(Adnkronos) – Italy can ban the cultivation of genetically modified maize on its territory. This was established by the EU Court of Justice, confirming, in a judgment published today, the legitimacy of the procedure that allows the European Commission, at the request of a Member State, to limit the authorized area for the cultivation of a GMO (genetically modified organism), with the tacit consent of the authorization holder, as well as the legitimacy of the ban on the cultivation of Mon 810 maize introduced in Italy based on that procedure.
Giorgio Fidenato, a Friulian farmer who became famous for his battles in favor of GMOs and science, planted genetically modified maize (Mon 810, produced by Monsanto, is designed to defend against insect attacks), a cultivation that is prohibited in Italy. The Italian authorities therefore ordered the farmer to destroy his plants and imposed sanctions of 50,000 euros on him. The ban is based on a procedure provided for by Union law: in 2015, the EU established the conditions under which Member States can limit or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory.
The Union decided that, when a State requests a modification of the geographical scope of the authorization for the cultivation of a GMO, and the authorization holder does not object within 30 days, the European Commission takes note of the modification, which becomes immediately applicable. Consequently, the cultivation of the GMO in question is prohibited in territories where the modified authorization does not apply. Many EU States have limited or banned the cultivation of Mon 810 maize throughout their territory, or in part.
Fidenato appealed to the judiciary against the decisions taken against him. The judges submitted several preliminary questions to the Court of Justice to verify the validity of the procedure. In its judgment, the Court emphasizes that the Union legislator has a wide margin of discretion to legislate in areas such as GMO cultivation, which presuppose “complex assessments” and have political, economic, and social repercussions, both at national and local levels.
The Luxembourg judges believe that the procedure provided by the EU since 2015, which allows Member States, in a logic of subsidiarity, to obtain a ban on GMO cultivation on their territory, without particular justification, if the authorization holder does not object, is not contrary to EU law.
In particular, for the Court, this mechanism does not violate the principle of proportionality nor does it create discrimination among farmers in different Member States. The ban on cultivating a GMO does not even constitute a violation of the free movement of goods, given that it does not prevent businesses from importing products containing that maize, nor consumers from purchasing them. Finally, the Court notes that the obligation to justify the limitation or ban on the cultivation of a GMO applies only if the authorization holder in question objects. In this specific case, the tacit consent of the holder excludes this hypothesis, as well as any possible interference with business freedom.
