Genetically-modified beans: the need for a coherent labelling policy

Date: 05/06/1997

By Ian S. Forrester QC

WE ARE what we eat. So we are naturally nervous about eating foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The name is rather sinister. However, like it or not, thousands of products already contain GMOs: chocolate, margarine, soups and frozen bolognese sauce. The number will grow. Soya beans and maize are the only genetically-modified plants which have so far been approved by the European Commission.

Safeness is not the issue. The GMO ingredients of every one of these products have been found to be safe. The issue is labelling. Manufacturers would prefer not to alarm consumers unnecessarily. However, consumers no longer trust official health experts, a fact which has been exploited by a coalition of consumer organisations interested in 'the right to know' and 'green' groups, who are basically hostile to biotechnology.

The Novel Foods Regulation (NFR) contemplates the labelling of food using GMOs, in particular, where the genetically- modified version is not equivalent to the natural variety (Article 8). This means that many foods using GMOs would not need to say so. The NFR represents a political compromise between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Predictably, the compromise language is not easy to apply, because there are different ways of deciding whether GMO ingredients and conventional ones are equivalent. In the UK and the US, there are well-established scientific analyses to determine equivalence by examining the natural variety and the GMO version. As a result, neither GMO soya beans nor the foods made from them need a GMO label in those countries.

Today, the NFR is the only EU-wide legislation which deals specifically with novel food and food ingredients. However, it lacks implementing rules from the Commission, which cannot decide what to do. If it implements the NFR on the basis of neutral scientific principles, the result will be that many foods need bear no GMO label. If it scraps the NFR and proposes mandatory labelling for all food and food ingredients deriving from GMOs (a legislative process which will take years), then there is a void which may be filled by the member states (and, as we will see below, they are filling it). Faced with such problems, the Commission has agonised, issuing communications, a Green Paper on food safety and restructuring its scientific committees.

The NFR entered into force on 15 May 1997. It is not clear if it even applies to genetically-modified soya beans and maize which have already been approved. The Commission, concerned that a loophole may exist, is trying to close it with legislation which would in effect apply Article 8 of the NFR to GMO soya beans and maize through proposed amendments to the general food labelling directive (Directive 79/112). The Commission has not been able to reach agreement on this.

Beef-eaters and others have lost confidence in scientific committees, which proclaimed foods safe but were later proved wrong. The BSE débâcle has ruined scientific reputations in several EU capitals, including Brussels. The Commission, having been severely rebuked by the press and the Parliament, is understandably nervous. However, in this case, the food scientists are more confident.

Nevertheless, such confidence may not be enough, because the issue is not a completely logical one. In a recent communication by a group of Commissioners, it was stated: “In some cases there may be demands - for instance, due to ethical and environmental considerations or specific control and production methods - to go further in the area of the health protection measures than the scientific evidence suggests is necessary...” .

Unfortunately, the Commission is damned if it does and damned if it does not. If it does require labelling, how does it make the label meaningful? If it does not require it, how does it placate the 'right to know' contingent?

In the meantime, the member states are taking action. The free movement of food products is degenerating into partitioning along national lines. Denmark requires labelling of all products deriving from or containing genetically-modified soya beans (except with regard to additives). The Netherlands demands labelling of genetically-modified soya protein, but not of genetically-modified oils, a compromise which doubtless reflects industry preferences. If both soya proteins and oils derive from the same GMO soya beans, why should the proteins be labelled and the oils not? Consumers who want to know whether their foods are made from GMO products are likely to feel under-informed.

The Commission should either rely on science, especially where the scientific committees find products to be equivalent and labelling unnecessary, or it should abandon science entirely and embrace 'right to know' doctrines.

We do not need more skilful halfway compromise formulations, which do not squarely address the problem. A firm stance is necessary to restore consumer confidence in European food products.

This article reflects the personal views of the author.