The European Union tried to establish a “coexistence” policy for the cultivation and processing of GM and non-GM products after the political agreement that put an end to the 1999-2004 moratorium. Consequently, coexistence is part of this gentlemen’s agreement between States with pro and anti-GMO positions.
Anti-GMO States unblocked proceedings of authorisation of new products by accepting the sound science criteria of the risk assessments of the EFSA as almost the only element to open the doors of the internal market. In exchange, these States got the opportunity to decide on how GMO would be cultivated in their jurisdiction, mainly under the pretext of guaranteeing the isolation of the three chains in “coexistence”. As this article will demonstrate, this basic agreement has not changed. According to the rather soft-law attempt of harmonization of the 2003 Recommendation of the European Commission, “coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards”. That is to say, Member States could set up binding and/or non-binding good practices of isolation in order to guarantee farmers’ right of choice and compliance with [European] labelling and traceability standards (the 0.9 % threshold). Moreover, in some cases, Member States established specific liability rules to compensate for economic loss in case an “adventitious mixture” could not be avoided. This was a project of “pluralisme technologique” that aimed at avoiding a rapid technological substitution of conventional crops by GM ones, and at guaranteeing the survival of organic production that had renounced biotechnological tools.
|Copyright:||© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH|
|Source:||Issue 04/2010 (Dezember 2010)|
|Autor:||Dr. Justo Corti Varela |
|Send Article||Add to shopping cart||Comment article|
What Price Flexibility? – The Recent Commission Proposal to Allow for National “Opt-Outs” on GMO Cultivation under the Deliberate Release Directive and the Comitology Reform Post-Lisbon
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (12/2010)
“After a reform is before another reform.” This paraphrasing of a famous saying from the world of football seems to be a very fitting way to describe the status quo of the European policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The functioning of the EU legal framework on GMOs has since its initial establishment in the 1990s been troubled by political disagreement, deadlocks in decision-making, strong public opposition in the Member States, and considerable delays in the process of authorisation of genetically engineered products on the internal market of the EU.
EU GM Crop Regulation: A Road to Resolution or a Regulatory Roundabout?
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (12/2010)
Since first embarking on the road of risk management options for the regulation of recombinant DNA (rDNA) activities and use in 1978, the European Union (EU) has largely failed to create a regulatory and policy environment regarding genetically modified (GM) crops and their cultivation that is (a) efficient, (b) predicable, (c) accountable, (d) durable or (e) interjurisdictionally aligned.
Towards a new EU Plant Protection Regime – Legal Problems arising out of the Transition with Regard to Regulatory Approvals and Authorisations
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (1/2011)
The plant protection law within the European Union has been continuously developed over the past two decades. Harmonized provisions for the placing of plant protection products on the common market were introduced by Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 19911 (hereinafter the “Directive”). Based on a progress report issued by the Commission under this Directive2, the need for a revision of the Directive was identified which should, in order to ensure consistency throughout the Member States and to provide for simplification, take the form of a regulation.
‘Have we all gone bats?’ – The Strict Protection of Wildlife under the Habitats Directive and Tourism Development: Some Lessons from Ireland
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (11/2010)
The legal protection of species of wildlife under EU law is or should have an increasing impact on tourism developments. It should typically force project modification, relocation or even in some cases project abandonment. Tourism developers are learning about these impacts rather slowly for a variety of reasons. The aim of this article is to provide legal guidance on the likely impact of the protection of species on tourism developments by examining the Irish legal experience of the protection of bats.
Umsetzung und Auslegung des Artikel 6 der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie (RL 92/43/EWG) in Großbritannien
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (4/2010)
Der vorliegende Beitrag1 gewährt eine Übersicht der Umsetzung von Art. 6 der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie in den verschiedenen Rechtsordnungen der Staaten England, Schottland, Nordirland und Wales sowie Gibraltar. Bis 1998 stand dem Parlament des Vereinigten Königreiches in Westminster eine einheitliche Gesetzgebungskompetenz grundsätzlich auf dem ganzen Hoheitsgebiet zu. Nur für Nordirland bestanden besondere Regelungen, sodass die beiden Gesetzgebungsverfahren getrennt abliefen. Mit dem Verfassungsreformprozess, der sog. Devolution, fand eine Verlagerung der Gesetzgebungs- und Verwaltungskompetenzen von der Zentralregierung zu den einzelnen „Teilstaaten“ statt.