Skip to main content

Written question asked by Michael Meacher (Labour), in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Tuesday, 18 March 1997. It was answered by Lord Deben (Conservative) on Tuesday, 18 March 1997 on behalf of the Department of the Environment.


Dept of the Environment

Question
What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the (a) containment measures, (b) targeting of areas of risk, (c) incorporation of technological changes and (d) notification periods in Council Directive 9O/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms.
Answer

Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the (a) containment measures, (b) targeting of areas of risk, (c) incorporation of technological changes and (d) notification periods in Council directive GO/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. [20771] Mr. Gummer: In administering and enforcing the regulations which implement this directive inadequacies have been shown in all four areas. (a) The containment measures set out in the directive are based on what is appropriate to large-scale activities. Safety would be better ensured by a more flexible approach to containment measures which would enable users of genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) to select those most appropriate to the particular type of activity they propose to undertake. (b) The directive bases notification requirements on the classification of GMMs according to their inherent properties and on an inflexible test of the purpose and scale of intended activities. These criteria are not properly risk-based and therefore result in a disproportionate focus by competent authorities on activities of negligible risk. (c) The procedure for amending some of the key technical annexes to the directive is far too protracted to allow scientific developments to be taken quickly into account. (d) The notification periods are unnecessarily long. We have found that notifications can be processed long before the expiry of the periods prescribed in the directive. Notifiers must, however, observe the prescribed periods. The consequence is that the planning schedules of those engaged in contained use activities are needlessly extended and work is delayed. I am pleased that the European Commission's proposal for amendment of the directive, currently under negotiation, includes provisions which would go a long way to remedying these inadequacies.


Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
20771; 292 c521-2W
Session
1996-97
EC documents
Dir90/219/EEC
Subjects
Biotechnology Genetic engineering Environment protection EU law Genetically modified organisms