The MEP Corinne Lepage explains how Member States could justify banning the cultivation of genetically-modified crops in their countries.

Interview: GMO Cultivation Bans Take Shape - Corinne Lepage

https://api.multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/documents/20125/15552420/N003-0116-EN.srt

The subject of GMOs is back  on the EP's agenda.

The question is whether to allow Member  States to ban GMOs in their countries.

You're the rapporteur for this regulation.  What will change in practical terms?

President Barroso, in order to avoid the  problems he had in his first presidency,

wanted Member States to have  some flexibility in banning cultivation.

We're talking about  the cultivation of GMOs.

So the Commission  put forward a proposal,

since the reasons put forward to allow  Member States to do so weren't valid.

None of the reasons mentioned  health or the environment

It would have been legally unsafe  for Member States to ban it

and opinions from the legal organisations  consulted were in agreement.

So in order to remedy  this potential legal problem,

I've done two things.  First, I've changed the legal basis.

This is Article 192 which gives back  subsidiarity, making decisions safe.

Secondly, we've proceeded  in the opposite way,

by defining the categories of reasons  that would allow a ban. What are they?

complementary to those already assessed  by the European Food Safety Authority.

The second type of reason is  the absence or insufficiency of data

informing Member States  of the expected impact of these GMOs.

or agricultural practices,  to the use of the land.

You also talk about other reasons  as legitimate factors.

Practically, what are these legitimate  factors? Can they be legally safe?

No. Legitimate factors  are a way of opening the door.

The essential part is  the definition of specific reasons

which are in the draft that was voted on  by the Environment Committee.

So will that be safe if there's a dispute?

but it's a lot more secure  than what was proposed before.

Your draft was adopted  by the Parliamentary Committee.

The European People's Party, in the  majority in the EP, abstained in the end.

They will have to be convinced in plenary,

and also, above all, the Member States,  since the discussion is also with them.

but the EPP did vote for  all the amendments,

as they were compromise or consolidation  amendments, because ECR didn't vote.

Yes, the Member States  have to be convinced.

In my proposal, in my report, there's  something that goes in their direction.

It's the requirement  from the Council in December 2008

for the evaluation  and assessment of GMOs.

My report picks up those very strong  demands from Member States,

the Commission has formulated  proposals to modify its own proposal,

particularly on reasons,  similar to my proposals.

One last point. Let's consider a Member  State which, under this new regulation,

authorises GM cultivation,  based on EU recommendations,

and a neighbouring State decides  to ban it, under the new regulation.

What about the problem  of contamination?

That already exists.  There's not really any change,

because some States don't apply GM  regulations. They don't want cultivation.

There's an opening, but I haven't  looked at responsibility in that area itself.

It will have to be reviewed when  the whole directive is modified next year.