39
the new members) reportedly voting against, nine in favor, and seven abstaining.
74
Although the Commission again approved the variety in July 2004 in the absence of
Council agreement, this case once more demonstrated the persistent divisions in the
Council on new approvals.
75
Significantly, these two cases also seemed to dispel some
initial concerns that the new member states – most of which were already engaged in the
cultivation of GM crops, often without adequate controls – might serve as a “Trojan
horse” for the United States and the biotech industry.
76
Ensuring adequate testing
facilities in the new member states remains a challenge for the EU post-accession, but it
seems clear that the ambivalence toward agricultural biotechnology in the “old” EU is
reflected in the public opinion and governmental positions of the new members as well.
77
The future of biotechnology regulation in the EU thus appears unclear. The EU
Commission has underlined the “completion” of the EU regulatory framework and the
resumption of approvals as major steps forward, yet a careful examination of the approval
process reveals continuing opposition to GMOs among EU member governments as well
as in the European Parliament and in European public opinion. Some member states are
now insisting on the establishment of an EU liability regime and EU rules on the
coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. They are responding to concerns that GM seeds
grown on a neighboring field could contaminate a conventional farmer’s crop, making it
impossible for that farmer to meet EU purity obligations. The Commission held a
74
The member states voting against approval were Denmark, Luxemboug, Austria, Italy, and Greece (old
members), and Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, and Malta (new members). See “EU Governments Deadlocked
over Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Corn Product,” Associated Press, 28 June 2004; Sharon Spiteri,
“Member States Split on GM Maize Approval,” euobserver.com, 29 June 2004; and Joe Kirwin, “Old, New
EU States Block Authorization to Cultivate Gene-Engineered Corn NK603,” International Trade Reporter
(BNA), vol. 21, p.1234 (July 22, 2004).
75
See Bridges BioRes, “EU Approves Another GM Import as WTO Dispute Drags On,” vol. 4, no. 14, July
23, 2004, at
http://www.ictsd.org/biores/04-07-23/inbrief.htm#4
. (noting that “The approval only applies
for the use of corn as feed—not for cultivation—and imports will only be allowed once the maize also has
been approved for food use”).
76
On the new members as a “Trojan horse,” see Paul Brown, “EU Races to Thwart Influx of GM Food
from East,” The Guardian, 14 February 2004. A more detailed but equally critical study is Thomas
Schweiger, EU Enlargement: The Introduction of GMO’s by the Backdoor of EU Accession? (Northern
Alliance for Sustainability and Friends of the Earth Europe, May 2003).
77
A survey of citizens of the EU’s ten new members conducted in November 2002 showed that sixty-eight
percent held negative views toward GMOs, a result roughly similar to surveys of citizens of the “old”
Europe. “Genetically Modified Food,” Economist, Apr. 3, 2003, at 5.
A second major change in the Union,
the constitutional treaty agreed in Brussels in June 2004, does not alter the substance of EU policy or
policy-making with regard to agricultural biotechnology, and is therefore unlikely to affect policy toward
GMOs if and when it is ratified and comes into force.
Convention