We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
The Luxembourg-based court considers that these organizations, all German, have not given sufficient reasons to invalidate the Commission's conclusions on the equivalence between traditional and transgenic soy, the assessment of the risks of allergies for children or their toxicity, among other.
In 2012, Brussels authorized the sale of food, food ingredients and feed containing genetically modified soy in the European market following the favorable recommendation of the European Food Safety Agency, which considered that it was as safe as conventional for human and animal health .
The go-ahead came after a request from the company Monsanto Europe, which in 2009 requested permission to market this type of product.
The 3 NGOs then demanded that the Commission make an internal review of its decision, reproaching it in particular for having declared that transgenic soy is equivalent to conventional soy, as well as that its toxicological and immunological risks had not been sufficiently evaluated. especially with regard to allergies in young children.
Brussels refused to review its decision because it considered that the organizations' request was unfounded, so they went to court, which today has validated the Commission's position.
Specifically, the court notes that the organizations have failed to demonstrate that the Commission has failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that an adequate risk assessment was carried out "at the highest possible level" and, secondly, that Monsanto provided the relevant information.
In particular, the Court emphasizes that the NGOs have not proven that the Community Executive did not comply with its obligation to guarantee a high level of protection of human health and to prevent the commercialization of food and feed with potential harmful effects on health or health. environment.