Skip to content
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION (D069149/02 – 2020/2895(RSP))

On the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

B-9-2020-0416

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety · Rapporteur: Tilly Metz, Günther Sidl, Anja Hazekamp, Eleonora Evi, Sirpa Pietikäinen

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX
✦ In shortFull text
✦ In short · AI summary of this text, generated 25 Sept 2026

Written by a language model from the full text only; every figure comes from the text. The paragraph links open the paragraph a statement rests on — check the text itself before relying on it.

Parliament's resolution objects to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for genetically modified maize MON 89034 for food and feed uses. It says the draft exceeds the Commission's implementing powers and is not consistent with Union law, and calls on the Commission to withdraw it. It cites Member State concerns about the European Food Safety Authority's opinions, doubts about the validity of toxicity studies using proteins produced in E. coli, and unassessed interactions between Bt toxins and plant proteinase inhibitors. It raises effects on non-target organisms, resistance in target pests, and shortcomings in the applicant's literature review. It notes that the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health delivered no opinion on 26 October 2020. It calls on the Commission to stop authorising genetically modified organisms when no opinion is delivered in the Appeal Committee, to develop sustainability criteria, and to take account of international agreements. It asks the European Food Safety Authority to widen its risk assessment and require tests on plant tissue.

Key points

  1. Parliament considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
  2. It considers the draft not consistent with Union law because it is not compatible with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment.
  3. It calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision.
  4. It welcomes the Commission's recognition of the need to take sustainability into account, but expresses strong disappointment that another genetically modified soybean was authorised on 28 September 2020 despite Parliament's objection.
  5. It calls on the Commission to move forward urgently on sustainability criteria with full involvement of Parliament, and to provide information on the process and timeframe.
  6. It urges the Commission to take into account the Union's obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals in the authorisation process.
  7. It reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising genetically modified organisms when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee.
  8. It calls on the European Food Safety Authority to accept differences between native Bt toxins and those expressed by synthetic transgenes, and to widen its risk assessment to cover interactions and combinatorial effects.
  9. It calls on the European Food Safety Authority to no longer accept toxicity studies based on isolated proteins and to require all tests to be carried out with tissue from the genetically modified plant.
  10. It calls on the European Food Safety Authority to ensure field trial or greenhouse data cover a broad range of agronomic and environmental conditions and different varieties.
  11. It calls on the European Food Safety Authority to request data on the impact of consumption of food and feed derived from genetically modified plants on the intestinal microbiome.

Who is affected

  • The Commission, which is asked to withdraw the draft decision and stop authorising GMOs in certain cases.
  • The European Food Safety Authority, which is asked to widen its risk assessment and change its requirements for toxicity studies.
  • Member States, whose concerns about the risk assessment and monitoring are cited.
  • The applicant, Monsanto Europe N.V., whose renewal application and literature review are criticised.

Figures and deadlines

  • 26 October 2020: vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at which no opinion was delivered.
  • 3 August 2018: date Monsanto Europe N.V. submitted the renewal application.
  • 3 December 2008 and 25 September 2019: dates the European Food Safety Authority adopted favourable opinions.
  • 285 publications: number identified in the literature search, of which the applicant selected five.
  • 39 peer-reviewed publications: number reporting significant adverse effects of Bt toxins on out-of-range species.
  • up to 20-fold: enhancement of insecticidal activity of Bt toxins by low levels of proteinase inhibitors in a 1990 study.
  • three to five years: period in which the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to phase out many Bt corn hybrids and some Bt cotton varieties.
  • 36 resolutions: number Parliament adopted in its eighth term objecting to GMO authorisations; eleven objections in its ninth term.