A European Commission (EC) proposal to allow member states to restrict or prohibit the import of genetically modified crops for food or feed, even if they have been approved by the EU legislative authority, is facing widespread opposition in the European Parliament (EP). Critics fear that the draft bill’s passage would open the door to more – rather than fewer – genetically manipulated crops.

Among other things, MEPs said they were concerned that the draft did not include an impact assessment regulation, but also that measures taken at a national level might not be compatible with single market or World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Many members said they thought the compromise was too vaguely formulated and might prove unworkable.

Under the EU’s proposal, member states deciding to opt out of allowing GMO crops would have to provide reasons not already assessed by Brussels authorities. These currently include effects on human health and animal health and potential damage to the environment. Justification for an opt-out could include local planning restrictions or lack of public consensus about the desirability of the product.

The EC’S initial objective was to prevent deadlocks in GM crop approvals, which has been a major hindrance to their sale up to now. All of the crops approved EU-wide, or up for approval are imports. Almost all are from the GM giant Monsanto of the US, which is currently trying to take over European rival Syngenta.

“This proposal is in conflict with the principles of better regulation and transparency which the Commission has taken on,” said environment committee chair Giovanni La Via. In particular, he said, it could fragment the internal market and lead to border inspections.

Other MEPs called the proposal “dishonest” or “half-baked.” All the critics agreed that if the EU’s plan was rejected another needed to be drafted to take its place. Some suggested the Commission should do this, others thought the Parliament should.

The EC’s parliamentary representative, Ladislav Miko, threw cold water on the idea of starting over, however. “We do not have a plan B,” he said. If the proposal is rejected, we will say in the current situation.”

The environment committee is due to vote on the proposal on Oct. 12-13, with the plenary session scheduled to vote on Oct. 26-29.