Commission Implementing Decision
of 10 February 2012
as regards the renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 (MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(notified under document C(2012) 700)
(Only the Dutch and the French texts are authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2012/82/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
Food produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, including food additives, feed materials and feed additives produced from genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 were placed on the market before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
Articles 8(1) and 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 allow the products which have been lawfully placed on the market before the date of application of that Regulation to continue to be placed on the market, provided that a notification is made to the Commission.
Articles 8(4) and 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 require the operators responsible for placing on the market those products to submit an application for renewal of authorisation within certain time limits.
On 16 April 2007, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for renewal of the authorisation for continued marketing of existing food additives, feed materials and feed additives produced from 40-3-2 soybean which were previously notified according to Articles 8(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of that Regulation.
On 18 April 2007, Monsanto Europe SA submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for renewal of the authorisation of food containing, consisting of, or produced from 40-3-2 soybean, feed containing or consisting of 40-3-2 soybean and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of 40-3-2 soybean with the exception of cultivation which were previously notified according to Articles 8(1)(a) and 20(1)(a) of that Regulation.
In its opinions, 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 Articles 6(4) and 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
In its opinions, EFSA also concluded that the environmental monitoring plan, consisting of a general surveillance plan, submitted by the applicant is in line with the intended use of the products.
Taking into account those considerations, renewal of the authorisation should be granted for the products.
On the basis of the EFSA opinions, no specific labelling requirements other than those provided for in Articles 13(1) and 25(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, appear to be necessary for foods and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from 40-3-2 soybean. However, in order to ensure the use of the products within the limits of the authorisation provided for by this Decision, the labelling of feed containing or consisting of the GMO and products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GMO for which renewal of the authorisation is requested should be complemented by a clear indication that the products in question must not be used for cultivation.
All relevant information on the renewal of the authorisation of the products should be entered in the Community register of genetically modified food and feed, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
In the interest of clarity and consistency, Decision 96/281/EC should be repealed and replaced by this Decision.
The applicant has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision.
The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its Chairman. An implementing act was deemed to be necessary and the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: