Dyfarniad ECJ: Ni chaiff Aelod-wladwriaethau’r UE fabwysiadu mesurau brys ynghylch bwyd a bwyd anifeiliaid a addaswyd yn enetig oni bai ei bod yn amlwg bod risg ddifrifol i iechyd neu’r amgylchedd

Datganiad i'r wasg gan Lys Cyfiawnder yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, 13 Medi 2017

Mewn 1998, awdurdododd y Comisiwn Ewropeaidd osod ar y farchnad india corn a addaswyd yn enetig Dydd Llun 810. Yn ei benderfyniad, cyfeiriodd y Comisiwn at farn y Pwyllgor Gwyddonol a ddywedodd nad oedd unrhyw reswm i gredu y byddai’r cynnyrch hwnnw’n cael unrhyw effeithiau andwyol ar iechyd pobl na’r amgylchedd..

Mewn 2013, gofynnodd Llywodraeth yr Eidal i'r Comisiwn fabwysiadu mesurau brys i wahardd tyfu indrawn MON 810 yng ngoleuni rhai astudiaethau gwyddonol newydd a gynhaliwyd gan ddau sefydliad ymchwil Eidalaidd. Ar sail barn wyddonol a gyhoeddwyd gan Awdurdod Diogelwch Bwyd Ewrop (EFSA), the Commission concluded that there was no new science-based evidence to support the requested emergency measures and to invalidate its previous conclusions about the safety of maize MON 810. Er gwaethaf hyn,, yn 2013 the Italian Government adopted a ministerial decree prohibiting the cultivation of MON 810 in Italian territory.

Mewn 2014, Mr Giorgio Fidenato and others cultivated maize MON 810 in breach of the ministerial decree, for which they were prosecuted.

In the context of criminal proceedings brought against those persons, the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine, Yr Eidal) asked the Court of Justice, in particular, whether emergency measures may, in relation to food, be taken on the basis of the precautionary principle. In accordance with the precautionary principle, Member States may adopt emergency measures in order to avert risks to human health that have not yet been fully identified or understood because of scientific uncertainty.

By its judgment delivered today, the Court points out, first of all, that both EU food law and EU legislation on genetically modified food and feed seek to ensure a high level of protection of human health and consumers’ interest, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market, of which the free movement of safe and wholesome food and feed is an essential aspect.

In that context, the Court finds that, where it is not evident that genetically modified products are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, neither the Commission nor the Member States have the option of adopting emergency measures such as the prohibition on the cultivation of maize MON 810.

The Court emphasises that the precautionary principle, which presupposes scientific uncertainty as regards the existence of a particular risk, is not sufficient for the adoption of such measures. Although that principle may justify the adoption of provisional risk management measures in the area of food in general, it does not allow for the provisions laid down in relation to genetically modified foods to be disregarded or modified, in particular by relaxing them, since those foods have already gone through a full scientific assessment before being placed on the market.

Ar ben hynny, the Court finds that a Member State may, lle mae wedi hysbysu'r Comisiwn yn swyddogol o'r angen i droi at fesurau brys a lle nad yw'r Comisiwn wedi gweithredu, mabwysiadu mesurau o’r fath ar lefel genedlaethol. Ymhellach, caiff gynnal neu adnewyddu'r mesurau hynny, cyn belled nad yw'r Comisiwn wedi mabwysiadu penderfyniad sy'n gofyn am eu hymestyn, diwygio neu ddiddymu. O dan yr amgylchiadau hynny, mae gan y llysoedd cenedlaethol awdurdodaeth i asesu cyfreithlondeb y mesurau dan sylw.

Mae'r testun llawn cyhoeddir dyfarniad ar wefan CURIA ar y diwrnod cyflwyno.