4 Amendments of Jan HUITEMA related to 2010/0208(COD)
Amendment 42 #
Council position
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) The Union GMO authorisation system needs to take due account of the risks and possibilities offered by innovations in science and technology. In particular, new developments in plant breeding techniques call into question the risks that should be taken into account. Some techniques such as cisgenisis have been found to be as safe as conventional plantbreeding techniques and could therefore be exempted from the scope of this legislation. A focussed regulatory system for GMOs is a precondition in order to foster cutting-edge innovations in this area.
Amendment 70 #
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 e.g. for those who wish to use crops that are deemed safe as concluded by the European Food Safety Authority 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.
Amendment 138 #
Council position
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) When new and objective circumstances justify an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation of a GMO, and in any case no earlier than two years after the date when the consent/authorisation is granted, a Member State should be able to request, via the Commission, the consent/authorisation holder to adjust its geographical scope. If the consent/authorisation holder does not explicitly or tacitly agree, the Member State should be given the possibility to adopt reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of that GMO. The Member State concerned should publicly communicate a draft of those reasoned measures to the Commission at least 75 days prior to their adoption, in order to give the opportunity to the Commission to comment, and should refrain from adopting and implementing those measures during that period. On the expiry of the established standstill period, the Member State should be able to adopt the measures as originally proposed or amended to take into account the Commission's comments.
Amendment 314 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
(1a) In Annex I A Part 2, paragraph 1shall be replaced by the following: Techniques referred to in Article 2(2)(b) which are not considered to result in genetic modification, on condition that they do not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules or genetically modified organisms made by techniques/methods other than those excluded by Annex I B: (1) in vitro fertilisation (2) natural processes such as: conjugation, transduction, transformation, (3) polyploidy induction. (4) cisgenesis