Plans to let national governments decide whether to allow genetically modified (GMO) crop cultivation on their land could unblock a paralysis in EU GMO approvals, but risk igniting internal disputes.
Proposals from the Dutch and Austrian governments, under consideration by the executive European Commission, have won the backing of several countries and interested parties, and will be at the top of the new commission’s agenda.
At present, EU member states are able to restrict GM crop cultivation only under strict conditions as authorization licences are valid across the 27-country bloc – in accordance with the principles of the single EU internal market.
Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the commission, has voiced support for any plan that would maintain an EU-wide authority over GMO safety assessment and approval, while allowing countries the freedom to decide whether to cultivate GM crops.
If it succeeds, the proposal could see speedier authorization of GM crop varieties.
But some see the plans as fraught with risks and incompatible with the bloc’s internal markets laws, which guarantee the free movement of goods. They could also engender competitive war between farmers in different countries and contravene international trade laws.
“It would be potentially setting a bad precedent for the politics of the internal market,” said Garlich von Essen of the European Seed Association, an organization of seed industry groups in the EU.
“Suddenly you would have products which are considered safe for use in all of the European Union, and at the same time, banned in some parts … without any protocol other than political considerations,” he said.
Though practical details of the proposals are still to be worked out, any plan may entail changes to the EU’s legislative framework, a protracted process which would require that a decision be made jointly with the European Parliament.
Risks and benefits
The Netherlands, which has a more liberal attitude towards GMOs, hopes to ease the political pressure and give governments more policy options.
“It is not a question of whether we should be against or pro GMOs – because GMOs (around) the world won’t go away – but it is the way that we deal with them,” said a spokesman for the Dutch Agriculture Ministry.
“You can’t go on as the European Union thinking you’re on an island.”
Britain, which believes the EU approval process is too slow, has welcomed the Dutch initiative and sees some risks and benefits in it. Austria, a long-standing opponent to GMOs, endorsed the plan so as to be able to opt out and stay GMO free.
But Andrew Jarvis, research fellow at the Chatham House think-tank in London, says an expected “quick fix” to the deadlock in EU decision-making on GMOs could be elusive.
Any proposal must have a firm legal basis and be achievable within a reasonable time. It must also address contentious issues while avoiding new barriers, Jarvis said.
“Without those guarantees in place there is concern that the EU could embark on a protracted process of legislative review … but end up with a system less workable and no faster or more certain than that which it started with,” he said.