GMOs: EU agriculture ministers fail to reach an agreement on GM food and feed, October 2002

EU agriculture ministers, gathered in Luxembourg for a Council meeting on 14 October 2002, failed to reach an agreement on new proposals on genetically modified food or feed and so the four year moratorium on GMOs in the EU continues.

Since 1999, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Greece and France have all banned new GM products because of consumer fears about the long term effects on health of GM technology. In an attempt to lift the moratorium, the European Commission proposed new rules on the labelling and traceability of GMOs in food on 25 July 2001. There are three key objective of the proposals:

• to introduce a system for tracing genetically modified organisms throughout the production chain with a centralised approvals process for GMOs for feed and food under the European Food Authority (EFA)

• to label all GM foods including those derived from but no longer containing GMOs, such as highly refined products e.g. maize or soy oil.

• to establish a 1% limit on the amount of GM material found accidentally in food or feed. These unauthorised GMOs, as well as products derived from them will not have to be labelled

The European Parliament voted in support of both proposals on 3 July 2002 but with a number of amendments aimed at further tightening the rules of food products and animal feed containing GMOs, notably the lowering of the threshold of 1% of GM material in food to 0.5%.

The Council was expected to adopt a common position on the proposals in the Autumn however this looks set to be delayed following major disagreements between the Member States at the Agriculture Council. Denmark, who currently holds the rotating Presidency of the EU, had presented a new proposal aimed at moving the proposals forward, however even this was met with disagreement. The key features of the proposal are:

• To limit the threshold set for traces of unauthorised GMOs to 1% (which could be reduced by a committee procedure) for a transitional period of 3 years and to restrict the time limit for GMOs evaluated (GMO material must have received a positive scientific assessment before 31 December 2002)

• To set a 1% threshold for labelled GMOs which could be reduced by means of a Committee procedure

Although there was some agreement over the proposed threshold on traceability of GM products, certain countries did not support the 1% threshold for labelled GMOs and others also expressed their concerns regarding the exclusion from the scope of the proposal of live animals fed with GMOs. France, Italy, Austria, Greece and Luxembourg all insisted that the moratorium should remain in place at present.

There was a majority in favour of the proposal establishing a centralised authorisation procedure for placing a GMO on the market but even this is subject to delay because two EU legal services disagreed on the appropriate decision procedure. The Council legal service maintained that centrally taken decisions of this nature require unanimity, while the European Commission legal service held that a simple majority is be sufficient.

As a result no real progress was made at the Council meeting on the future of GMOs in the EU even though David Byrne told a news conference afterwards:

'There was substantial agreement on the thrust of the legislation. Hopefully, we will be able to fine-tune and adjust positions with the hope of reaching agreement at the next meeting. There is no question of lifting the moratorium this week but we are moving inexorably in that direction. Inevitably, there will be a lifting of the moratorium but when, we are not clear'.

The Danish Presidency will certainly put the issue back on the agenda for the next Agriculture Council, scheduled for 16 November 2002, and environment ministers will discuss it when they meet on 17 October 2002.

Whilst the EU continues to ban the sale of GM products then they risk a trade dispute with the United States, which estimates that it loses €303 million of potential exports of GM corn to Europe each year. The US government has repeatedly threatened to challenge the EU moratorium at the World Trade Organisation although up to now no action has been taken. The US government have so far preferred to try to change global attitudes towards GM foods and therefore isolate the European Union. However, even when the EU ban is lifted it remains to be seen how much of a market opening there will be in Europe as many consumers remain skeptical about GM products and tend not to buy them.

European Council:
	14.10.02:	Press release: Agriculture and Fisheries Council, 14-15 October 2002 (Provisional version) [PRES/02/309]
European Commission:
	Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC [COM(2001)182]
	Food safety: Genetically Modified Organisms
European Consumers Organisation (BEUC):
	Campaign for food safety
Greenpeace:
	Genetically Engineered Food
Stanford University - Institute for International Studies:
	Who's Afraid of the GMOs? EU-US Trade Disputes over Food Safety and Biotechnology [March 1999]
European Sources Online: Financial Times:
	15.10.02:	US shifts tactics in GMO clash with EU
European Sources Online: In Focus
	Genetically modified organisms: Replacement of Directive 90/220 and new proposals on the traceability and labelling of food containing GMOs
	European Parliament votes on genetically modified organisms
	GMOs: EU ratifies the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety, June 2002

Helen Bower
Compiled: Tuesday, 15 October 2002

EU agriculture ministers, gathered in Luxembourg for a Council meeting on 14 October 2002, failed to reach an agreement on new proposals on genetically modified food or feed and so the four year moratorium on GMOs in the EU continues.