Luxembourg, 29/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - The determination of the European Commission to obtain indications from Member States on their availability to soon lift the de facto moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has somewhat changed the turn of the public debate held by the EU 15 Environment Ministers on Monday under the chairmanship of Belgian Minister Magda Alvoet. Invited by the Presidency to give their views on the relevance of certain technical aspects of the new regulation proposed by the Commission on the labelling and traceability of GMOs (see EUROPE of 27 October, p.10), the ministers heard Commissioner Margot Wallström make a fervent plea for the moratorium to be lifted. They were urged to give their views on this subject. All agreed to give an answer off the cuff to this subsidiary question which the Commission - given the lack of legal basis of such a moratorium and the economic stakes of bioletchnology - seemed to consider the major question of the day, but no-one dallied over it. Most delegations hostile to rapid relaunching of GMO marketing authorisations - Austria, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg and France - restated their position, stressing that they would wait for the entry into force of the new provisions on labelling and traceability before they give their stance. Italy is the only country to have slightly changed its position by stating it is willing to examine the possibility of early application of the new provisions concerning labelling and traceability, given that it believes any new authorisation should conform to them. France was very virulent, considering that lifting the moratorium is not foreseeable until labelling and traceability are operational, which is far from being the case, it states, recalling that, in June 1999, it had also requested - with Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg - the establishment of an environmental accountability regime to complete the new regulatory framework. Sweden, hitherto in the majority current, was more ambiguous, considering that, in order to lift the moratorium, it would be necessary to wait for a single system to be in place in the Union. Hence, it states, the need to find an innovative solution before the new legislative framework comes into force.
The vibrant appeal launched by Margot Wallström to rekindle, before 2003, authorisations suspended since 1998 in the Union, was not heard. In her preliminary speech, the Commissioner had recalled that all - Commission, Member States and Parliament - hope for a regulatory system guaranteeing the protection of the environment and health, which should be both predictable and stable. She mainly insisted, however, on: a) Europe's delay in a sector where the United States guarantees 70% of world production (followed by Argentina and Canada), while the Union only holds 0.03%, which compels it to import 95% of all animal feed (beans and soya in particular) and marginalises its companies on the world market; b) the fact that GMOs exist and that "we eat them every day"; c) the advantages to be gained from biotechnology for the competitiveness of European companies, but also for the environment, given the fact that not so much pesticide needs to be used; d) the illegal nature of the moratorium which places the Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, in breach of Community law, and the uncertainty that results for companies having notified products to the Commission but still awaiting clearance; e) what she calls the "arbitrary nature" of the line of demarcation established between the 11 varieties of genetically modified plant species already authorised in the Union and the 13 others (maize, potatoes, beetroot, chicory …) which are still in impasse.
Margot Wallström also insisted on the "balanced nature" of the Commission's proposals which were established "after wide consultation, in response to the request by Member States anxious to complete the regulatory framework provided under Directive 2001/18/EC by labelling and treaceability provisions creating conditions for the consumer to make a well-informed and complete choice". "The Commission has fulfilled its obligations. It now legitimately awaits the lifting of the moratorium. We cannot wait any longer. The Member States must assume their political responsibilities", she declared. She spoke of the hypothesis, if the moratorium were to continue several more years, that the Member States might call on companies to withdraw their notification and that alternative protein sources be found for animal feed.
Concerning the other issues submitted to the ministers, the trends that came out of the debate were summarised by Chairperson Magda Alvoet, in the following manner:
* Delegations broadly welcomed the Commission's proposal, which they felt would meet the objective of creating a reliable system to guarantee freedom of choice for the consumer.
* Some delegations (particularly France) expressed the desire to get progress across the board on the regulation on the labelling and traceability of both food for human beings and animal feed.
* The 1% tolerance threshold for accidental contamination of non-GMO food with GMOs is acceptable to most delegations (apart from Greece) as long as a distinction is made between GMOs already used in the Union and "new" GMOs. Some delegations argued that GMOs should be tolerated on a case-by-case basis, and several hold reservations on the tolerance threshold for accidental contamination with non-authorised GMOs, wanting this to be as low as possible (France, Austria, Denmark and Belgium) or be zero for any GMOs that can be spread in the environment and reproduce (Finland and Sweden).
Most delegations favour the Union taking the lead in international negotiations (OECD and Cartagena Biosecurity Protocol) in order to get a single code for identifying GMOs, and going it alone if the negotiations get bogged down.
At a press conference, Margot Wallström argued that the Council had not reached agreement in terms of starting to authorising GMOs again. She said she had the impression that most wanted the new measures to be transposed before the moratorium was lifted but did that mean that they wanted the measures to be in force at that point or simply adopted? Some were even talking about waiting for the environmental liability legislation and she added that the situation did not look very promising. Magda Alvoet said that the most realistic response would be for the delegations to pledge to stop constantly challenging the moratorium without attempting to find solutions.