With its proposals on labelling and traceability of foodstuffs containing GMOs, Commission hopes to obtain lifting of moratorium on GMOs in the Union before 2003

Brussels, 26/07/2001 (Agence Europe) - With its two new proposals of regulation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) present in human foodstuffs and animal feed, adopted on Wednesday, the European Commission hopes to establish Community rules for the traceability and labelling of such products. It hopes these will be sufficiently reliable and effective to satisfactorily complete legislation on this.

The aim is to calm fears expressed by the public on the potential risks of GMOs for human health and the environment, to be able to relaunch, by 2003 at the latest, procedures for marketing authorisation of these products which have been the subject of a de facto moratorium in the European Union for nearly three years. The task entrusted to the Commission was difficult as it was necessary, to accomplish it, to meet the high requirements of European consumers concerning the harmlessness of products, and to avoid all risk of trade dispute with the Americans, the latter being ready to denounce, at the WTO, any draconian legislation that could be considered as disguised trade barriers. The Commission attempted to raise this challenge by proposing two regulations - the first relating to the traceability and labelling of GMOs and products containing GMOs; the second concerning genetically modified foodstuffs and genetically modified animal feed - guarantees of GMO traceability from the farm to the supermarket and adequate consumer information allowing consumers to make a well-informed choice. The main innovations to be introduced by the new system subject to the approval of Council and Parliament in the context of codecision procedure are:

• Obligation for farmers to provide, in a documentation, information indicating that GMOs are present in their products, at every stage of the food chain, in order to make it possible to trace them throughout the production and distribution chain. Such information should be stored five years, which should reduce the need for sampling and testing. In order to facilitate the coordination of inspection and control methods applied by the Member States, the Commission will develop technical guidelines on the methods of sampling and testing before the new regulation is applicable.
• Establishment of a single procedure for authorising marketing for GMOs that are to be disseminated into the environment, for foodstuffs intended for human consumption and for products intended for animal feed. This procedure will consist in scientific assessment of the risk for human and animal health, and for the environment, through scientific committess and the future European Food Authority (which should be operational from early 2002). It will be achieved after notification of the request for authorisation from an operator. The authorisation, valid throughout the Union, will be granted for an initial ten-year period, and the authorised products will be listed in a central register. Taking inspiration from the experience acquired by the United States, the Commission proposes that GMOs likely to be used for both human food and for animal feed should be authorised for both purposes or not at all.
• Compulsory labelling (noting the presence of GMOs) of all foodstuffs with GMO basis, if the finished product contains modified DNA or GMO derived proteins (including for soya oil or highly refined maize not covered by this provision in the current legislation).
• Compulsory labelling for all genetically modified animal feed (for example, transgenic soya flour or any compound feed containing genetically modified soya flour, food based on corn gluten produced from genetically modified maize).
• Exemption of compulsory labelling for foodstuffs or animal feed containing traces of GMO, resulting from accidental contamination if the content of GMO is lower than 1% of the finished product), and only if the GMOs in question are authorised in the Union or have received a favourable opinion from the Union's scientific committee after scientific risk assessment for the environment and for health. The Commission considers that these infinite traces of GMO resulting from contamination during growing, harvesting, transport or treatment are inevitable and that it is practically impossible to obtain 100% pure products.
• Review of provisions relating to labelling after two years of implementation.

This provision sets out the prescriptions of the current legislation aimed at protecting the environment in case of problem (Directive 90/220/EEC concerning the voluntary dissemination of GMOs in the environment, repealed by Directive 2001/18/EC applicable from October 2002), introducing, for the first time, specific rules for genetically modified foodstuffs for animals and rationalising the existing provisions applicable to genetically modified foodstuffs (Regulation 258/97Ec relating to new foodstuffs and new food ingredients, the so-called "New Food" Regulation, Regulation 1139/98/EC concerning the compulsory mention on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from GMOs, Regulation 49/2000/EC and 50/2000/EC concerning the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and aromas).

When presenting these proposals to the press, Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner for the Environment placed emphasis on the potentials offered by biotechnologies and of which the EU was depriving itself with its moratorium in force since October 1998. That's to say just how high the economic stakes are. "GMOs are a reality on the markets. We cannot ignore them. World production for commercial purposes represents 40 billion hectares. The United States produces 70% of this, Argentina 14%, Canada 9%, and the Union 0.03%", she declared. Adding that the EU imported 30 million tonnes of soya a year intended for the cattle fodder market, she recalled that, to date, only 11 varieties of transgenic soya had been authorised in the EU, against 40 in the United States and Canada, attributing this situation to a "concerned and very confused public opinion". "We must respond to these concerns with strict rules for the authorisation of placing a product on the market and facilitate freedom of choice and well-informed customers. We want a complete and adequate labelling. There needs to be a control on the effects of these products on health and the environment. We are asking operators for the information required for each stage of the processing chain. Member States will hand us this information. We shall have a single system for the European Union. Citizens, Member States and industry will have the possibility of making their own choice", she assured. According to her, the Commission's proposals aim at a higher level of safety for health and the environment, and will enable the biotech industry to know the rules of play and to compete with the rest of the world.

David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumers, considered that the Commission had opted for a "pragmatic approach, based on science and consumer interests, as it guarantees a sound assessment of products before they are placed on the market and adequate information". In answer to questions on the prospect of lifting the moratorium, Margot Wallström said she hoped to begin discussing with Member States this autumn thanks to the effort made to "restore confidence". The Commission, she added, will be holding a discussion as of September on the future of biotechnology in the Union with a view to presenting a document entitled "biovision", on the aspects relating to the competitiveness of the European industry, in this complex issue. Recalling that five Member States (Ed.: France, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Denmark) have announced their refusal to lift the moratorium until new provisions on traceability and labelling are in force, David Byrne felt that, with the new proposals on the table, "it will be easier to reflect upon the matter".

Other proposals on GMOs are still awaited, including a proposal of regulation relating to the labelling of food products without GMOs which had been announced in July 2000. Nonetheless, it is doubtful that such a proposal will see the light of day since the Commission considers that, in a world environment where GMOs are henceforth present, foodstuffs totally free of GMOs are all in the mind.

Greenpeace is not mistaken. In a press release, the NGO welcomes the prospect of a more complete labelling system that will include GMO derived products such as oil and starch, as well as animal feed. It vigorously denounces, however, the "political and commercial assumptions, rather than scientific criteria" which, it believes, leads the Union's Scientific Committee on Plants to conclude, regarding the accidental contamination of conventional seeds by genetically engineered seeds not allowed in the Union, that "zero tolerance does not exist" (opinion of 7 March 2001). "The Commission's proposal is the wrong reaction to increased pressure and threats from the US administration and GMO producing companies (…). If the EU sets clear and uncompromising safety standards the market will adapt to them", says Greenpeace, inviting Member States to "make sure they keep full control of the proposed new European Food Agency".