The complainants, two civil society organisations, were concerned that the Commission: did not strictly follow its own rules regarding impact assessments; did not obtain sufficient evidence regarding the risks and applications of new genomic techniques; and did not ensure that the impact assessment process was sufficiently transparent and inclusive.

During the inquiry, the Commission explained in a clear and reasonable way how it followed the rules applicable to impact assessments, how it ensured that its proposal was based on evidence, in particular scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority, and how it sought to make the impact assessment process transparent and inclusive.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration. However, she suggested that, in the future, when responding to (scientific) concerns raised about policy choices, the Commission should seek to address those concerns substantively, rather than restating its position. The Commission should explain publicly how any such concerns have been taken into account.