MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

B9‑0121/2020

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(D065067/03 ‒ 2020/2535(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D065067/03),

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed[1], and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

– having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 9 December 2019, at which no opinion was delivered, and to the vote of the Appeal Committee on 23 January 2020, at which again no opinion was delivered,

– having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers[2],

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 22 May 2019, and published on 5 July 2019[3],

– having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)[4],

– having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

A. whereas, on 28 October 2016, Monsanto Europe N.V. on behalf of Monsanto Company, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’); whereas the application covered the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (GM) soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, as well as the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of GM soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B. whereas, on 22 May 2019, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 5 July 2019, in relation to that application;

C. whereas GM soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127 has been developed to confer tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate-based herbicides[5];

Complementary herbicides

D. whereas it has been shown that the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM crops results in a higher use of herbicides, due in large part to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds[6]; whereas, as a consequence, it is to be expected that crops of GM soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127 will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of the complementary herbicides (glufosinate, dicamba and glyphosate), which will potentially lead to a higher quantity of residues in the harvest;

E. whereas a peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate accumulates in GM soybeans[7]; whereas a pilot project carried out in Argentina found surprisingly high levels of glyphosate residues on GM soybeans[8];

F. whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate[9];

G. whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and thus meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council[10]; whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018[11];

H. whereas in GM plants, the way that complementary herbicides are broken down by the plant, and the composition and thus toxicity of the break-down products (‘metabolites’), may be driven by the genetic modification itself[12];

I. whereas, in spite of this, the assessment of herbicide residues and their metabolites on GM plants is considered to be outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms;

J. whereas, whilst EFSA states in its opinion that ‘the assessment of herbicide residues relevant for this application has been investigated by the EFSA Pesticide Unit’, this is not sufficient in itself since the combinatorial toxicity of the complementary herbicides and metabolites as well as their potential interaction with the GM plant itself, in this case GM soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, have not been taken into account;

K. whereas, in addition, according to the EFSA Pesticide Unit, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several metabolites of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing[13] and there are insufficient data to derive maximum residue levels (‘MRLs’) for glyphosate on GM soybeans[14];

L. whereas the lack of analysis of herbicide residues on the GM crops and the potential health risks for consumers has been raised as a concern by a number of Member State competent authorities[15];

M. whereas the conclusions of an international research project entitled ‘Risk Assessment of genetically engineered organisms in the EU and Switzerland’, presented in January 2020, found that the Union risk assessment of GMOs fails to deal in a satisfactory way with risks to public health and the environment, including in relation to the health risks associated with the consumption of products derived from herbicide-tolerant GM plants[16];

MRLs and related controls

N. whereas, under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council[17], which aims to ensure a high level of consumer protection in relation to MRLs, the residues on imported crops for food and feed of active substances which are not authorised for use in the Union should be carefully controlled and monitored[18];

O. whereas, on the contrary, under the latest coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union (for 2020, 2021 and 2022), Member States are not obliged to measure glufosinate residues on any products, including soybean[19]; whereas it cannot be excluded that glufosinate residues on GM soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, or products derived from it for food and feed, will exceed MRLs, which have been put in place to ensure a high level of consumer protection;

Undemocratic decision-making

P. whereas the vote on 9 December 2019 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; whereas, the vote on 23 January 2020 of the Appeal Committee also delivered no opinion;

Q. whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic[20];

R. whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted seven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

S. whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee[21];

Upholding the Union’s international obligations

T. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas these legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the United Nations’ (UN’s) Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’);

U. whereas a recent report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to Food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health[22]; whereas SDG Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination[23];

V. whereas EFSA found that the estimated operator exposure to glufosinate, classified as toxic to reproduction, when used for weed control in GM maize exceeded the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) even when personal protective equipment was used[24]; whereas the risk of increased operator exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

W. whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land-use and land-use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels[25]; whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts[26]; whereas SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020[27]; whereas forests play a multifunctional role that support the achievement of most SDGs[28];

X. whereas soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % and 100 % of soya cultivated respectively in Brazil and Argentina is GM soya[29];

Y. whereas the Union is the world’s second largest importer of soya, the majority of which is imported for animal feed; whereas analysis by the Commission has found that soya has historically been the Union’s number one contributor to global deforestation and related emissions, accounting for nearly half of the deforestation embodied in all Union imports[30];

1. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council[31], to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;

4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to a herbicide, in this case glufosinate, which is not authorised for use in the Union;

5. Calls on the Commission to fully integrate the risk assessment of complementary herbicide residues and their metabolites, including combinatorial effects, into the risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant GM plants, regardless of whether the GM plant concerned is to be cultivated in the Union or is for import into the Union for food and feed uses;

6. Calls on the Commission to withdraw proposals for GMO authorisations, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, if no opinion is delivered by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health;

7. Notes and welcomes that the mission letter of each Commissioner states that they ‘will ensure the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals within their policy area. The College as a whole will be responsible for the overall implementation of the Goals.’[32];

8. Welcomes that the European Green Deal, the flagship project of the Commission, has been put forward as an integral part of the Commission’s strategy to implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda and the SDGs;

9. Recalls that SDGs can only be achieved if supply chains become sustainable and synergies are created between policies[33];

10. Reiterates its alarm that the Union’s high dependence on imports of animal feed in the form of soybeans causes deforestation in third countries[34];

11. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the import of GM soybeans, unless it can be shown that their cultivation did not contribute to deforestation;

12. Urges the Commission to review all its current authorisations for GM soybeans in light of the Union’s international obligations, including those under the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the SDGs;

13. Reiterates its call for the implementation of a European vegetable protein production and supply strategy[35], which would enable the Union to become less dependent on GM soybean imports and to create shorter food chains and regional markets; insists that this be integrated into the upcoming Farm to Fork Strategy;

14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.