12 Amendments of Lynn BOYLAN related to 2010/0208(COD)
Amendment 44 #
Council position
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The precautionary principle should always be taken into account in the framework of this Directive and its subsequent implementation.
Amendment 49 #
Council position
Recital 2 b (new)
Recital 2 b (new)
(2b) In view of the current political context, including the European Commission President-elect's commitment to review the authorisation procedure and the highly controversial nature the cultivation of GMOs has proven to have in Europe, the entry into force of this Directive should be subject to the revision of the decision-making process for the authorisation of GMOs as set out in Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation EC (No) 1829/2003, in order to ensure that no GMO is authorised against the majority of Member States and the European Parliament.
Amendment 61 #
Council position
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed at Member State level. Issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal market. Cultivation may however require more flexibility in certain instances as it is an issue with strong national, regional and local dimensions, given its link to land use, to local agricultural structures and to the protection or maintenance of habitats, ecosystems and landscapes. The common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process, should not be adversely affected by such flexibility. Furthermore, the harmonised assessment of risks to health and the environment might not address all possible impacts of GMO cultivation in different regions and local ecosystems. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States are entitled to have the possibility to adopt legally effective cultivation of GMOs or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMO’s in all or part of their territory once authorised at Union level However, the common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process, should not be adversely affected by such flexibility.
Amendment 65 #
Council position
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, some Member States hadve made recourse to the safeguard clauses and emergency measures pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as a result of, depending on the cases, new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment, or of the reassessment of existing information. Other Member States have made use of the notification procedure set out in Article 114(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which requires putting forward new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment. In addition, the decision-making process has proved to be particularly difficult as regards the cultivation of GMOs in the light of the expression of national concerns which do not only relate to issues associated with the safety of GMOs for health or the environment.
Amendment 74 #
Council position
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU, Member States are therefore 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. 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 whilst always taking into account the precautionary principle.
Amendment 75 #
Council position
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU, Member States are therefore 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, morabsolute 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 entitlrequired to take by application of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. 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 concern on their territory and in the border areas of neighbouring Member States. Notifiers/applicants must respect decisions by Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their territory, and accordingly the cultivation of GMOs in the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal marketir notification/application for authorisation to cultivate must not relate to the territories of the Member States in question.
Amendment 79 #
Council position
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Member States should cooperate with neighbouring Member States in order to ensure appropriate information sharing, aiming to guarantee the effective functioning of co-existence measures in border areas and to prevent any cross- border dissemination from a Member State where the GMO cultivation is allowed into a neighbouring Member State in which is prohibited.
Amendment 96 #
Council position
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The geographical scope of the notificationnotifier/applicationt should be adjusted accordingly if the notifier/applicant explicitly or tacitly agrees withcomply with the sovereign decisions of the Member State's request within an established time-limit from the communication by the Commission of that request. If the notifier/applicant opposes the request, the notifier/applicant should notify the Commission and the Member States. However, a refusal by the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of the notification/application is without prejudice to the Commission's powers in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC or Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, as the case may be, to make such an adjustment, where appropriate, in the light of the environmental risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority ('the Authority')and should not therefore submit any application relating to the territory of Member States which have decided, explicitly or tacitly, to restrict or prohibit GMOs on their territory. The geographical scope of the notification/application should therefore be limited to the territories of Member States which have explicitly and publicly given their consent to the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Any pressure exerted on a Member State should be prohibited and should be subject to appropriate financial penalties.
Amendment 123 #
Council position
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) In addition, Member States should co-operate between each other to implement appropriate 'buffer zones' between GMO-free zones and zones where GMOs are cultivated to avoid unintended consequences of cross-border contamination
Amendment 126 #
Council position
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The restrictions or the prohibitions adopted pursuant to this Directive should refer to the cultivation, and not to the free circulation and import, of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material as, or in, products and of the products of their harvest, and should furthermore be in conformity with the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of non- discrimination between national and non- national products, the principle of proportionality and Article 34, Article 36 and Article 216(2) TFEU.
Amendment 144 #
Council position
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Written consents or decisions of authorisations issued or adopted with a geographical scope limited to certain areas or measures adopted by Member States, in accordance with this Directive, which restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, should not prevent or restrict the use of authorised GMOs by other Member States provided appropriate co-existence measures are undertaken to prevent cross- border contamination. In addition, this Directive and the national measures adopted pursuant to it should be without prejudice to Union law requirements concerning unintended and adventitious presence of GMOs in non- genetically modified varieties of seed and plant propagating material, and should not prevent the cultivation of varieties complying with these requirements.
Amendment 148 #
Council position
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) To guarantee a high level of consumer protection, the Member States should also take effective labelling and information measures to guarantee full transparency about the presence of GMOs on their territory and in products produced or marketed there.