The GE industry is happy to say that Bt maize has been declared safe and approved by European Union authorities as well as by the US ones. But the EU approval came despite the fact that only one of the 15 EU states (France) wanted it, and even France was wavering. (reference at end). Many people have asked how the maize was authorised despite so much opposition and despite the fact that the Council of Ministers of the 15 countries finally asked the Commission to withdraw their proposal to approve it.
The answer lies in the complex decision EU decision making rules and procedures on GMOs, which give most power to the Commission. Essentially, the Commission makes proposals to committees made up of representatives of the member states, and those committees can either:
a) vote by majority to approve the proposal or
b) vote by UNANIMITY to reject it.
In other words, under the voting procedures of Directive 90/220, unless all member states UNANIMOUSLY reject something that the Commission wants to do, then the Commissioners can ignore the member states wishes.
A brief description of the complex history of the approval of Bt maize follows, but as you read on, remember that at the end of the process 13 of 15 countries, ADVISED BY THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS, did not want the maize, because of the poor scientific data in the proposal. Greenpeace says that scientific data was flawed and incomplete.:
1994 Ciba Geigy gives scientific dossier on Bt maize to French govt for consideration. Almost all of that data was from the company's own experiments, but it (conveniently?) did not contain some negative data which Ciba Geigy earlier submitted to US authorities (like the fact that it can harm beneficial organisms).
1995 France passes dossier and decision-making to European Commission for application under Directive 90/220/EEC
April 1996 The European Commission proposes the maize to the so-called 'Article 21' committee, made up of representatives of the member states. Many of them were doubtful (either voting against or abstaining). Because they did not reach a majority opinion to approve the Commission's recommendation, the rules allowed the Commission to take the decision-making to the Council of Ministers (that is, the Environment Ministers of the 15 member states).
June 1996 The Council of Ministers met, and only France was in favour. Spain was undecided. The 13 other states did not want the Bt maize, for various reasons. The Council decided not to vote on the proposal (see 'what if' below) and the asked the Commission to withdraw the proposal. The wording of Directive 90/220/EEC says that a proposal from the Commission will be adopted within three months "if the Council has not acted". By not voting on the Commissions' proposal, the Council of Ministers are considered to have "not acted", even though they asked for the withdrawal of the proposal.
The Commission then 'consulted' its OWN scientific
committees, with very narrow terms of reference. That is another story...
December 1996 Based on those scientific
committess, the Commission decided to authorise the import and cultivation
of the maize.
January 1997 Leaked minutes of
the Commission discussions revealed that the fear of 'trade problems' with
the USA had been involved in the appoval.
WHAT IF?
Why didn't the 15 ministers vote in the Council and what would have happened if the 15 ministers HAD voted? The vote would have been 13 against, 1 in favour and 1 abstention.
Again, they would have "not acted" to approve the Commissions proposal, and "not acted" to unanimously reject it, and the maize would have received authorisation. By refusing to vote and demanding that the Commission withdraw the proposed authorisation, they were hoping to use their political power OUTSIDE the committee rules ("comitology") to stop the maize. This is because they realised they had no chance inside "comitology" to do so.
Some observers commented that the 13 ministers
realised they couldn't win the comitology game because of the unfair rules,
so they just walked off the field before before the final whistle.
Jan 97 to present
- - EU members Austria and Luxembourg have temporarily refused to allow the maize into their countries, under Article 16 of 90/220/EEC
- - France and Italy have decided not to allow it to be grown, temporarily,
- - the European parliament has voted 407 to 2 to demand that the authroization is suspended.
- - US government and industry lobbying pressure has increased
- - An Austrian referendum has overwhelmingly endorsed the Austrian ban
The story continues: within weeks, (probably by 14 May), the Commission must decide whether to allow Austria and Luxembourg to maintain their bans on Novartis maize, or allow them to continue to have trade barriers inside the "common" market. The current position of the Commision is that these bans should not be allowed.
QUOTE: "Only one country, France, supported the position (to approve the maize) and even they were wavering" a Commission spokesman told reporters. "The rest said, for different reasons, withdraw it or reconsider it," he said of the proposal. ---
Reuters 26 June, 1996, after the 15 environment
Ministers met.
Peter Morris, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace Int, Amsterdam
voice: +31 20 5249529 email: pmorris@ams.greenpeace.org