Articles

The precautionary principle: outdated protection against authorized GMOs?

The precautionary principle: outdated protection against authorised G

The precautionary principle: outdated protection against authorized GMOs?

23.11.2017

Member States must not - on the sole basis of the precautionary principle - adopt national emergency measures prohibiting certain authorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This was decided by the EU Court of Justice in the recent Fidenato case.

While such a decision ensures a harmonized approach to GMO regulation, it undermines the possibility for Member States to prohibit the cultivation of already-authorized genetically modified crops for which there is no new scientific evidence.

Genetically modified organisms: a heated debate

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a heavily debated topic. According to EU law, a GMO is “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination”.

A lot of GMOs are developed to enhance the yield of our food production systems through plant disease resistance or herbicide tolerance.

However, while some believe that GMOs are key elements for solving problems caused by global population growth, others maintain that the use of GMOs will open up pandora’s box and threaten the future of mankind and our environment. This point of view was raised again recently at the EU negotiations regarding the TTIP and CETA.

 

European regulatory framework

Since there is no exact scientific answer to this debate, the EU has adopted a precautionary approach towards genetically modified foods on its single market. Although there are many pieces of legislation on this subject matter, these ones in particular that strictly regulate GMOs stand out:

  • Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed
  • Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms
  • Directive (EU) 2015/412 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory
  • Directive 2009/41/EC on contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.

The aim of this regulatory framework is threefold:

  • to protect human health and animal health, and the environment by introducing a safety assessment of every GMO product before it is placed on the market;
  • to establish harmonized procedures for risk assessment and authorization of GMOs;
  • to ensure clear labelling and traceability of GMOs that enter the common market.

Against this background, however, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently delivered a seemingly surprising judgment in the Fidenato case (CJEU, 13 September 2017, C-111/16).

 

Fidenato and the precautionary principle

In the Fidenato case, the CJEU ruled in favour of the Italian farmer, Giorgio Fidenato, who had cultivated the GM maize MON 810 that produces a deadly chemical that combats the devastating larvae of the corn borer, a harmful pest.

Although MON 810 is allowed under EU law, Italy had prohibited the cultivation of this GM crop in its national legal order on the basis of interim emergency measures adopted in accordance with Article 54 of the General Food Law Regulation 178/2002. This Article, read in conjunction with Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, allows Member States to adopt interim emergency measures if it is evident that products authorized by or in accordance with this Regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment”, and if the European Commission has failed to take those measures.

In the Monsanto and others case (CJEU, 8 September 2011, C‑58/10 to C‑68/10), the Court clarifies that the terms ‘evident’ and ‘serious risk’ must be understood as “referring to a significant risk which clearly jeopardises human health, animal health or the environment. That risk must be established on the basis of new evidence based on reliable scientific data.”

Hence, such measures can be adopted only when they are based on a risk assessment. This assessment, as it is further explained in Monsanto, lies ultimately with the European Commission and the Council of the European Union.

In this case, however, neither the Commission nor the European Food Safety Authority found any new science-based evidence about MON 810 that justified the requested emergency measures.

Therefore, the question arose whether considerations relating to the precautionary principle that go beyond the parameters of serious and evident risk to human or animal health or the environment in the use of food or feed could nevertheless justify Italy's adoption of interim emergency measures.

The Court held that a Member State must not adopt interim emergency measures for an authorized product solely on the basis of the precautionary principle as laid out in Article 7 of the General Food Law Regulation and without the conditions set out in Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003. The underlying reasoning is the difference between the levels of risk required: the CJEU wants to prevent the level of uncertainty required by Article 34 of Regulation No. 1829/2003 from being reduced by the precautionary principle.

 

Harmonized approach for authorized GMOs: a cornerstone

As a conclusion, we can see that while Member States are free to adopt emergency measures based on the sole precautionary principle for GMO products that have not yet been authorized, they can only take emergency measures for authorised GMO products if it is evident that these products are “likely to constitute a serious risk”.

By doing that, the Court ensures the safeguard of the harmonized approach to GMOs but factually disables the possibility for Member States to adopt emergency measures prohibiting the cultivation of GMOs without new scientific evidence.

Team

Related news

04.10.2018 BE law
Nieuw tijdperk voor Vlaamse woonreserves aangebroken

Articles - De Vlaamse regering beoogt het wettelijk kader in de zogenaamde "woonresergebieden" (waaronder de woonuitbreidingsgebieden) grondig te wijzigen. Ofwel krijgen de gebieden de volwaardige status als woongebied, ofwel krijgen ze een andere bestemming dan wonen. De regeling laat toe om gemeenten voor een openruimtebestemming te laten kiezen. Hierna een overzicht van het voorstel van de Vlaamse regering en de reactie van de adviesraden op het voorstel.

Read more

15.10.2018 BE law
Gestion et traçabilité des terres en Wallonie. Nouvel arrêté du gouvernement.

Articles - Dans la continuité de l'adoption, le 1er mars 2018, du décret relatif à la gestion et à l'assainissement des sols, le Gouvernement wallon a mis en place un certain nombre de mesures relatives à la gestion et à la traçabilité des terres en Wallonie. Ces mesures entreront en vigueur le 1er novembre 2019 (et partiellement le 1er septembre 2018).

Read more

01.10.2018 NL law
Hoofdlijnen van het Klimaatakkoord: sectortafel elektriciteit

Short Reads - Op 10 juli 2018 is het Voorstel voor hoofdlijnen van het Klimaatakkoord aangeboden aan de minister van Economische Zaken en Klimaat. In dit Voorstel zijn vanuit onder meer de sectortafel Elektriciteit hoofdlijnen geformuleerd voor een toekomstbestendig klimaatbeleid. In dit blogbericht geven wij een overzicht van de belangrijkste uitdagingen en uitgangspunten die zijn geformuleerd door deze sectortafel.

Read more

05.10.2018 NL law
Presentaties seminar Dienstenrichtlijn en Detailhandel

Articles - Met het arrest van het Europese Hof van Justitie en de vervolguitspraak van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State in de zaak Visser Vastgoed in Appingedam is vast komen te staan dat de Dienstenrichtlijn van toepassing is op bestemmingsplannen die detailhandel reguleren.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring