Brussels, 17/04/2014 (Agence Europe) - There will be no GMO pollen label for honey. Unsurprisingly, the European Parliament voted in this sense and formally confirmed, during the evening of Wednesday 16 April, the agreement concluded with the Council to amend EU legislation on honey (Directive 2001/110/EC) defining pollen as a natural part of honey, in compliance with World Trade Organisation standards and subsequently circumventing compulsory labelling. Julie Girling (ECR, United Kingdom), whose report was approved by 283 votes (248 against, with 45 abstentions) was delighted. She said that common sense had prevailed and pollen is not an ingredient in honey. The agreement backs up the response provided by the Commission to a decision made against by the European Court of Justice, which affirmed that pollen was an ingredient and that honey that was contaminated by genetically modified pollen should be labelled as such (C-442/09). The Parliament's vote means that the appeals made by the Greens/EFA, environmental NGOs (see EUROPE 11059) and consumer organisations fell on deaf ears.
Marco Contiero from Greenpeace stated that “bees are the first victims of the toxic agricultural system in Europe. Instead of recognising that these should be protected from industrial agriculture and that genetically modified farming and conventional farming cannot coexist, the EU's response is to brush the problem under the carpet. Result: consumers will not know what they are eating and the decline of bee populations will continue to threaten food production”. Ilaria Passarani, the head of the Food and Safety Department at the European Consumer Bureau (BEUC) voiced the same disappointment. In her view, “the European Parliament has promoted the interests of honey importers over that of the right of consumers to know what they are eating. We do not see any real reason why honey should be exempt from labelling rules applicable to GMOs, rules that have been obtained from a hard-fought struggle and which are so precious.”
The European Court of Justice's decision goes back to a German beekeeper that had detected genetically modified MON 810 maize pollen in his honey and contested the legal status of the honey. In 2011, the Court decided to target marketing of honey that had been contaminated by the genetically modified MON 810 pollen and had no preliminary authorisation. The Court described the pollen ingredient in honey and argued that pollen was mainly found in honey due to the beekeeper's action. According to this decision, honey containing MON810 maize pollen should be subject to compulsory labelling beyond the presence of 0.9% of pollen from GMOs authorised in human food, in compliance with legislation applicable to GMOs. (AN)