Food the burning issue in 1997

Date: 18/12/1997

Simon Coss and Leyla Linton
PAST accusations that the EU put the interests of its farmers ahead of those of consumers were partially laid to rest in 1997, with food safety issues remaining high on the political agenda throughout the year.

The decision to make Consumer Commissioner Emma Bonino responsible for food safety in the wake of the BSE affair was a defining moment, sending a signal to Europe's consumers that the lessons of the past had been learnt.

But the European Commission's track record over the past 12 months on the other food safety issue uppermost in the minds of consumers has been far less impressive.

Its inability to decide whether it regards biotechnology as an exciting and innovative new industry or a potential threat to the health of the continent's citizens has left consumers confused and angry about just what goes into the food they eat.

Conflicts within the institution between Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and her colleagues Martin Bangemann (industry) and Sir Leon Brittan (trade) led to a series of often conflicting proposals for regulating the new sector.

The biggest problem arose over the labelling of products which contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Bangemann's 'novel foods' directive, which covers supermarket foods, states that products need only be labelled as containing GMOs if they are 'significantly different' from non-GMO alternatives.

On the other hand, Bjerregaard's infamous 90/220 directive, which deals with approval procedures for new strains of GMO crops and seeds, states that products must be clearly labelled if they 'contain' or 'may contain' gene-altered ingredients.

This means finished foods may be subject to less stringent labelling requirements than those for their constituent parts.

Bjerregaard finally came forward with her proposals for revising 90/220 last month after a year of fierce internal squabbling with Bangemann and Brittan. One of the key aspects of the proposed reform, which has yet to be approved by EU governments, is that gene-altered products would be subject to approval and re-approval every seven years.

The latest development in the saga came early this month when Bangemann unveiled a proposal for all gene-altered maize and soya to follow the 'does contain'/'may contain' labelling formula.

While the Commission was engaged in its internal wrangling, the GMO issue caused havoc within EU member states.

Luxembourg, Italy and Austria all slapped unilateral bans on genetically-modified products, raising the spectre of legal action at the European Court of Justice.

The issue has also proved a source of friction between the Union and the US, amid complaints from Washington that European confusion over GMO products was hindering American attempts to export produce cleared for use on the other side of the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, the BSE saga continued to attract headlines throughout the year, not least because of the European Parliament's success in forcing the Commission to shake up its handling of food safety issues. In the end, Commissioners were let off the hook by MEPs, who were generally pleased with the reforms put in place by Bonino.

She repeatedly stressed that consumer interests were now the central focus of EU policy-making, and tried to move the debate away from the past and towards the future.

The main thrust of the new consumer health policy was to separate the responsibility for drafting legislation from scientific advice and control, emphasising that the latter should be independent and transparent.

In February, the Commission decided to create a Commissioners' group on consumer health chaired by President Jacques Santer, and an interservice group on consumer health headed by the director-general of DGXXIV.

Administrative changes alone, however, could not solve the crisis. The EU's emphasis on the 'precautionary principle' and putting public health first led to conflict, primarily with the US and then with some member states who felt their BSE-free status should be recognised.

Only last week, the Commission decided to call for a three-month delay in implementing the ban on the use of specified risk materials, such as spine and brains, which had been due to come into force on 1 January 1998. The postponement was prompted by opposition from a string of member states and concern over the impact the ban would have on the availability of life-saving drugs.

Part of the European Voice 'Review of the Year'.