Stirring up a fine mess

Date: 29/05/1997

THE expression 'too many cooks spoil the broth' could have been invented to describe the European Commission's handling of the burgeoning biotechnology industry.

In 1993, former Commission President Jacques Delors singled out biotechnology as one of the jewels of EU enterprise, a massive money-spinner and a potential generator of jobs in an age when employment opportunities are hard to come by.

Why is it then that, as we move into mid-1997, the Commission still has no clear policy on genetically-modified foods (GMOs)?

No one claims that developing a strategy for handling the difficult issues raised by this new and often misunderstood technology will be easy. But if the Union is serious about its favourite buzzword of 'competitiveness' and the quest for jobs, the time has come for it to find a coherent approach.

Last week marked the latest debacle in what is looking more and more like a French farce: a document designed specifically to end the uncertainty and set out a coherent Commission line on the issue was sent back to the drawing board after Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler launched a counter-proposal, suggesting the complete separation of GMOs from 'conventional' products 'from farm to fork'.

Laudable though Fischler's initiative might appear, one cannot escape the feeling that it was aimed purely at his domestic audience. Last month, over one and a quarter million Austrians signed a petition declaring their opposition to the use of genetic engineering in food.

Critics could also be forgiven for asking whether it is not already too late to talk about segregation, with US genetically-engineered soya already finding its way into almost everything we eat.

The Commission's most pressing task must be to decide who is in charge of the GMO issue.

Biotechnology provides probably the most convincing evidence yet that there are too many Commissioners for the number of policies in which the EU's executive has a genuine role.

Even though she has been entrusted with food safety policy in the wake of the 'mad cow' crisis, Emma Bonino is still left playing a peripheral role in what - if consumer lobbies are to be believed - is one of the greatest areas of concern to ordinary Union citizens.

Instead, there are three other Commissioners, plus President Jacques Santer, all fighting for a slice of the action.

There are strong arguments for the new Food and Veterinary Office to grow into an independent agency like the US Food and Drug Administration. But EU governments are too scared to give up their precious 'sovereignty'.

Failing this, it is time for the Commission to answer two key questions.

Who is to take these difficult decisions and on what basis should they be made?

What is needed above all is a clear blueprint setting out how scientific wisdom will be balanced against the growing clamour from concerned citizens about the safety of the food they eat.