The European Union’s Parliament this week rejected the European Commission’s proposal for national bans on genetically-modified foodstuffs and feedstuffs, which would have allowed any country to restrict or ban the use of products containing biotech traits that had been previously approved by the European Food Safety Agency and the European Commission.

Introduced in April, this proposal would have had several negative consequences, including creating regulatory and legal uncertainties; fragmenting the single EU market; and increasing costs for importers, feed manufacturers and, ultimately, European consumers.

The past summer, the U.S. Biotech Crops Alliance and MAIZALL, the international maize alliance of which the U.S. Grains Council (USGC) is a leading member, both reacted strongly to the proposal, sending separate letters to Commission members indicating it would violate both the EU’s international trade obligations and the principles of the single EU market, to the detriment of both the EU’s trading partners and agriculture. Both groups urged the European Commission to withdraw the proposal and refocus its efforts on resolving the existing asynchronous policy issues.

While the Parliament formally rejected the Commission’s proposal this week, an amendment was adopted calling on the Commission to submit a new proposal to address concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

However, the Commission has refused to withdraw its proposal as it believes this is the best way to address disagreements among member states about GMOs. As a result, further discussions on withdrawing the proposal or submitting a new proposal will continue with the European Council of Ministers.

“Despite the rejection by the European Parliament, the fate of the opt-out legislation remains uncertain and continues to be one more distraction in the context of the very complicated Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) negotiations,” said USGC Director of Trade Policy and Biotechnology Floyd Gaibler.

“Market access; timely, predictable, science-based regulations; and regulatory transparency remain top priorities for U.S. agriculture. We are supposed to be negotiating one agreement with a one-market EU for the benefit of producers in both countries, not 28 separate side deals.â€�

Please click here for additional information on the opt-out issue.