Consumers wary of genetic changes

Date: 27/02/1997

By Simon Coss

WHEN is a tomato not a tomato? When it has been genetically altered to resist disease, stay ripe longer or stand up to modern pesticides, say those opposed to the use of the latest advances in 'biotechnology'.

But the huge agro-industrial conglomerates which 'design' genetically-modified food argue the gene-level changes make no discernible difference to the taste or texture of fruit and vegetables.

Genetically-modified foods - specifically a strain of maize developed by the Swiss firm Ciba-Geigy and soya beans designed by US-based Monsanto to resist its own herbicides - have been at the centre of furious debate across the EU recently over just how much consumers need to know about the food on their plates.

Last December, the European Commission approved the import of Ciba-Geigy's genetically-modified maize from the US following long-awaited advice from the Union's scientific committees on animal nutrition, food and pesticides.

After six months of deliberations, the scientists concluded that the maize posed no risk to human or animal health.

This delighted the Americans, who would otherwise have lost a market for millions of tonnes of their annual maize harvest. But it sparked a storm of protest from consumer and environmental groups in Europe. “The decision was made although national authorities and scientists expressed grave concerns about health and environmental risks,” said a spokesman for environmental lobby group Greenpeace.

The European consumers' lobby BEUC wrote to Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan following the decision expressing its concern and echoing worries voiced by the European Community of Consumer Cooperatives (Eurocoop). “The real benefit of this genetically-modified maize has not been clearly demonstrated. It is first up to the manufacturers to prove this benefit,” said the organisation in a statement earlier this month.

Since December, Austria and Luxembourg have unilaterally banned imports of the maize, unconvinced that sufficient research has been carried out into the long-term effects on health of an antibiotic 'marker' gene in the product.

Under EU rules, any member state is permitted to introduce such measures - temporarily at least - but if the bans are to remain, the duo must soon provide the Commission with concrete evidence to justify their action.

“It is up to those countries to state what information they have. It has to be fresh scientific information which justifies this withdrawal of approval,” said a Commission official.

The most recent twist in the plot came earlier this month when top French scientist Axel Kahn, who led government research into genetically-modified maize, resigned.

His departure followed a government decision to ban sowings of the maize for at least a year so that the product could be investigated more fully.

“The French government has banned sowings of a product it had itself promoted in Brussels. I cannot continue to work because my credibility with my European colleagues has been reduced to zero,” complained Kahn.

The genetically-modified maize debate is but the latest chapter in a long-running saga over just what goes into the food European consumers eat.

In the late 1980s, the EU and the US came to blows metaphorically when the former banned imports of beef raised on feed containing growth-promoting hormones. The World Trade Organisation is set to rule on the validity of this ban in the coming months. A similar Union decision to outlaw BST, a milk-promoting hormone developed by Monsanto, is to be reviewed at the end of the century.

One increasingly popular approach to the issue is to promote more detailed labelling of foodstuffs, giving consumers the information they need to choose for themselves.

Following recent conciliation talks between the European Parliament and EU ministers over the labelling of novel foods, existing rules on genetically-modified organisms are likely to be discussed once again in the coming year.