Brussels, 10/06/2002 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's Committee on the Environment took a stance last week in favour of rules for labelling food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or GMO-derived products. These rules would be far stricter than envisaged by the Commission in its proposals of July 2001 relating to the traceability and labelling of such products, whether destined for animal or human food (the plenary vote will be held in July).
With the adoption last Thursday by a slim majority (28 for, 22 against and 2 abstentions), the report by Austrian Social Democrat Karin Scheele concerning the authorisation and labelling of foodstuffs and genetically modified animal feed, the parliamentary committee gave a clear signal at first reading: the Commission's copy must be reviewed, mainly on two points. These relate to the fixing of a maximum authorised percentage of fortuitous presence of GMOs during accidental contamination of traditional products through genetically modified seeds:
1) Threshold beyond which the accidental presence of unauthorised GMOs in the Union must be indicated in the labelling of food: contrary to the Commission's proposal (a threshold of minimum tolerance), which is convinced that accidental contamination is inevitable and must be tolerated if it is very limited, the MEPs refuse to fix a threshold for banned GMOs, considering that such a tolerance level would undermine the Community provisions relating to biological safety. MEPs also
oppose the Commission's proposal to amend Directive 2001/18EC (the text that replaced former Directive 90/220/EC for introducing tougher provisions for authorising the marketing of GMOs in the Union and their voluntary dissemination into the environment). They consider in fact that the proposal on traceability and labelling, currently being examined, aims to complete - but not modify - the provisions of this directive, last year's adoption of which required complex conciliation procedure between Parliament and Council.
2) Maximum threshold beyond which accidental presence of GMOs authorised in the Union must be shown on the label: the parliamentary committee considers the 1% threshold proposed by the Commission is too high and asks for it to be reduced to 0.5%.
Adopting the amended report by Antonio Trakatellis (EPP-ED, Greece) on labelling obligations for products intended for human or animal consumption, derived from genetically modified organisms, the environment committee considered by a slim majority (28 votes for, 25 against including that of the rapporteur and his group, and 2 abstentions) that the means proposed by the Commission for reaching the desired aim of traceability were not sufficient.
The main amendments adopted were judged "inapplicable in real life" by the rapporteur and his political group. They aim to: 1) oblige operators that put GMO-based products on the market to give the following indications on the product label or in any advertising for the product: "this product is derived from an animal fed with GM feed" or "this product contains (name of the ingredient) derived from an animal fed with GM feed"; 2) call for effective measures to combat the uncontrolled spread of GMOs in order to avoid the accidental presence of GMOs or GMO-derived products in food and feed and to ensure that the regulation provides a framework for traceability in accordance with the precautionary principle 3) demand traceability of products derived from animals fed on GM feed; 4) make it compulsory for operators of the food chain to keep their archives for ten years (the amount of time needed for health or other problems to become evident, and likely to be linked to the presence of GMO in food and feed). The parliamentary committee stresses in this respect that the human health and environmental concerns must still take priority over considerations relating to the internal market or any other commercial consideration. We recall that, with its proposals, that are supposed to complete the current legislative framework in a satisfactory manner, the Commission hopes to calm the fears of the European public towards potential risks of GMOs for human health and the environment, and to be able to rekindle, by 2003 at the latest, marketing authorisation procedures for these products that have been under a de facto moratorium in the Union since June 1999.
Antonio Trakatellis felt that, if the Parliament followed its parliamentary committee, the Union would move towards legislation that would be harmful to the interests of consumers and producers together. In his view, the consumer would be misled by information on the final products as in many cases the product of the base that is derived from genetically modified organisms has nothing to do with its derivatives and by-products. Instead of increasing food safety, these new rules would increase the cost of production.
Greens/EFA express satisfaction at the case going in their favour
The Greens/EFA of the Parliament consider the vote in committee is a victory, mainly concerning the request to reduce to the lowest possible level the threshold for labelling food products containing authorised GMOs. In a press release, Paul Lannoye (Greens, Belgium) states that the vote translates their request for effective measures allowing the coexistence of GMO crops and conventional and biological farming. The Commission, he continued, should be able to lower the thresholds since scientific and technological progress allows it. He hoped the Parliament would take the decision to apply the minimal threshold to all foodstuffs containing GMOs. He went on to add that, until there is legislation making it compulsory for producers and users of GMOs to guarantee that the product does not pollute the environment or contaminate non-GMO crops, no GMO crop should be authorised.