Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:43:01.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Commission's GMO Opt-out for Member States: A WTO Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Blanca Salas Ferer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In April 2015, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) adopted a package on the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (hereinafter, GMOs) as food and feed in the EU. The package, which derives from the Political Guidelines presented to the European Parliament in July 2014 on the basis of which the current Commission was elected, consists of a Communication (titled Reviewing the decision-making process on genetically modified organisms) and a legislative draft (i.e., Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory, and hereinafter, the Proposal).

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 187 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change; July 2014.

2 COM (2015) 176 final.

3 COM (2015) 177 final.

4 OJ 2003 L 268/1.

5 OJ 2001 L 106/1.

6 Regulation (EC) No 1829/20023, read in light of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, notably case C-390/99, Canal Satélite Digital SL [2002] ECRI—607, para. 41.

7 OJ 2015 L 68/1.

8 The relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU on overriding reasons of public interest is also factored-in.

9 See, in particular, documents 15696/10 (Opinion of the Council of the European Union's Legal Service of 5 November 2010), SJ-0630/10 (Legal Opinion of the European Parliament's Legal Service of 17 November 2010), SEC(2010) 1454 final (Commission staff working document of 19 November 2010) and SEC(2011) 551 final (Commission staff working document of 29 April of 2011).

10 DS291, DS292 and DS293; European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (EC – Biotech).

11 Panel Reports, EC – Biotech, WT/DS291/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1 / WT/DS292/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1 / WT/DS293/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1, adopted 21 November 2006, DSR 2006:III, p. 847.

12 Panel Report, EC – Biotech, para. 7.1383.

13 Concerning control, inspection and approval procedures.

14 Panel Report, EC – Biotech, para. 7.1569.

15 “Questions and Answers on EU's policies on GMOs”, European Commission Fact Sheet, 22 April 2015.

16 “USTR Concerned by EU GMO Proposal”, United States Trade Representative Press Release, 22 April 2015.

17 “Statements by the United States at the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body”, 19 June 2015. Available on the Internet at https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jun19.DSB_.Stmt_.as-delivered.Public.pdf (last accessed on 20 February 2016).

18 “Toy safety and genetically modified organisms top WTO standards committee agenda”, WTO press release, 15-18 June 2015.

19 Peter Teffer, “EU states prefer to ‘blame Brussels’ on GMOs”, EU Observer, 9 June 2015.