Source: European Parliament
Question for oral answer O-000003/2025
to the Commission
Rule 142
Biljana Borzan
on behalf of the S&D Group
In the previous legislative term, Parliament adopted 38 objections to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), while another 10 objections have achieved the necessary majority in plenary in the current term. These repeated objections reflect the political will of Parliament and its concerns regarding biodiversity, food safety and environmental sustainability. However, despite Parliament’s clear stance, the Commission continues to grant authorisations, invoking its implementing powers under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003[1].
This practice exposes a significant democratic deficit, as the position of Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens, has been disregarded in almost 50 cases. The Commission’s decisions are frequently made without a qualified majority in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, yet it proceeds with authorisations. This gives rise to concerns about the legitimacy of the EU’s decision-making processes and whether they sufficiently respect the precautionary principle.
- 1.Democratic legitimacy: Given that Parliament has objected to nearly 50 GMO authorisations, how does the Commission justify continuing with approval despite the clear lack of political support and growing public concern?
- 2.Precautionary principle: The precautionary principle is a cornerstone of EU environmental and health policy. How does the Commission ensure that its GMO authorisation process adheres to this principle, particularly in the light of data gaps and concerns raised by independent scientists and EU citizens? In addition, how does the Commission ensure that its GMO authorisation process does not disproportionately favour third-country agribusiness interests over the EU’s own environmental, health and consumer protection standards?
- 3.Institutional balance: Does the Commission acknowledge that its current approach undermines trust in the EU institutions by ignoring Parliament’s clear stance? Will it consider reforming the comitology process to strengthen democratic accountability?
- 4.Future commitments: In the light of the European Green Deal and commitments to sustainable agriculture, what measures will the Commission take to ensure that GMO authorisations align with EU sustainability goals and environmental protection policies? Considering the EU’s reliance on GMO imports from third countries (such as the US and Brazil), how does the Commission plan to balance trade pressures with its commitments under the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy?
Submitted: 11.2.2025
Lapses: 12.5.2025
- [1] Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1829/oj).