Unilateral move to label rapeseed goes against agreed plan

Date: 16/11/1995

By Michael Mann

THE European Commission is heading for conflict in the coming weeks after Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard unilaterally elected to change a draft decision in order to make labelling compulsory on a new strain of genetically-modified rapeseed.

Officials say this has held up the authorisation of the product and angered other Commissioners, in particular Sir Leon Brittan, Hans van den Broek and Martin Bangemann.

They claim Brittan has stressed that the Union could face severe trade difficulties if it insists that all genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) should bear compulsory labels.

Having surprised her Commission colleagues by simply changing a draft decision already voted through in committee by the member states, and in the final stage before authorisation, Bjerregaard will now have to try and force the measure past her 19 colleagues.

Commission officials stress that Bjerregaard's approach, insisting all GMOs should be labelled, flies in the face of the clear line adopted in the Commission's communication on biotechnology published in June 1994.

This stressed that labels would only be required if the GMO process actually changed the characteristics of a plant.

This is not the case with the rapeseed, whose approval is being held up by Bjerregaard. Directive 90/220, which sets out the approval procedure, contains no legal basis for labelling.

“We now have a Commissioner going in the opposite direction to the Commission. She's basically on her own,” said one official.

All this has wide implications for the fate of four other dossiers currently being prepared for consideration by the Article 21 committee, the body charged with voting on whether or not to approve GMOs.

Over the next year, officials are anticipating a considerable increase in the number of GMOs seeking approval.

The dispute over rapeseed has also aroused the concern of the Commission's Biotechnology Coordination Committee (BCC), chaired by Commission Secretary-General David Williamson, which coordinates work by different directorates-general on biotechnology.

The BCC is currently carrying out a mid-term review of directive 90/220. This is not understood as an undertaking to revise the directive itself, although officials admit that “the whole labelling question will have to be addressed sooner rather than later”.

Already, the committee has noted problems created by transposing decisions taken under the directive into national law in those countries which demand labelling for all GMOs.

The Scandinavians and Austrians believe strongly that all GMOs must carry a label to warn consumers.

But officials are pessimistic that the final decision on the rapeseed product will necessarily be a test case for all other such products. “We will have to work so quickly on the most urgent case that it won't be possible to hold comprehensive discussions with all interested parties,” said an official.

A meeting is, however, planned for 22 November between the Commission and representatives of both the biotechnology industry and non-governmental organisations.

In the meantime, the US is watching developments in the EU with interest, aware that its companies could face what they see as an unwarranted barrier to trade if the EU imposes labelling requirements.

“The EU must have predictable, transparent approval procedures, as the existing ones have been interfered with by a Commissioner. Companies must be able to make business decisions,” commented a US official.

Some 15 GMOs have already been approved by Washington this year, and European biotechnology lobbyists are concerned that competitiveness will be damaged further by this latest controversy.