EU in a pickle over biotechnology

Date: 29/05/1997

By Michael Mann

IN ITS efforts to regulate the growing biotechnology industry, the EU has succeeded in tying itself in ever tighter knots. This is particularly unfortunate for a sector which was singled out for special attention in former Commission President Jacques Delors' White Paper on 'growth, competitiveness and employment'.

Four years on from this defining document, Europe still remains without a coherent policy on the marketing and use of genetically-modified food and agricultural products.

The past two years have seen threatened transatlantic trade wars come and go, companies unable to market products in which they have invested millions of ecu, and consumers become more and more confused about what they are buying.

Part of the problem results from very different views on the issue within the European Commission itself.

On one side of the fence sits Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard, a campaigner from the word go for clear distinctions to be made between GMOs and conventional products.

On the other side are the likes of Industry Commissioner Martin Bangemann and Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, free marketeers unwilling to upset the Americans.

What the Commission lacks is a single-strand approach to the issue. When it comes to biotechnology, there is a feeling that there are too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Bjerregaard is responsible for legislation on genetically-modified agricultural raw materials such as the maize and soya beans which were the cause of so much trouble during 1996. Bangemann's remit covers laws on finished food products, while Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler is working on rules for GMOs in animal feedstuffs.

This month finally saw the long-discussed 'novel foods' regulation come into force, to widespread criticism from the food industry and environmentalists alike.

The most contentious element of the rules, agreed after years of dispute between EU governments and MEPs, is that foods containing GMOs need only be labelled when they are “no longer equivalent” to existing foods.

But as a coalition of European food companies has pointed out, this has already led to the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark introducing national laws which interpret the regulation in completely different ways. “By officially devolving food labelling responsibilities to member states, the single market in foodstuffs could be brought to a virtually immediate standstill,” claims a spokesman for Kraft Jacobs Suchard, pointing out that shoppers could find themselves looking at a range of almost identical products bearing quite different warnings.

Louise Gale, of Greenpeace, argues that unless GMOs are segregated all the way from the farm to the supermarket shelf, the labelling regulation “is a nonsense”.

But for the moment, segregation is not a realistic proposition. After a long struggle with her colleagues, Bjerregaard last month succeeded in selling the idea of labelling new agricultural products released into the environment which 'may contain' GMOs. But she did not suggest segregation.

Fischler disagrees. In a draft proposal certain to muddy the waters still further, he suggested compulsory labelling for GMOs used in animal feed and a ban on mixing conventional with modified products.

On top of the quite different signals coming from the EU's executive, European industry points out that the biggest problem it faces is the areas where there is no legislation.

“No one seems to realise we do not buy raw materials. The Union should be regulating food ingredients. For us, the situation is quite desperate,” said a senior manager for a major food processor.

Officials in the Commission's secretariat-general are currently working on proposals designed to provide some of the answers to these concerns, finally attempting to draw the disparate views together into a single Commission line on labelling. “We are talking about an overall regulatory approach to labelling. For example, if we insist on 'affirmative' labels, that implies segregation,” said one.

A full-scale review of the directive on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment is also promised before the summer.

Meanwhile, representatives from the 15 EU governments meet in Brussels today (29 May) to decide whether to approve Bjerregaard's proposed labelling arrangements for newly developed agricultural products.

Moves are also afoot to introduce similar labelling requirements for the two most important products - a maize produced by Novartis and Monsanto's soya - by bringing them within the scope of the general food labelling directive.

Biotechnology companies with products approved before the recent changes to labelling requirements have generally responded positively to Bjerregaard's request that they introduce voluntary labelling.

But she still has to wrestle with Austria's decision to ban imports of the Novartis maize unilaterally, with a decision expected in July.