Modified US maize faces port blockade

Date: 06/11/1997

By Peter Chapman

HUNDREDS of thousands of tonnes of imported maize could be blocked in European ports this winter, angering the biotechnology industry and risking another trade row with the US.

Lawyers for the industry claim Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and a handful of member states opposed to approval of a new batch of genetically-modified organism (GMO) products are playing a game of brinkmanship, delaying their clearance until the 11th hour to emphasise unease over their use.

The products at the centre of the controversy include maize from Swiss firm Novartis and other products marketed by EU companies AgrEvo and Pioneer.

"The Americans are going to get very angry. Twenty million hectares of their maize fields have been planted with modified maize, and much of it is destined for the EU," said one industry lawyer.

This GMO maize - which has already been approved in the US, Japan and elsewhere - is expected to begin arriving in European harbours by mid-December .

If EU clearance has not been granted by then, the Commission could call on member states to block imports of the maize at ports mainly in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, although in practice this may prove impossible since GMOs and non-GMO-based products are identical in appearance.

US sources are playing down talk of a trade row over the issue, but admit that the situation is "getting scary" as the usual January boom in EU maize purchases approaches.

The industry is accusing opponents of genetically-modified products of manipulating a complex procedure for product approval, using similar tactics to those deployed in 1996 to delay approval of another batch of GMOs.

This procedure means that it can take up to two years to win Union approval for new products - more than twice as long as in the US, Canada or Japan.

Last month, officials in the Commission's Directorate-General for the environment (DGXI) prepared a draft proposal to approve four of the products currently awaiting clearance.

But crucially, a key part of the procedure requires Commission departments to scrutinise these proposals before they go to a regulatory committee made up of member state representatives for final approval.

The lawyers claim that, ironically, it is Bjerregaard herself who is leading moves within the Commission to delay approval for the products, despite the proposals drawn up by her own officials to clear them.

Sources close to Bjerregaard flatly reject the industry's claims that she is foot-dragging or waiting for US trade pressure before climbing down.

"The Commission has been taking its time because of certain legitimate concerns," said one. "I am sure that the US will express itself over this issue. But our concern is the EU consumer and the environment."