—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (1),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (2),

—

having regard to Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA (3),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 September 2017, on ENISA, the ‘EU Cybersecurity Agency’, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013, and on Information and Communication Technology cybersecurity certification (‘Cybersecurity Act’) (COM(2017)0477),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 12 September 2018 for a regulation establishing the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre and the Network of National Coordination Centres (COM(2018)0630),

—

having regard to the adoption of the new National Intelligence Law by the Chinese National People’s Congress on 28 June 2017,

—

having regard to the statements by the Council and the Commission of 13 February 2019 on security threats connected with the rising Chinese technological presence in the EU and possible action on the EU level to reduce them,

—

having regard to the adoption by the Australian Government of the Government’s Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms, which entered into force on 18 September 2018,

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 14 February 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union (4),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the state of EU-China relations, in particular that of 12 September 2018 (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 14 September 2016 entitled ‘5G for Europe: an action plan’ (COM(2016)0588),

—

having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2017 on internet connectivity for growth, competitiveness and cohesion: European gigabit society and 5G (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (7),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (8),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 June 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027 (COM(2018)0434),

—

having regard to Rules 123(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the EU must drive forward its cybersecurity agenda in order to fulfil its potential in becoming a leading player in cybersecurity and use this to its industry’s advantage;

B.

whereas vulnerabilities in 5G networks could be exploited in order to compromise IT systems, potentially causing very serious damage to economies at European and national levels; whereas a risk analysis-based approach across the value chain is necessary in order to minimise the risks;

C.

whereas the 5G network will be the backbone of our digital infrastructure, extending the possibility to connect various devices to networks (internet of things, etc.), and will bring new benefits and opportunities to society and businesses in many areas, including critical sectors of the economy such as the transport, energy, health, finance, telecoms, defence, space and security sectors;

D.

whereas establishing an appropriate mechanism to respond to security challenges would give the EU the opportunity to actively take steps in setting standards for 5G;

E.

whereas concerns were raised about third-country equipment vendors that might present a security risk for the EU due to the laws of their country of origin, especially after the enactment of the Chinese State Security Laws, which impose obligations on all citizens, enterprises and other entities to cooperate with the state to safeguard state security, in connection with a very broad definition of national security; whereas there is no guarantee that these obligations are not applied extraterritorially, and whereas reactions to the Chinese laws have varied in different countries, ranging from security assessments to outright bans;

F.

whereas in December 2018, the Czech national authority for cybersecurity issued a warning against security threats posed by the technologies provided by the Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE; whereas subsequently, in January 2019, the Czech tax authorities excluded Huawei from a tender to build a tax portal;

G.

whereas a thorough investigation is needed to clarify whether the devices involved, or any other devices or suppliers, pose security risks due to features such as backdoors to systems;

H.

whereas solutions should be coordinated and dealt with at EU level in order to avoid creating different levels of security and potential gaps in cybersecurity, while coordination at a global level is needed in order to provide a strong response;

I.

whereas the benefits of the single market come with the obligation to comply with EU standards and the Union’s legal framework, and whereas suppliers should not be treated differently on the basis of their country of origin;

J.

whereas the regulation on screening of foreign direct investment, which should enter into force by the end of 2020, reinforces Member States’ ability to screen foreign investment based on security and public order criteria, and establishes a cooperation mechanism which allows the Commission and the Member States to cooperate in their assessment of security risks, including cybersecurity risks, posed by sensitive foreign investments, and also covers projects and programmes that are of EU interest, such as the Trans-European Telecommunications Networks and Horizon 2020;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 June 2015 on the state of EU-Russia relations (1),

—

having regard to the agreements reached in Minsk on 5 and 19 September 2014 and on 12 February 2015 (2),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions, in particular that of 14 June 2018 on Georgian occupied territories 10 years after the Russian invasion (3), as well as of 4 February 2016 on the human rights situation in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars (4),

—

having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 2 April 2014 on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnistky case (5),

—

having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on Russia of 14 March 2016,

—

having regard to the 2018 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought awarded to the Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 June 2018 on Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2018 on the situation in the Sea of Azov (7),

—

having regard to the OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Final Report on the 18 March 2018 Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0073/2019),

A.

whereas the EU is a community based on a key set of common values that include peace, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental and human rights;

B.

whereas it acknowledges that the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 OSCE Charter of Paris represent the cornerstones of a peaceful European continent;

C.

whereas those values form the basis of the EU’s relations with third parties;

D.

whereas the EU’s relations with Russia must be based on the principles of international law, respect for human rights, democracy and peaceful conflict resolution, and, as a result of Russia’s disregard of these principles, the EU’s relations with Russia are currently based on cooperation in selected areas of common interest as defined in the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 14 March 2016 and on credible deterrence;

E.

whereas the EU remains open to a stronger relationship and to dialogue leading thereto, and wishes to return to cooperative relations with Russia, once the Russian authorities have met their international and legal obligations and have proven Russia’s genuine commitment to restore broken trust; whereas a constructive and predictable relationship would be mutually beneficial and ideally in the interest of both parties;

F.

whereas the Russian Federation, as a full member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, has committed itself to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights; whereas continued serious violations of the rule of law and the adoption of restrictive laws over the last few years are increasingly calling Russia’s compliance with its international and national obligations into question; whereas Russia has failed to implement more than a thousand judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR);

G.

whereas a number of governmental reports show the sharp increase in hostile spying activity by Russia in recent years, reaching levels not seen since the Cold War;

H.

whereas the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements and broader respect for international law remain key preconditions for closer cooperation with Russia; whereas in reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea and the hybrid war against Ukraine by Russia, the EU has adopted a series of restrictive measures that should remain in place until the Minsk Agreements have been fulfilled;

I.

whereas new areas of tension between the EU and Russia have arisen since 2015, including: Russian intervention in Syria and interference in countries such as Libya and Central African Republic; large-scale military exercises (Zapad 2017); Russian interference aimed at influencing elections and referenda and stoking tensions in European societies; Kremlin support for anti-EU parties and far-right movements; restrictions on fundamental freedoms and extensive human rights violations in Russia, the spreading of anti-LGTBI sentiment; the crackdown against political opposition; the systemic targeting of human rights defenders, journalists and civil society in Russia, including the arbitrary detention of Oyub Titiev, head of the Human Rights Centre Memorial (HRC Memorial) office in Chechnya or the case of Yury Dmitriev from the Karelian branch of Memorial; the stigmatisation of civil society activists by labelling them as ‘Foreign Agents’; gross violations of human rights in the North Caucasus, in particular in the Chechen Republic (abductions, torture, extrajudicial executions, fabrication of criminal cases, etc.); discrimination against the Tatar minority in occupied Crimea, and the politically motivated persecution of Alexei Navalny and many others, as well as killings, the most notable cases being those of Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Magnitsky; cyber and hybrid attacks and assassinations on European soil carried out by Russian intelligence agents using chemical weapons; the intimidation, arrest and imprisonment of foreign citizens in Russia in breach of international law, including the 2018 Sakharov Prize laureate Oleg Sentsov and many others; the organisation of illegal and illegitimate elections in the Donbas; the holding of non-democratic presidential elections lacking any real choice and with restrictions on fundamental freedoms; disinformation campaigns, the illegal construction of the Kerch Bridge; large-scale militarisation of illegally occupied and annexed Crimea, as well as parts of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov; restrictions on international navigation in the Sea of Azov and through the Kerch Strait, including ships sailing under the flags of EU Member States; the illegal attack on and seizure of Ukrainian naval vessels and the arrest of Ukrainian servicemen in the Kerch Strait; violations of arms control agreements; the oppressive climate for journalists and the independent media with continued detentions of journalists and bloggers; and the World Press Freedom Index ranking of Russia at 148 out of 180 on media freedom in 2018;

J.

whereas by 1 March 2018, HRC Memorial had recorded 143 cases of political prisoners, including 97 who were being persecuted on religious grounds; whereas an analysis of HRC Memorial’s list of political prisoners shows that in 2017, there were 23 cases of people being prosecuted for crimes relating to public events (mass riots, violent actions against a public authority), and there were 21 cases, mostly linked to publishing posts on the Internet, of prosecutions being initiated under the ‘anti-extremist’ articles of the criminal code;

K.

whereas Russia is directly or indirectly party to a number of protracted conflicts in the common neighbourhood — in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donbas and Nagorno Karabakh — that constitute serious impediments to the development and stability of the neighbouring countries concerned, undermine their independence and limit their free sovereign choices;

L.

whereas the conflict in Eastern Ukraine has lasted more than four years and claimed over 10 000 lives, almost one third of them civilians, and thousands of conflict-related civilian injuries;

M.

whereas the current persistent tensions and confrontation between the EU and Russia are not in the interests of either party; whereas the communication channels should remain open in spite of the disappointing results; whereas the new division of the continent jeopardises the security of both the EU and Russia;

N.

whereas Russia is currently the EU’s most important external supplier of natural gas; whereas energy continues to play a central and strategic role in EU-Russia relations; whereas Russia uses energy as a means to protect and promote its foreign policy interests; whereas the EU’s dependency on Russian gas supplies has increased since 2015; whereas the EU’s resilience to external pressures can be built up through the diversification of energy supply and a decrease in its dependence on Russia; whereas the EU must speak with one voice and show strong internal solidarity when it comes to its energy security; whereas the EU’s strong dependence on fossil fuels undermines the development of a balanced, coherent and value-driven European approach vis-à-vis Russia; whereas there is a need for a more reliable and strategic energy infrastructure in the EU, Member States and Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries in order to enhance resilience to Russian hybrid activity;

O.

whereas the irresponsible actions of Russian jet fighters near the airspace of EU and NATO Member States are jeopardising the safety of civilian flights and could be a threat to European airspace security; whereas provocative large-scale military manoeuvres have been conducted by Russia in the immediate vicinity of the EU;

P.

whereas Russia continues to ignore judgments of the ECtHR, as well as binding awards by the Permanent Court of Arbitration such as in the case of Naftogaz, which undermines the international trade dispute settlement mechanisms;

Q.

whereas Russia’s polycentric vision of the concert of powers contradicts the EU’s belief in multilateralism and a rules-based international order; whereas Russia’s adherence to and support for the multilateral rules-based order would create the conditions for closer relations with the EU;

R.

whereas the Russian authorities continue to treat illegally occupied regions as if they were an internal part of Russian territory by allowing the participation of representatives of these territories in the legislative and executive bodies of the Russian Federation, which is in violation of international law;

S.

whereas on 21 December 2018, the Council, having assessed the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, prolonged the economic sanctions targeting specific sectors of the Russian economy until 31 July 2019;

T.

whereas Russia’s actions are in breach of international law and commitments and good neighbourly relations;

U.

whereas in the strategic documents of the Russian Federation, the EU and NATO are portrayed as Russia’s primary adversaries;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN human rights treaties and instruments,

—

having regard to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter,

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights,

—

having regard to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and all its principles, as a cornerstone document for the European and wider regional security order,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

—

having regard to the UN Security Council’s resolutions on conflict prevention and mediation, as well as those on women, peace and security, and on youth, peace and security,

—

having regard to the Council’s Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities, of 10 November 2009 (15779/09),

—

having regard to the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy presented by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Federica Mogherini on 28 June 2016, and to the first report on its implementation entitled ‘From Shared Vision to Common Action: Implementing the EU Global Strategy’, published on 18 June 2017,

—

having regard to its recommendation of 15 November 2017 to the Council, the Commission and the EEAS on the Eastern Partnership, in the run-up to the November 2017 Summit (1),

—

having regard to its recommendation of 5 July 2018 to the Council on the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/2306 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 230/2014 establishing an instrument contributing to stability and peace (3),

—

having regard to the Proposal of 13 June 2018 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with the support of the Commission, to the Council for a Council Decision establishing a European Peace Facility (HR(2018) 94),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0075/2019),

A.

whereas promoting international peace and security is part of the EU’s raison d’être, recognised by the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, and is central to the Lisbon Treaty;

B.

whereas the EU is committed to implementing the Women, Peace and Security Agenda in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and subsequent updates, and the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2250 and subsequent updates;

C.

whereas the EU is one of the biggest donors in support of conflict prevention and peace building through its external assistance instruments;

D.

whereas the EU, as a key contributor to international organisations, a core aid donor and the world's largest trading partner, should take a leading role in global peacebuilding, conflict prevention and the strengthening of international security; whereas conflict prevention and mediation should be articulated as part of a comprehensive approach combining security, diplomacy and development;

E.

whereas cooperation is necessary with regional organisations such as the OSCE, which, in its 1975 Helsinki Final Act, stipulates, among others, the principles of the non-use of force, territorial integrity of states, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and whereas these organisations play a key role in conflict prevention and mediation;

F.

whereas the prevention of violent conflict is fundamental in addressing the security challenges facing Europe and its neighbourhood and for political and social advancement; whereas it is also an essential element of effective multilateralism and it is instrumental to achieving the SDGs, specifically Goal 16 on peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels;

G.

whereas continued EU support to civil and military actors in third countries is an important factor in preventing recurrent violent conflict; whereas sustainable and lasting peace and security are inseparable from sustainable development;

H.

whereas conflict prevention and mediation should ensure the maintenance of stability and development in those states and geographical areas whose situation represents a direct security issue for the Union;

I.

whereas prevention is a strategic function which aims to ensure effective action ahead of crises; whereas mediation is another tool of diplomacy that can be used to prevent, contain or resolve a conflict;

J.

whereas internal and external security are increasingly inextricably linked and the complex nature of global challenges requires a comprehensive and integrated EU approach to external conflicts and crises;

K.

whereas a stronger interinstitutional approach is required in order to ensure that the EU is able to develop and to implement its capacities to their full potential;

L.

whereas the EU Global Strategy, political statements and institutional developments are welcome signs of the commitment of the VP/HR to prioritising conflict prevention and mediation;

M.

whereas the external financing instruments provide a significant contribution in support of conflict prevention and peacebuilding;

N.

whereas transitional justice is an important set of judicial and non-judicial mechanisms focusing on accountability for past abuses as well as the establishment of a sustainable, just and peaceful future;

O.

whereas Parliament has taken a prominent role in parliamentary diplomacy, including mediation and dialogue processes, drawing on its ingrained culture of dialogue and consensus building;

P.

whereas violent conflict and war have a disproportionate impact on civilians, particularly women and children, and put women at greater risk than men of economic and sexual exploitation, forced labour, displacement, detention and sexual violence such as rape, which is used as a tactic of war; whereas the active participation of women and young people is important for conflict prevention and peacebuilding as well as in the prevention of all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence;

Q.

whereas it is essential to include and support the active and meaningful participation of civil society and local actors, both civilian and military, including women, minorities, indigenous peoples and young people, when promoting and facilitating capacity and confidence building in mediation, dialogue and reconciliation;

R.

whereas conflict prevention, peacebuilding and peace keeping efforts are frequently underfunded, despite policy commitments at EU level, which has knock-on effects on the capacity to promote and facilitate action in these areas;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

—

having regard to Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency (3) and its requirements regarding the achievement of a healthy indoor environment,

—

having regard to its recommendation of 4 April 2017 to the Council and the Commission following the inquiry into emission measurements in the automotive sector (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2017 on EU action for sustainability (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2017 on a European Strategy for Low Emission Mobility (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 December 2015 on sustainable urban mobility (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2018 on the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme (8),

—

having regard to the 2017 report of the European Environment Agency entitled ‘Air quality in Europe’,

—

having regard to the special report of the European Court of Auditors entitled ‘Air Pollution: Our Health still insufficiently protected’ (9), published on 11 September 2018,

—

having regard to the 2018 update to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Ambient Air Quality Database,

—

having regard to the WHO guidelines for indoor air quality,

—

having regard to its study of September 2018 entitled ‘Air Quality and urban traffic in the EU: best practices, and possible solutions’ (10),

—

having regard to the judgement of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2018 in Cases T-339/16 (Ville de Paris v Commission), T-352/16 (Ville de Bruxelles v Commission) and T-391/16 (Ville de Madrid v Commission);

—

having regard to the briefing paper of the European Court of Auditors of 7 February 2019 on the EU’s response to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal (11);

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to the question to the Commission on a Europe that protects: Clean air for all (O-000138/2018 — B8-0009/2019),

—

having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the EU’s legal emissions limits are still above what has been recommended by the WHO, and whereas the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates that more than 400 000 premature deaths attributable to air pollution are reported in the EU every year; whereas 98 % of the EU’s urban population is exposed to ozone levels that exceed WHO guidelines;

B.

whereas air quality in Europe has seen a slow but steady improvement over the past decades and European legislation has been the main driver for this beneficial development;

C.

whereas the most recent EEA estimates of the health impacts attributable to exposure to air pollution indicate that particulate matter 2,5 (PM2,5) concentrations in 2014 were responsible for about 399 000 premature deaths originating from long-term exposure in the EU-28; whereas the estimated impacts in the EU of exposure to NO2 and O3 concentrations in 2014 were around 75 000 and 13 600 premature deaths per year respectively;

D.

whereas poor air quality has an enormous impact on health, and whereas pregnant women, children and the elderly are particularly exposed;

E.

whereas around 90 % of Europeans living in cities are exposed to levels of air pollution deemed damaging to human health;

F.

whereas road traffic is responsible for around 40 % of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the EU and whereas around 80 % of the total NOx from road traffic is generated by diesel-powered vehicles; whereas emissions produced by diesel-powered passenger cars that exceeded the EU pollution limits on the road were responsible for the premature deaths of 6 800 Europeans in 2015;

G.

whereas the economic consequences of the health impacts of poor air quality are estimated to be a loss of 3-9 % of EU GDP;

H.

whereas the failure to implement air quality legislation in urban areas and to tackle indoor air pollution is particularly worrying and hinders the achievement of Priority Objective 3 under the 7th Environmental Action Plan, according to which the Union’s citizens should be safeguarded from environment-related pressures and risks to health and well-being;

I.

whereas current food and farming systems are responsible for excessive ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions; whereas 94 % of ammonia emissions and 40 % of methane emissions come from agricultural activities; whereas on a global scale, intensive livestock farming produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport;

J.

whereas poor air quality poses a growing challenge in the context of sustainable development, and whereas tackling air pollution is of critical importance in ensuring the implementation of the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Europe and beyond;

K.

whereas the WHO adopted, in 2000, a set of principles establishing the right to healthy indoor air, wherein it noted that ‘under the principles of the human right to health, everyone has the right to breathe healthy indoor air’;

L.

whereas the Union should strive to promote action at global level to curb air pollution;

M.

whereas black carbon (BC), a product of incomplete combustion of organic carbon as emitted from traffic, fossil fuels and biomass burning and industry, is one of the constituents of fine PM and has a global warming effect;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

—

having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (1),

—

having regard to the draft Commission regulation amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for clothianidin, cycloxydim, epoxiconazole, flonicamid, haloxyfop, mandestrobin, mepiquat, Metschnikowia fructicola strain NRRL Y-27328 and prohexadione in or on certain products (D059754/02,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, and in particular Article 5(1) and Article 14(1)(a) thereof (2),

—

having regard to the reasoned opinion of 25 November 2014 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, published on 4 December 2014 (3),

—

having regard to the EFSA reasoned opinion of 30 August 2018 on modification of the existing maximum residue level for clothianidin in potatoes, published on 20 September 2018 (4),

—

having regard to the opinion delivered on 27 November 2018 by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

—

having regard to Article 5a(3)(b) and Article 5a(5) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (5),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3), and (4)(c) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide and a major metabolite of another neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, that targets a range of insects, including pollinators;

B.

whereas on 21 September 2017, EFSA adopted an opinion on the toxicity of neonicotinoids;

C.

whereas on 28 February 2018, EFSA published updated risk assessments for three neonicotinoids — clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam — confirming that most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a risk to wild bees and honey bees (6);

D.

whereas clothianidin is one of the three neonicotinoids that are banned in the Union;

E.

whereas several studies suggest that clothianidin has an impact on hepatic and renal metabolism, and has immunotoxic effects on mammals (7);

F.

whereas Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets out the precautionary principle as one of the fundamental principles of the Union;

G.

whereas Article 168(1) TFEU states that ‘a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’;

H.

whereas Directive 2009/128/EC aims to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides in the Union by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human and animal health and the environment and by promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides;

I.

whereas the draft Commission regulation, on the basis of applications for import tolerances submitted for clothianidin used on potatoes in the United States, considers that higher MRLs are necessary to avoid trade barriers to the importation of such crops;

J.

whereas the Commission’s proposal to increase the MRLs for clothianidin raised doubts, on the basis of the precautionary principle, given the data gaps and persistent uncertainty as to the effects of clothianidin on public health, young mammals and the environment;

K.

whereas EFSA states, in relation to the request to raise the MRLs, that Member States have to amend or withdraw existing authorisations for plant protection products containing clothianidin as an active substance under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/784 (8) by 19 September 2018 at the latest; whereas such restrictions to the clothianidin conditions of approval are not relevant as the MRL application concerns an imported crop;

L.

whereas in its opinion of 30 August 2018, EFSA notes that: ‘In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Bayer CropScience AG submitted an application to the competent national authority in Germany (evaluating Member State (EMS)) to set an import tolerance for the active substance clothianidin in potatoes imported from Canada. The EMS drafted an evaluation report in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 26 April 2018. The EMS proposed to set an import tolerance for potatoes imported from Canada at the level of 0,3 mg/kg’;

M.

whereas the conclusions drawn by EFSA in its opinion of 30 August 2018 justify the clothianidin MRL increase only on the basis of the need to comply with Canadian normative values, and totally omit to analyse the cumulative environmental impact of neonicotinoids and their use;

N.

whereas EFSA’s conclusions were formulated on the basis of theoretical considerations, particularly as regards the estimate of the maximum daily intake in relation to short-term risk; whereas the theoretical nature of some aspects of EFSA’s analysis raises doubts as to its ability to rely on empirical facts and, as a consequence, to represent reality in its results;

O.

whereas EFSA concluded that an increase in the MRLs of clothianidin was ‘unlikely’ to pose a risk to consumer health; whereas, however, this verdict involves a degree of probability and therefore leaves some doubt as to the effective safety of the new MRL values;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 4114 (DP-ØØ4114-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D060242/03,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 14 January 2019, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 19 April 2018, published on 24 May 2018 and amended on 5 July 2018 (3),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (4),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas, on 27 November 2014, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, on behalf of Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., established in the United States of America, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’), for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 4114, and the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of GM maize 4114 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 19 April 2018, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to the application;

C.

whereas GM maize 4114 was developed to express three insecticidal proteins (Cry1F, Cry34Ab1and Cry35Ab1) for protection against specific lepidopteran and coleopteran pests, and the PAT protein conferring tolerance to the herbicidal active ingredient glufosinate-ammonium;

D.

whereas application of the complementary herbicides, in this case glufosinate, is part of regular agricultural practice in the cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants, and it can therefore be expected that they will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses, which will not only lead to a higher burden of residues in the harvest, and therefore in the imported product, but may also influence the composition of the GM plant and its agronomic characteristics;

E.

whereas the use of glufosinate has not been permitted in the Union since 1 August 2018, as it has been classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the cut-off criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5);

F.

whereas information on residue levels of herbicides and their metabolites is essential for a thorough risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant GM plants; whereas residues from spraying with herbicides are considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (EFSA GMO Panel); whereas the impact of spraying GM maize with herbicides has not been assessed;

G.

whereas, as part of the coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2019, 2020 and 2021, Member States are not obliged to measure glufosinate residues on any maize imports in order to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels (MRLs) (6); whereas it cannot be guaranteed that glufosinate residues on GM maize 4114 will comply with Union MRLs;

H.

whereas GM maize 4114 expresses three Bt toxins (the Cry1F, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins) which confer protection against certain lepidopteran pests and coleopteran pests;

I.

whereas although Cry1 proteins have been recognised as having adjuvant properties, meaning that they may reinforce the allergenic properties of other foodstuffs, this was not analysed by EFSA; whereas that is problematic because Bt toxins may be mixed with allergens in food and feed such as soybeans;

J.

whereas a 2017 scientific study on the possible health impacts of Bt toxins and residues from spraying with complementary herbicides concludes that specific attention should be paid to the herbicide residues and their interaction with Bt toxins (7); whereas this was not investigated by EFSA;

K.

whereas the vote on 14 January 2019 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

L.

whereas, both in the explanatory memorandum of its legislative proposal presented on 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory and in the explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal presented on 14 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the opinion of the Member States’ committee and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has, on several occasions, been deplored by President Juncker as not being democratic (8);

M.

whereas, on 28 October 2015, Parliament rejected at first reading (9) the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

—

Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).

—

Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 108).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 111).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 76).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 80).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 70).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 73).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 83).

—

Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 34).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 67).

—

Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 54).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 55).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 60).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 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 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 122).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 127).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 133).

—

Resolution of 1 March 2018 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 59122 (DAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0051).

—

Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (MON-87427-7 × MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and genetically modified maize combining two of the events MON 87427, MON 89034 and NK603, and repealing Decision 2010/420/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0052).

—

Resolution of 3 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of food and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet H7-1 (KM-ØØØH71-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0197).

—

Resolution of 30 May 2018 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 GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0221).

—

Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON 810 × NK603, and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, 59122, MON 810 and NK603, and repealing Decisions 2009/815/EC, 2010/428/EU and 2010/432/EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0222).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2018 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 NK603 × MON 810 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0416).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0417).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision amending Implementing Decision 2013/327/EU as regards the renewal of the authorisation to place on the market feed containing or consisting of genetically modified oilseed rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0057).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 5307 (SYN-Ø53Ø7-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0058).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87403 (MON-874Ø3-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0059).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0060).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87411 (MON-87411-9), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D060243/03,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 14 January 2019, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 31 May 2018, and published on 28 June 2018 (3),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (4),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas, on 5 February 2015, Monsanto Europe N.V. submitted, on behalf of the Monsanto Company, United States, an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from maize MON 87411 (‘the application’) to the national competent authority of the Netherlands, and the application also covered the placing on the market of products consisting of genetically modified (GM) maize MON 87411 for uses other than food and feed as with any other maize, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 31 May 2018, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to this application;

C.

whereas GM maize MON 87411 was developed to confer resistance to corn rootworms by the expression of a modified version of the Bt Cry3Bb1 gene and a DvSnf7 dsRNA expression cassette, and tolerance to glyphosate-containing herbicides;

D.

whereas, owing to the resistance of corn rootworms to Bt proteins including Cry3Bb1 in some growing regions of the United States, GM maize MON 87411 has been engineered to also produce an insecticidal double-stranded RNA, dsRNA;

E.

whereas the intended effect of the dsRNA is that it is taken up in the gut of the target organism, in this case larvae of the corn rootworm, interfering with gene regulation of essential biological processes, thereby killing the rootworm;

F.

whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 (5) stipulates that when silencing approaches with RNAi are used in genetically engineered plants, a bioinformatics analysis is required in order to identify potential ‘off target’ genes; whereas, in this context, a thorough analysis requires the structure of the dsRNA to be compared with genomic regions in organisms that might come into contact with the molecules, including non-target organisms;

G.

whereas, however, EFSA restricted its considerations and risk assessment to potential off-target effects in plants, without looking at effects in humans and livestock and their gut microbiomes that are exposed to maize via the food and feed chain; whereas an assessment of the EFSA opinion by an independent institute describes this as a perfect example of a ‘don’t look, don’t find’ strategy, incompatible with existing regulation (6);

H.

whereas the assessment concludes that for, inter alia, the reason mentioned above, EFSA’s risk assessment of molecular characteristics is not conclusive and is not sufficient to show food and feed safety;

I.

whereas the 90-day toxicity study submitted by the applicant showed statistically significant weight depression of rats fed with GM maize MON 87411; whereas while this finding was dismissed by EFSA because it was not accompanied by test diet-related clinical signs and histopathological changes in the digestive tract, it is plausible that the dsRNA produced in GM maize MON 87411 can interact with the gut microbiome directly without direct uptake from the gut, and that this could explain the findings from animal feeding studies showing weight differences without pathological effects; whereas this should have been further investigated by EFSA;

J.

whereas application of the complementary herbicides, in this case glyphosate, is part of regular agricultural practice in the cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants, and it can therefore be expected that they will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses, which will not only lead to a higher burden of residues in the harvest, and therefore in the imported product, but may also influence the composition of the GM plant and its agronomic characteristics;

K.

whereas questions remain concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015 the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans;

L.

whereas, in general, according to the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues, conclusions on the safety of residues from spraying GM crops with glyphosate formations cannot be drawn (7); whereas additives and their mixtures used in commercial formulations for spraying glyphosate can show a higher toxicity than the active ingredient alone (8);

M.

whereas the Union has already removed a glyphosate additive known as POE-tallowamine from the market owing to concerns over its toxicity; whereas problematic additives and mixtures may, however, still be permitted in the countries where this GM maize is cultivated (currently Argentina, Brazil, Canada and the United States);

N.

whereas information on residue levels of herbicides and their metabolites is essential for a thorough risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant GM plants; whereas residues from spraying with herbicides are considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms; whereas the impact of spraying GM maize MON 87411 with herbicides has not been assessed;

O.

whereas, as part of the coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2019, 2020 and 2021, Member States are not obliged to measure glyphosate residues on any maize imports in order to check compliance with maximum residue levels (MRLs) (9); whereas it cannot be guaranteed that glyphosate residues on GM maize MON 87411 will comply with Union MRLs;

P.

whereas the vote on 14 January 2019 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

Q.

whereas, both in the explanatory memorandum of its legislative proposal presented on 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory and in the explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal presented on 14 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the opinion of the Member States’ committee and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has, on several occasions, been deplored by President Juncker as not being democratic (10);

R.

whereas, on 28 October 2015, Parliament rejected at first reading (11) the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

—

Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).

—

Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 108).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 111).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 76).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 80).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 70).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 73).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 83).

—

Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 34).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 67).

—

Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 54).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 55).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 60).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 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 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 122).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 127).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 133).

—

Resolution of 1 March 2018 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 59122 (DAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0051).

—

Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (MON-87427-7 × MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and genetically modified maize combining two of the events MON 87427, MON 89034 and NK603, and repealing Decision 2010/420/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0052).

—

Resolution of 3 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of food and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet H7-1 (KM-ØØØH71-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0197).

—

Resolution of 30 May 2018 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 GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0221).

—

Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON 810 × NK603, and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, 59122, MON 810 and NK603, and repealing Decisions 2009/815/EC, 2010/428/EU and 2010/432/EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0222).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2018 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 NK603 × MON 810 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0416).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0417).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision amending Implementing Decision 2013/327/EU as regards the renewal of the authorisation to place on the market feed containing or consisting of genetically modified oilseed rapes Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8 × Rf3 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0057).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 5307 (SYN-Ø53Ø7-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0058).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87403 (MON-874Ø3-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0059).

—

Resolution of 31 January 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × LLCotton25 × MON 15985 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0060).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and sub-combinations Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507, MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 and MIR162 × 1507 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D060244/03,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 14 January 2019, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 31 May 2018, and published on 11 July 2018 (3),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (4),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas, on 10 August 2010, Syngenta Crop Protection AG submitted, through its affiliated company Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (GM) maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 (‘the application’) to the national competent authority of Germany, and the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas the scope of the application, which included all sub-combinations of GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 at the time of submission, was subsequently limited to include the three sub-combinations Bt11 x MIR162 x 1507, MIR162 x 1507 x GA21 and MIR162 x 1507, independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing;

C.

whereas the four-event stack maize Bt11 x MIR162 x 1507 x GA21 was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single maize events leading to expression of, inter alia, two different Cry proteins (also known as Bt proteins) for protection against certain lepidopteran pests, and expressions of proteins for tolerance against glyphosate and glufosinate;

D.

whereas EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to this application; whereas, however, a minority opinion was expressed by a member of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (EFSA GMO Panel);

E.

whereas the applicant did not provide data for any of the three sub-combinations, nor did they justify why they do not consider it to be necessary for the risk assessment; whereas EFSA did not request data on the three sub-combinations; whereas it is not known whether those sub-combinations have even been produced yet;

F.

whereas the minority opinion adopted by a member of the EFSA GMO Panel states that it is unacceptable that ‘assessments’ of GM crops (i.e. the three sub-combinations) for which no data has been provided are given the same weight and reliability as assessments of GM crops for which data has been provided and assessed;

G.

whereas, as stated in the minority opinion, studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following certain conditions of exposure to Bt proteins and that some Bt proteins may have adjuvant properties, meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins that they come into contact with;

H.

whereas the minority opinion finds that while unintended effects have never been identified in any application where Bt proteins are expressed, they could ‘not be observed by the toxicological studies […] currently recommended and performed for the safety assessment of GM plants at EFSA because they do not include the appropriate tests for this purpose’ (5);

I.

whereas the minority opinion also states that, owing to a lack of data on the three sub-combinations, ‘the risk of increased expression of the newly expressed Bt proteins and of a possible cumulative effect of their combination on the immune system (e.g. resulting in an adjuvant activity) cannot be ruled out’, and that it is not possible to clarify the role of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in increasing allergenic risk, nor therefore to fully protect consumers who may be at risk;

J.

whereas application of the complementary herbicides, in this case glufosinate and glyphosate, is part of regular agricultural practice in the cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants, and it can therefore be expected that they will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses, which will not only lead to a higher burden of residues in the harvest, and therefore in the imported product, but may also influence the composition of the GM plant and its agronomic characteristics;

K.

whereas the use of glufosinate is not permitted in the Union, as it has been classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the cut-off criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6);

L.

whereas questions remain concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015 the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans;

M.

whereas, in general, according to the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues, conclusions on the safety of residues from spraying GM crops with glyphosate formations cannot be drawn (7); whereas additives and their mixtures used in commercial formulations for spraying glyphosate can show a higher toxicity than the active ingredient alone (8);

N.

whereas the Union has already removed a glyphosate additive known as POE-tallowamine from the market owing to concerns over its toxicity; whereas problematic additives and mixtures may, however, still be permitted in the countries where this GM maize is cultivated (currently Argentina, Canada and Japan);

O.

whereas information on residue levels of herbicides and their metabolites is essential for a thorough risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant GM plants; whereas residues from spraying with herbicides are considered outside the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel; whereas the residues from spraying GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 or the three sub-combinations with herbicides have not been assessed;

P.

whereas, furthermore, metabolites of complementary herbicides occurring on stacked plants may differ from those on the parental plant, which EFSA did not consider in its assessment;

Q.

whereas, according to an independent study (9), EFSA should have requested that the applicant submit data from field trials with the highest dosage of herbicides that can be tolerated by the plants; whereas material from those plants should have been assessed with regard to organ toxicity, immune system reactions and reproductive toxicity, also taking into account combinatorial effects with other plant compounds and Bt toxins;

R.

whereas, as part of the coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2019, 2020 and 2021, Member States are not obliged to measure glufosinate or glyphosate residues on any maize imports in order to check compliance with maximum residue levels (MRLs) (10); whereas it cannot be guaranteed that glyphosate and glufosinate residues on GM maize Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 or the three sub-combinations will comply with Union MRLs;

S.

whereas the vote on 14 January 2019 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

T.

whereas, both in the explanatory memorandum of its legislative proposal presented on 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory and in the explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal presented on 14 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the opinion of the Member States’ committee and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has, on several occasions, been deplored by President Juncker as not being democratic (11);

U.

whereas, on 28 October 2015, Parliament rejected at first reading (12) the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

—

Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 108).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 111).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 76).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 80).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 70).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 73).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 83).

—

Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 34).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 71).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 67).

—

Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 54).