Considerations on COM(2011)36 - Amendment of Commission Decision 2006/197/EC as regards the renewal of the authorization to place on the market existing feed produced from genetically modified maize line 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation 1829/2003 (Only the French, Dutch and English texts are authentic)

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

 
dossier COM(2011)36 - Amendment of Commission Decision 2006/197/EC as regards the renewal of the authorization to place on the market existing feed ...
document COM(2011)36 EN
date June 17, 2011
 
table>(1)Commission Decision 2006/197/EC of 3 March 2006 authorising the placing on the market of food containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize line 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) does not cover the placing on the market of feed produced from maize line 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) (hereafter ‘maize line 1507’).
(2)Feed produced from maize line 1507 has been placed on the market before the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and notified in accordance with Article 20(1)(b) of that Regulation.

(3)On 12 April 2007 Pioneer Overseas Corporation on behalf of Pioneer Hi-bred International and Dow AgroSciences on behalf of Mycogen Seeds jointly submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing feed produced from maize line 1507.

(4)On 11 June 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) gave a favourable opinion in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and concluded that the new information provided in the application and the review of the scientific literature that has been published since the previous scientific opinions of the EFSA GMO Panel on maize line 1507 (3) do not require changes of the previous scientific opinions on maize line 1507. Furthermore, EFSA reiterated the previous conclusions that 1507 maize is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed uses. This includes the use of feed produced from maize line 1507 (4).

(5)In its opinion, EFSA considered all the specific questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 18(4) of that Regulation.

(6)By letter of 21 January 2010, the applicant confirmed that he is aware of the fact that renewing the authorisation of existing feed produced from maize line 1507 by extending the scope of Decision 2006/197/EC so as to include such product, would imply this category of products to be subject to the legal provisions of that Decision.

(7)On the basis of the EFSA opinion, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Article 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 appear to be necessary for feed produced from maize line 1507.

(8)The EFSA opinion does not justify the imposition of specific conditions or restrictions for the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for the use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements for the use of the feed, as provided for in point (e) of Article 18(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

(9)For the sake of transparency, the applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.

(10)Taking into account these considerations, renewal of the authorisation to place on the market existing feed produced from maize line 1507 should be granted.

(11)Since it is general practice to authorise the placing on the market of food and feed in the same decision, the renewal of the authorisation to place on the market feed produced from maize line 1507 should be included in Decision 2006/197/EC. Decision 2006/197/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(12)The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chair and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since, at its meeting on 17 March 2011, the Council was unable to reach a decision by qualified majority either for or against the proposal and the Council indicated that its proceedings on this file were concluded, these measures are to be adopted by the Commission,