Oilseed Rape Genetically Modified (Extract from: Provisional Version, Environment Council, 20-21 December)

December 22, 2004

Brussels, 21 Dec 2004

The Council noted that no qualified majority was attained to allow for a decision on the Commission's proposal authorising the placing on the market of a oilseed rape product (Brassica napus L., GT73 line) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (12343/04).

In the absence of a Council decision, the Commission will be able to adopt its proposal.

The Netherlands authorities received a notification from Monsanto, SA, concerning the placing on the market of a oilseed rape product (Brassica napus L., GT73 line) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate.

In February 2004, the European Food Safety Authority delivered its opinion that Brassica napus L., GT73 line was safe for humans and animals and, in the context of the proposed used, for the environment. It also found that the monitoring plan provided by the consent holder was appropriate for the intended uses of the GT73 oilseed rape.1

In June 2004, the Commission submitted to the regulatory Committee2 a draft decision authorising the placing on the Community market of this product. However, the Committee was enable to give an opinion, since no qualified majority was reached.

Therefore, in accordance with the comitology procedure3, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council Decision, giving the Council a period of three months to take a decision4. A qualified majority is required at Council for adopting or rejecting the Commission's proposal. Failing a decision by the Council, the act must be adopted by the Commission.

1 See http:///www.efsa.eu.int

2 Established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC .

3 See Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (OJ L 184/23, 17.7.1999).

4 The proposal was dated 9 September 2004 but all linguistic versions were only available from 26 October 2004

http:///ue.eu.int/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pr essdata/en/envir/83237.pdf

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs

PhD Position, Department of Geoscience and Petroleum

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu

Senior Lecturer in Law

University Of The West Of England (uwe)

Lecturer in Marketing

Edinburgh Napier University