium.eu.int/en/summ.htm, tel: +32 2 285 6111 and press release http://www.consilium.eu.int/newsroom/LoadDoc.asp?DID=77418&LANG=1; European Commission http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm, tel: +32 2 299 1111 and press release (see below *) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=MEMO/03/187|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=. * MEMO/03/187 Brussels, 29 September 2003 Outcome of Agriculture/Fisheries Council of September 2003 GMOs: guidelines on co-existence Commissioner Fischler presented the Commission recommendation on guidelines concerning the co-existence of GMOs with conventional and organic farming. "The question of safety and environmental risk assessment of GMOs is already well addressed under existing Community legislation on the authorisation of GMOs. Thus, the guidelines on co-existence do not address food safety or environmental aspects. I strongly believe that we should not close the door to the development and the use of biotechnology in European agriculture. At the same time, of course, by establishing the conditions for co-existence, we must ensure that farmers who want to use conventional and organic farming methods, should be able to do so. It is also important to note that the co-existence debate should not be misused for causes that will further delay the authorisation of new GMOs », Fischler said. Fischler went on saying that many of the factors that determined the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of co-existence measures were specific to national and regional characteristics and farming practices. « They vary greatly from one Member State to another and within national territories. The same logic applies to crops: different crops need different measures that correspond to their propensity for cross-pollination and other crop-specific characteristics. The Commission guidelines reflect this: they provide general orientations at the level of the Community, but leave it up to Member States to implement these according to their national situations and needs. I would say that the issue of co-existence is a typical case of the principle of subsidiarity: decisions should be made at the most appropriate and efficient level. It does not make sense to overly equalise everything. », the Commissioner pointed out. "The co-operation among farmers in a region and their exchange of information and experiences will be of particular importance. For instance, I would support the idea of farmers joining on a voluntary basis to create zones of GM-free production or bio-regions. Concerning the important issue of liability, it is clear to me that this question has to be tackled but I believe that it could be answered at the national level. As a first step, Member States should inspect their liability rules to analyse if their national laws offer sufficient possibilities for protecting, for instance, an organic farmer whose crop is devalued because of accidental GMO presence. In this context, it may also be advisable to think about new concepts of insurance.", Fischler concluded.