Oral evidence: GM foods and application of the precautionary principle in Europe, HC 328Monday 1 December 2014

Oral evidence, 1 December 2014.

Witnesses

Eric Poudelet, Director, Safety of the Food Chain, Directorate General for Health and Consumers, European Commission, and Dorothée André, Head of Unit, Biotechnology, Directorate General for Health and Consumers, European Commission, gave evidence.

Chair

Can I welcome the two of you here this afternoon? Thank you very much for coming to see us. For the record, would you kindly introduce yourselves?

Dorothée André

My name is Dorothée André. I work in DG SANCO—health and consumers—and I am head of the biotechnology unit. My background is that I am an agronomist.

Eric Poudelet

I am Eric Poudelet, director of the safety of the food chain, and among the six units dealing with pesticides, food labelling and so on I have responsibility for the GMO unit.

Chair

I understand that an independent evaluation was commissioned by the Commission on the cultivation of GMOs which concluded that the current legislative framework was “not meeting needs or expectations, or its own objectives”. Is that a fair conclusion?

Eric Poudelet

I do not know whether or not it is fair, but it is the conclusion. That was the reason President Barroso instructed us to propose a new system, in particular for member states to be able to opt out. As you probably know, today the current legislative framework for the cultivation of GMOs is for all member states; there is total harmonisation on cultivation. Due to the number of safeguard clauses that a certain number of member states have adopted, we have seen that it is not an appropriate framework. We proposed a new system for the opt-out of cultivation, which is currently being discussed, and we hope it can be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament quite soon, in the coming weeks. That is for cultivation. For feed, there is no major problem. Member states are not always in favour, but we have adopted 58 GMOs to be used in feed and food, mainly feed. It is authorised for food, as you know, but there is a labelling system; food for human beings is labelled. Due to the obligation for labelling, very little or quasi-zero food is produced from GM.

Chair

Apart from the one aspect you have very clearly described, are there any other weaknesses in the current framework, or is that the substantive issue that needs changing in your view?

Eric Poudelet

There is no problem in the legislative framework. The problems come more or less from the process of adoption, where member states have to vote with the qualified majority system. We have never had a qualified majority either in favour or against. That means that responsibility for approval always comes back to the Commission, but the problem is the decision-making process, not the legislation on the assessment or approval of GMOs.

Chair

All of this sounds a fairly complicated process. What are the annual costs to the Commission and to EFSA of processing cultivation dossiers and developing associated guidance?

Eric Poudelet

The annual cost? In terms of money?

Chair

Yes.

Eric Poudelet

I do not know. At EFSA we have a scientific process, as described by our predecessor, and a unit of 15 staff. You can calculate the salaries of the staff. I can tell you about the research. The Commission invests quite a lot of money—about €200 million over some years—to try to develop independent research, because as was mentioned by Professor Perry, most of the research is done by the applicants. We want to stimulate independent research by independent laboratories and for that reason we invest, if that is a response to your question about the costs.

Stephen Metcalfe

When I was talking to the earlier panel it appeared that some tension existed between the European Commission and EFSA. Would you like to comment on the remarks made by Professor Perry in particular? Do you see that perhaps there is too much political influence upon the scientific evidence?

Eric Poudelet

I would say there is no tension. Since the BSE crisis, which you were familiar with in the UK, the Commission has established complete independence between risk assessment and risk management. It is now inscribed in general food law. Before the BSE crisis I am sure there was some influence by the risk manager on the risk assessor. Now it is strictly independent. We ask a question, with terms of reference, of EFSA, and EFSA is completely free to deliver an opinion, but we are free to take that opinion into account, or not. We do not have any obligation to follow EFSA’s opinion; we are totally free to take a completely opposite decision. That means there is no tension. We ask a question; they answer. They take the time, or they interview, and we adopt. Usually, we follow EFSA. Sometimes we are more severe than EFSA. You call that politics. Obviously, as a risk manager we have to get a vote from member states, but we also have to take into account other legitimate factors, which EFSA does not. In particular, you mentioned the benefits. EFSA has absolutely no role in benefits. The Commission might have a role. We have reflected on that and, if you want, I can develop that in more detail. We might take a decision different from that recommended by EFSA. May I give you some examples? Bisphenol A, which is a substance used in plastics, has been recognised as an endocrine disruptor by some scientists. Canada adopted national rules to ban bisphenol A in plastic baby bottles. We asked EFSA to deliver an opinion on this. Their opinion was grey, not black and white, but in 2011 the Commission adopted a decision to ban bisphenol A in plastic for baby bottles. EFSA did not recommend this; they said we could mitigate the risk. Another example is neonicotinoid pesticides and bees. In 2013 we suspended the use of neonicotinoids in some cultivation for sunflowers or rapeseed oil because there was some evidence, which was very clear, that bees lost their way back to their beehives. Based on different information, in particular other than the science, the Commission decided to suspend the use of neonicotinoids on certain bee-attracting plants. That means we are not bound by EFSA’s opinion. There is no tension for us. We have a good relationship. I am sorry. We have no tension.

Stephen Metcalfe

I hear what you say. Therefore, you are free to put into regulation 503 whatever you wish to put in, and you feel that all the requirements that have been detailed are justified.

Eric Poudelet

Yes.

Stephen Metcalfe

Including the 90-day rodent feeding studies.

Eric Poudelet

Yes.

Stephen Metcalfe

But EFSA does not.

Eric Poudelet

No.

Stephen Metcalfe

Could you explain? If that is not a tension, what is?

Eric Poudelet

It is not a tension. The guidelines have to be adopted by the Commission, not by EFSA. EFSA propose. We follow the rules.

Stephen Metcalfe

Help me understand why you think it is necessary and EFSA does not?

Eric Poudelet

In certain cases, the applicants voluntarily submitted the 90‑day studies, sometimes not. Sometimes EFSA requests it. Most of the time EFSA considers that it is not useful. To restore the confidence of citizens through their representatives at the European Parliament, there was a request that the 90-day study be more systematic. It was also requested that the two-year studies for GMO were systematic, because it is compulsory for pesticides. When there is an application dossier for a pesticide the applicant has to submit those studies. Some people consider that it should be similar for pesticides and toxicity, and the same thing could be asked. We requested that the 90-day study should now be compulsory. It was accepted by the member states when they voted. We are now reflecting on two-year studies, despite the fact that many scientists consider that they are not wholly necessary. Some studies have been criticised by the scientific community, in particular the Séralini study which demonstrates that GMO NK603 can cause tumours in rats. This study has been severely criticised by the scientific community not only in the EU but all over the world, but that creates questions for us. We wanted to verify whether or not a two-year study is necessary. We invested money in research, and there is now a research programme to restart the study to verify whether the Séralini study was done in a proper way. When the result of the study is available, probably in 2016 or 2017, we will decide, because we want to have evidence about whether a two-year toxicity study is useful or whether a 90-day study is enough. If the 90-day study demonstrates some evidence, we might use the two-year study but not systematically.

Stephen Metcalfe

Is what motivates or drives you based entirely on the science, or do you feel that you have to put some politics into this to bring member states along with you? If that is the case, what is the proportion of science to politics?

Eric Poudelet

It seems to me that your word “politics” gives some negative input. For me, politics are not negative; they are the way politicians—you are politicians—drive the rules and lives of our citizens. We do not see politics as a negative input. We see politics as a way that the regulation of particular innovative products like GMOs could be accepted by our citizens. Today, in most member states—maybe not the UK—GMOs are not really accepted for food. Few people know they are used to feed dairy cows, pigs, laying hens and so on, but for food many citizens consider that they are not appropriate. We would like to try to convince the citizen that GMOs could be a benefit—you were talking about benefits. Unfortunately, today biotech companies have not really demonstrated that they could put on the market GMOs that are really beneficial for humanity—for citizens—not for themselves in terms of money. Through such actions we would like to restore confidence in GMOs; the GMO technique should not be banned as a technique. Some GMOs could be accepted or not accepted, but the technique is certainly an innovative one that can bring benefits.

Stephen Mosley

A number of witnesses have highlighted the delays between genetically modified crops getting an opinion from EFSA and the Commission producing a draft decision. Are there delays?

Eric Poudelet

Yes. We are guilty.

Stephen Mosley

What are you going to do about it?

Eric Poudelet

If you ask me this question, you know the rule. The rule is that the Commission should adopt three months after an EFSA opinion. We have never respected the three months—never—because we need to get approval from member states under that famous qualified majority. When we present to the standing committee where member states have to vote, despite the fact that EFSA has published very substantial opinions, member states have a lot of questions. We stop the clock. We ask the company to deliver new information, not scientific information, which might be on risk management, monitoring and so on. Our authorised rule is to find a solution that commands the widest possible support from member states. We might present a proposal three months after the EFSA opinion, but we have never had a qualified majority. If we present it and force a vote after three months, we are sure that we will have a worse result than if we try to inform and convince member states. As of today, we have never had a qualified majority. Despite that, we have some rules where the Commission may adopt. We have adopted 58 GMOs for feed and food. We had three for cultivation but only one is left. The European Court of Justice repealed one decision on the cultivation of the Amflora potato, which was not used for food but to produce paper—technical use. But despite the fact that member states do not give a qualified majority and despite the fact that it is a long process, we adopt. It is not as quick as a biotech company would appreciate. In other countries in the world—Canada, USA, Argentina, Brazil—assessment is very quick; the scientific and management decisions are very quick, but we are proud to have probably the best scientific and risk assessment in the world. It is much better than in other countries in the world, but we have to pay the price.

Stephen Mosley

The European Parliament in February 2014 passed a resolution which basically asked the Commission not to propose authorisation of any more GMOs until, as they said, risk assessment methods had been improved. Does that not completely fly in the face of existing legislation?

Eric Poudelet

It is true that we have a backlog of decisions. We are waiting for a political decision by the College of Commissioners. The previous Commission, which ended on 1 November, and the new one wanted to give the cultivation proposal a chance, and member states the freedom to cultivate. The previous College of Commissioners and the present one want to be sure that the cultivation proposal is adopted by the Council and the Parliament before calling for a new proposal to approve food and feed GMOs, or GMOs for cultivation. Due to that resolution of Parliament we have a backlog. On political grounds, it is difficult for the College of Commissioners not to take into account a resolution voted by the European Parliament.

Chair

Following on from that, you started your response to Mr Mosley with the very straight answer that the delays are not good. Do you not regret the fact that consequent on this very slow process we have now lost from Europe two research-based companies? Syngenta and BASF have transferred to the United States. Is that not a bad reflection on the machinery of Europe?

Eric Poudelet

I have no personal feeling about that. There is a legal instrument that companies can use if they are not happy with the delay, and they have used it. In particular, the Commission has been condemned for carence in the cultivation of maize 1507—the Court of Justice in Luxembourg condemned the Commission for taking an extremely long time on approving that maize. There can also be a request to the ombudsman. The ombudsman has to verify whether we have, in the jargon, been guilty of maladministration and delay. That is ongoing. We will see what the ombudsman, which like EFSA is also independent, says to the Commission. There is an instrument. My personal feeling has nothing to do with it.

Chair

You pointed out that we are politicians, and we are entitled to express opinions like that. I personally regret the fact that two major companies withdrew from Europe.

Eric Poudelet

Of particular companies, BASF has withdrawn some applications relating to cultivation, not based on the length of the approval process but on mainly the difficulties of getting acceptance by citizens and also because some green activists destroyed experimental fields and so on. That is their choice—the choice of the company.

Jim Dowd

We are politicians, but there are those of us who believe that the Commission and all those who work in it are no less political than formal politicians. I want to test the precautionary principle and the way the Commission seems to view it and yet applies it to GM regulation. Let’s start with common ground. According to the Commission’s website, the principle is relevant where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a product may pose an unacceptable risk to society, or there are insufficient data to make a comprehensive risk assessment. Could we accept that that is common ground and that is the view the Commission holds?

Eric Poudelet

We are officials, not politicians. The College of Commissioners are politicians, not us. We are officials. We obey. We are slaves and we obey our political masters. You made a second point.

Jim Dowd

I have a number of other questions which should avail themselves of a yes/no answer, provided we can agree on the proposition I just put to you. Is my understanding of the Commission’s view of the precautionary principle accurate?

Eric Poudelet

It is accurate, but it has never been used for GMO authorisation.

Jim Dowd

Indeed not, and that is the apparent contradiction that I want to examine. Do you consider that positive safety opinions delivered by EFSA are based either on insufficient data or incomplete risk assessment?

Eric Poudelet

Not really. EFSA is working on the valuable science of today. Science today is probably more limited than science will be in 20 years, but EFSA has to work with the best science when it issues an opinion. We do not have the feeling that it is incomplete science or unsafe science. It is the role of EFSA to verify, as explained by the professor, that the company is not hiding negative research, or something like that. It is the role of EFSA to verify that all the scientific evidence has been delivered by the applicants, or by other independent laboratories, to feed EFSA’s assessment.

Jim Dowd

I appreciate that, but what you said is simply that we will know more tomorrow than we do today. That is a recipe for doing nothing.

Eric Poudelet

No, because we approve GMOs. We have approved. We do not stick to—

Jim Dowd

But you said that is for animal feed.

Eric Poudelet

They are approved for food and feed. For food, as for feed, it should be labelled.

Jim Dowd

You do not believe there is a universal threat from GMOs to public health.

Eric Poudelet

There is scientific evidence, and then you have the perception of consumers.

Jim Dowd

But that is not science.

Eric Poudelet

No. Absolutely. You are right. The perception of consumers has nothing to do with science. I cannot explain the perception of consumers, but it has nothing to do with science. Science is clear: GMOs when grown under certain conditions have no real harmful effect on animals, plants, insects, biodiversity, human beings and so on. The science is clear, but consumers and citizens do not believe the science. That is probably the paradox in the divorce between the science and the citizen’s opinion.

Jim Dowd

That is why you need politicians to regulate it.

Eric Poudelet

You cannot regulate this.

Jim Dowd

To decide what to do in the light of it? Yes.

Eric Poudelet

No. That is the reason we approve it despite the fact that member states do not accept it by qualified majority. The Commission approve because we believe in science; we believe in EFSA.

Jim Dowd

Mme André, you were about to say something. As you have not said anything so far, I thought you might like to come in.

Dorothée André

I can confirm that the Commission proposes and then member states dispose, in a way. Even if we propose something based on EFSA we do not have a qualified majority in favour. In the end, the Commission adopts, but when member states vote—this is not the UK’s position in the committee—some believe EFSA is not doing the job appropriately, which the Commission disagrees with because we propose the decision. Others say, “My citizens don’t want it.” In the end, you have to count, because the rule is that the Commission proposes to the committee of 28 member states and then member states vote. The UK has a big vote. France and Germany have a big vote, but you have others. A lot abstain or vote against. We do not have a lot who vote in favour. What Eric says is absolutely true. At the end, we hear a lot of member states saying, “My citizens do not want it. The science is not good. I don’t need this. There is no benefit.” That is the reality.

Jim Dowd

We understand that there is no qualified majority. That has been stated half a dozen times this afternoon. We are trying to establish why. You say the science is not good. That is the first time I have heard that mentioned. I have heard it said that certain citizens across the Union do not like it. I accept that, but science is not a democracy, is it?

Eric Poudelet

Please, we do not respond to these questions. Science is nothing to do with democracy; science should be science.

Jim Dowd

Indeed.

Eric Poudelet

As any scientist will say—the professor will confirm it—there is always doubt in science. It is not mathematics. There is some doubt. Some groups of citizens use those doubts to elaborate a position against GMOs, as is their right. A lot of NGOs and associations criticise the process, saying that EFSA is not independent and so on, and they stimulate lack of confidence in EFSA. We are agreed, but we consider it is up to the biotech companies to promote their products. It is not for the Commission to campaign to promote GM consumption; absolutely not. It is up to the biotech companies to say their GMOs have positive elements, such as less pesticide or anything they can demonstrate, but probably they are failing to convince citizens. They succeed in north and south America but they fail completely in Europe, or at least in most of the countries of the European Union.

Jim Dowd

I think I have gone as far as I can go.

Graham Stringer

You mentioned positive benefits that different companies might claim for genetically modified organisms. As I understand it, the benefits—the positive elements—are not considered under the current regulatory system. Is that true, and, if so, why?

Eric Poudelet

No. EFSA certainly has no mandate to assess the cost benefit of GMOs. We and the Commission as risk manager can introduce what we call other legitimate factors—cost benefit. We have established an organisation to treat that problem and to have independent assessment relating to the cost of the benefit of GMOs, but it is completely independent from the scientific assessment. It involves economists and agronomists; it is completely independent. We do not want to give that to EFSA. EFSA has a role. Full stop. The cost benefit risk should be assessed by another body; we call it the joint research centre. It has established a bureau of cost benefit where 18 member states have been asked to deliver expertise. They will issue a report, probably next year, about the cost of cultivation in particular, and whether the cultivation of GM in Europe brings some benefit for the farmer, the environment and citizens. We already have some information that in Spain, for example, where there are 130,000 of the 150,000 hectares of GM cultivation in the whole EU, the benefit for the farmer is between €0 and €12 per hectare. There is divergent information. We want independent information to see if there is a benefit for different groups of the population, in particular for farmers who grow GM as feed for animals; for the food industry, if they want to produce food; or for citizens. We will have more information on that. We reflected on asking the company, parallel to the scientific application dossier, to present a dossier to explain the benefit to society. We discussed it a lot but it was not introduced in the legislation, so for the moment it is not compulsory; it is voluntary. If the company wants to do so, they can provide information to us, not EFSA. EFSA has nothing to do with the cost-benefit study.

Graham Stringer

Is it not strange to look just at the potential problems and not the benefits in a regulatory system?

Eric Poudelet

No. It is a tool for member states to vote and accept, and also for citizens.

Graham Stringer

But you can scientifically evaluate the benefits just as clearly as you can evaluate disbenefits, surely.

Eric Poudelet

No. EFSA’s role is not to assess the benefit. EFSA’s role is to assess adverse and harmful effects on the environment, plants, animals, human beings and so on. It has nothing to do with benefits.

Chair

But you yourself described circumstances where the balance might be some perceived adverse effect versus, for example, applications of pesticides. The balance is in favour of using the crop rather than spraying pesticides which may damage the environment and people. We have heard evidence about that in the context of GMO cotton in Africa, for example. Is it not odd that that balance is not within the remit of EFSA, because that is science?

Eric Poudelet

It is not scientific assessment of the risk as we conceive it. It is important for the risk manager to decide whether the benefit is more important than the risk. It is like medicinal drugs. Many drugs contain a small amount of poison, but the benefit is that they cure your disease. There is a balance. If it is too poisonous, it is not authorised as a medicinal product, or only with a lot of mitigation measures. Here, for the moment, according to the legislation, we do not ask officially what the benefit is. The company explains and gives some information but there is no formal dossier for the application. I repeat that we are reflecting on whether to ask in the future, but it is not yet decided.

Graham Stringer

My colleague Mr Dowd asked you about the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is always provisional and it needs re‑evaluating in time, in the light of new knowledge. What new knowledge and information do you think would be required so that the universal precautionary principle could be put on one side as no longer necessary?

Eric Poudelet

We have never implemented the precautionary principle for the authorisation of GMOs. We have used it for bisphenol A in babies’ bottles, but not for GM. For GM, it was decided to implement the 90-day study by the applicant. Certain persons might consider that there are not enough toxicological studies. The scientists—the panel—say, “We have enough for the moment.” We want to see whether those famous studies and the two-year toxicology studies, either on a compulsory basis or a request basis, could be useful. The problem is that today GMOs are used in feed, and animals are usually slaughtered very quickly, except dairy cows which are slaughtered when they are four or five years old. They do not have time to develop cancer. For human beings it is different, but I repeat that in the European Union there is no—quasi no—GM food for human beings. In the USA or Canada, yes. Is it enough to consider that GMOs on the food market in north America for 15 or 20 years demonstrate that it is not harmful, or that there is a history of non‑problematic use? I leave it to toxicologists to reply. Remember the BSE story: 30 years of incubation.

Mr Heath

I am still struggling to understand why the benefits are not properly taken into account. I can understand the difficulties of making a socio-economic assessment. I cannot understand what the difficulty is in dealing with the potential environmental benefits, particularly when we are talking about substitution of one product for another. Surely, that is a relevant regulatory issue. If you use one product, which happens to be engineered in this way and it removes the requirement for a highly toxic pesticide or herbicide, that is a relevant issue for the regulatory process, but you are telling me it is not; and that it is simply that the regulatory process is more of a beauty contest than a regulatory system.

Eric Poudelet

No. The regulation says that scientific assessment by EFSA shall deal with the risks posed. The regulation to date does not speak on the benefit.

Mr Heath

But why doesn’t it? That is precisely the question. Is there any move to make it do so?

Eric Poudelet

We can change the legislation. That is true. But today the legislation does not speak about the benefit. To modify the legislation in terms of GMOs is quite difficult. We tried to modify it for the opt-out cultivation system. It took us four years to change half of article 26b. You probably understand from my comments that we are in favour, but completely to change the legislation is an enormous challenge for multiple reasons, in particular the tension between Parliament and the Council.

Mr Heath

I understand that. I think I am beginning to understand why one would ban neonicotinoids and increase the use of pyrethroids, but that is a different matter. Can I talk about another area of change in the regulatory system which has been suggested to us and which we touched on earlier? It is suggested that we should be looking at traits rather than technologies. Unless you take the view, which I hope most scientists would not, that genetic modification is inherently an evil process, it is the trait that should decide whether something is potentially harmful to the environment, to health or whatever. Do you think there is any possibility of ever moving to a system which looks at traits rather than technologies?

Eric Poudelet

Professor Perry gave you a very good answer, and we share it. We are not sure that changing the policy will bring a quicker response in terms of approval. If we have to go in your direction, we have to change the legislation, which is extremely difficult because it is a change of policy. We made a political choice not to change the whole system of legislation for cultivation in the old system but to change only half an article, because we were afraid that if we proposed a completely new system of authorisation—policy—it would take years and years and endless discussion with Parliament and member states. The bad science of politics could probably play a role.

Mr Heath

I think it plays a role at the moment. Thank you.

Jim Dowd

On the legislation, and what you are proposing, I note what you say about how long it takes to do things in the Commission and the EU generally, but is that not more a commentary on the way it operates than on any particular activity that it undertakes? It is a tower of Babel which would keep people talking for ever, if it could. I see you agree. The new Commissioner in DG SANCO said that it was his intention to review the GMO legislation within six months of taking office.

Eric Poudelet

No.

Jim Dowd

He did not.

Eric Poudelet

No. Excuse me. President Juncker said he wants to review the decision-making process, to avoid taking decisions that are against a clear majority of member states. It is not a review of EFSA; it is about the way, after the EFSA opinion has been delivered, we decide in the absence of a qualified majority. In the absence of a qualified majority, the Commission decides. President Juncker, in the light of the decision of the Council about the cultivation of maize 1507, where 19 member states were against but there was no qualified majority, has proposed in his programme for the new Commission to modify the decision-making process. The Commission will make a proposal within six months—before the end of April. We do not know yet what proposal it will be, but a proposal will be made to the Council and Parliament, to take into account that commitment by President Juncker, but that is nothing to do with the risk assessment.

Jim Dowd

I am not talking about anything the president said; I was talking about what Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis of DG SANCO, if I have the name right—it looks Greek to me—said.

Eric Poudelet

He is our commissioner.

Jim Dowd

I have him saying that he would “review the legislation applicable to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms” within “the first six months”.

Eric Poudelet

Yes.

Jim Dowd

You endorse that.

Eric Poudelet

Yes.

Jim Dowd

So the answer to my question, “Is it this?” when you said, “No,” is actually, “Yes.” That is the position the new commissioner has adopted: he wants to review the legislative framework.

Eric Poudelet

Relating to the decision-making process, yes.

Jim Dowd

What aspects of the legislation might be changed by such a review, in your estimation?

Eric Poudelet

The decision-making process does not mean the scientific assessment.

Jim Dowd

Taken together with the proposed amendment to the deliberate release directive, in your estimation as a very experienced eurocrat, do you think it will be adopted in its present form?

Eric Poudelet

You mean the cultivation proposal.

Jim Dowd

The amendment to the deliberate release directive.

Eric Poudelet

As you know, we have entered what we call the trialogue between the European Parliament and the Council, and the Commission has to play the role of honest broker. The two institutions—the European Parliament and the Council—have to agree. The next and hopefully final trialogue will be this Wednesday, when the Commission expect the Parliament and Council to arrive at a compromise agreement, but we do not know which agreement it will be; it is between the two institutions. The Commission has nothing to do with that. I repeat that its role is as honest broker. We have to run from the Parliament to the Council and from the Council to the Parliament to try to find a compromise, but they can decide over the top of the Commission. We made a proposal four years ago. What they are discussing today substantially modifies the proposal we made in 2011, but that is the democratic process in EU institutions. They could agree something that does not please us but we have to accept it. We expect that the Greek presidency, based in particular on the UK, France and Germany—the three important member states—changing their position in June 2014, will breathe new life into the proposal, because it was stuck with no qualified majority. Because the UK, France and Germany changed their position with a new proposal made by the Greek presidency, that has given a new incentive. We expect that it could be accepted this Wednesday.

Jim Dowd

Were the amendment to the deliberate release directive to proceed, while it provides an obvious mechanism for those who are resolutely opposed to adopting any GMO regime, do you estimate that it will be equally open to those member states who wish to promote it to do so?

Eric Poudelet

When President Barroso made that proposal, he expected that the member states would not want to cultivate GMOs. Most do not want to cultivate them; only five member states cultivate GMOs today. But those who do not want to cultivate might give positive approval when we present the proposal in standing committee. They will know that there is no cultivation at home, so they are certain they will not authorise cultivation. We expect that they will not abstain or that they will give a favourable vote when we present the decision to be voted on. One of the basic elements in the proposal is to avoid a lot of abstentions by member states. Abstentions do not count as qualified majority and so on. Those who abstain do so for bad political reasons, but if they know they will not cultivate they might vote in favour or against, so a clear majority might be obtained in favour or against, but not “No opinion”.

Jim Dowd

What the whole process has demonstrated is that the EU/Commission is unfit to deal with this as an EU-wide competence, and it should never have been incorporated as such.

Eric Poudelet

I will not comment on this statement.

Jim Dowd

I did not think you would.

Mr Heath

When I was a Minister I had the chance to speak to Mr Borg about this.

Eric Poudelet

Commissioner Borg, the previous Commissioner?

Mr Heath

Yes. I just wondered whether Commissioner Andriukaitis has broadly the same view as Commissioner Borg. Is he in the same place?

Eric Poudelet

You should ask Mr Andriukaitis himself.

Mr Heath

I thought you might know.

Eric Poudelet

It is not a question of personal opinion. Mr Borg was not against. It is not a question of being against or in favour. We overcome personal opinion, because we have strict rules of procedure which we follow. Whatever you are personally against or in favour of, we have EFSA’s opinion which we propose to member states to adopt.

Stephen Mosley

With new plant-breeding techniques coming along, such as genome editing, would it be the Commission’s intention that they would be caught by existing GMO legislation?

Eric Poudelet

It is a difficult process; you heard the statements from the professor. EFSA has delivered an opinion on the eight different techniques. The problem is to classify whether they are covered by GMO or not. If they are not, it is an easy process; seeds will be approved extremely rapidly. If they are covered by a similar GMO process, they will take three, four or five years to be approved. Obviously, the seed industry is in favour of excluding them; some NGOs want to include them within the scope of GM. There is great tension. We are stuck in this process. We have very divergent and strong positions in favour or against. Probably one or two could be non-GM; one or two that could be GM; and some could be in a grey zone in the middle where it would be difficult to classify them. Probably Commissioner Andriukaitis will relaunch the debate with scientists, seed producers, farmers and citizens to try to find a position that meets most of the concerns.

Stephen Mosley

When will that decision be made?

Eric Poudelet

It is difficult to tell you, probably in the coming month, but don’t take that as an administrative promise. In terms of GMOs we have never respected the deadline, so please do not take that as a commitment.

Graham Stringer

When you are developing new areas of policy, where do you get your scientific advice, and how will that change now that Professor Anne Glover has not been reappointed?

Eric Poudelet

Mrs Glover has not really given a scientific assessment relating to GMOs. We get the risk assessment from EFSA. If there is new scientific evidence which has not been taken into account by EFSA—for example, when a member state decides to ban a GMO despite EFSA having given a favourable opinion—we immediately give EFSA the scientific evidence of that member state for it to be assessed by EFSA. All our scientific information comes from EFSA. Each time an article is published in the world, we give it to EFSA.

Graham Stringer

On these issues and the development of policy, you have not met Professor Glover. How many times have you met Greenpeace on these issues?

Eric Poudelet

Myself?

Graham Stringer

Or your section.

Eric Poudelet

We meet Greenpeace when they ask to meet us, as we meet the biotech industry each time they ask. We never refuse to give an appointment. Never. We have an open policy. Each time an NGO or association asks to meet us—it is a question of timing and agenda—we accept.

Graham Stringer

I understand that. How many times in the last year or six months—it does not really matter—have you met Greenpeace? Is it once a week, once a month, once a year?

Eric Poudelet

I do not know.

Jim Dowd

Perhaps when you get back you could drop us a line to let us know.

Dorothée André

Yes. It would be on request, maybe twice a year or something like that.

Chair

Thank you very much for your attendance this afternoon. Have a safe journey home. Oral evidence: GM foods and application of the precautionary principle in Europe, HC 328 25