EU Ombudsman reprimands Commission over GM food and feed approval delays
The case concerned delays encountered in the authorization of 20 applications for GM food and feed in the period September 2012 to September 2014. The complainants, FEFAC, COCERAL and EuropaBio, informed the Commission of their concerns on several occasions.
In their view, the Commission's explanations and the persistent delays were unacceptable — they had long argued the ‘de facto’ moratorium on GM crop import approvals was putting at risk entire shipments of agriculture commodities for food and feed — and they, therefore, filed a complaint with European Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, inquired into the issue and found that the delays affecting the 20 applications were not justified.
In the course of the inquiry, the Commission dealt with all the pending applications. The Ombudsman concluded, however, that the delays reflected a systemic problem rather than being the result of matters specific to the particular authorization applications.
She ruled the delays constituted maladministration on the part of the Commission.
O’Reilly found between 2012 and 2014 the EC failed to meet the three months legally binding deadline for submitting draft decisions to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and to make its decisions within a reasonable time following the failure of the Appeal Committee to deliver an opinion.
“While the Ombudsman appreciates the difficult position in which the Commission finds itself, arising from the inability of the member states to deliver an opinion either at Standing Committee or Appeal Committee stage, these difficulties do not absolve the Commission of its statutory responsibility to submit a draft decision to the Standing Committee within three months,” she ruled.
No recommendations despite ruling
But the Ombudsman said she does not feel it is necessary to make any recommendation in the light of the fact that the Commission is reviewing new legislation, so there is no direct follow up to the decision.
She said she “trusts the EC will comply with existing legal requirements.”
A spokesperson for EU feed manufacturers’ federation, FEFAC, told us, that “nevertheless, the decision puts the Commission on the spot.”
He said, hopefully, with the Ombudsman’s decision in the open, the ruling can serve as a reminder to the EU Directorate General for Health an Food Safety (DG Sante), which will see a new management structure effective from 1 February, that it is being “watched” in regard to its stance on GMO authorizations.
Calls for functional GM approval system
FEFAC, COCERAL and EuropaBio, did recognize, in a statement today, that it is “business as usual” again with the Commission now following statutory limits on GM authorization applications:
“We are pleased that the Commission has started approving EFSA risk-assessed GM events for food and feed imports within reasonable time limits again.
We request however that the Commission maintain a fully functional and predictable GM approval system, which is critical for safeguarding market access to competitive feed proteins sources at a time when the EU livestock sector is facing a severe, prolonged market crisis,” said Alexander Döring, FEFAC Secretary General
The trade associations said a functioning, evidence-based EU policy on GMOs would require EU-wide authorization of safe products, adherence to and implementation of the EU’s existing established timelines as prescribed by laws, regulatory workability and predictability, an enabling regulatory environment and legal certainty, trade facilitating measures and additional risk communication to build trust.
They noted that there are currently more than 40 GMO applications for the import of GM grain pending in the system.
All groups expressed relief back in October at the European Parliament’s rejection of the Commission’s widely scathed opt-out proposal on GM imports, which would have granted EU countries the right to ban the use of EU authorized GM food or feed in their territories.
FEFAC, COCERAL and EuropaBio continue to argue that failing to support “the EU’s own best science is the single most damaging element for growth, innovation, investment as well as consumer confidence and safety. Like all industries and supply chains, we require and demand a reasonable level of legal and regulatory certainty.”
EU GM food and feed application authorization process
The Commission's decision on whether or not to issue an authorization comes after the publication of a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
The public has 30 days in which to submit comments to the Commission from the date of the publication of the EFSA opinion. The Commission must, within two months of the end of this consultation period — that is, within three months of receiving the EFSA's opinion — submit a draft decision on the application to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.
This Committee is composed of representatives of all EU member states and is chaired by a European Commission representative.
When the vote in the Standing Committee does not produce a qualified majority in favor of or against the draft decision, the Standing Committee delivers no opinion.
In that case, the Commission may either submit an amended version of that draft decision to the Standing Committee within two months of the vote, or submit the draft decision within one month of the vote to the Appeal Committee for further deliberation.
The voting rules in the Appeal Committee are similar to those in the Standing Committee. If the Appeal Committee delivers no opinion, the Commission is nevertheless required to take a decision. However, the Comitology Regulation does not set out any time limit within which the Commission must take its decision after the vote of the Appeal Committee.
Complainants’ case
The complainants argued that, as regards their applications, the delays in the submission of the draft decisions to the Standing Committee amounted to approximately 16 months on average per product, well beyond the three months limit provided for in the regulation.
In addition, there were delays by the Commission of 3.5 months on average per product in taking decisions following the failure of the Appeal Committee to reach a qualified majority. The complainants argued that these delays were excessive when compared to the period between 2011 and 2013 when, in most cases, decisions were made within one month.
