More GM approvals, but national bans remain

Supporters of genetically modified (GM) agriculture might have been tempted to breathe a sigh of relief last year when the World Trade Organization (WTO) in September issued a ruling confirming that the EU had breached international trade rules, as alleged by the US, Canada and Argentina, by not approving any GM crops for cultivation in 1999-2005.

The decision put pressure on European authorities to increase approvals of GM - or biotech - crops that farmers can plant and that food companies can process.

But European shops are unlikely to fill up with new brands of GM food in the short term. While American consumers have eaten GM fruit and vegetables, oils, beans and corn since the mid-1990s, European shoppers remain resistant to the idea of mixing GM - or biotech - food with a conventional diet.

An EU Eurobarometer opinion poll published three months before the WTO ruling showed that 58% of Europeans believed GM should not be encouraged. A fifth thought that GM foods were "morally unacceptable".

Member states struggle to justify opposition to GM cultivation, in the absence of hard evidence to prove biotech crops pose a risk to human health. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has so far approved all the GM crops that it has been asked to assess on food safety grounds.

But some environmental groups accuse the EFSA of ignoring the possibility that GM varieties will affect the health of future generations. This ‘cumulative’ effect is impossible to pin down because GM crops are so new to the market but environmentalists say its importance must not be underestimated.

Greenpeace has also accused biotech companies of hiding research showing that laboratory rats fed GM maize developed kidney problems.

Most governments still have their own national bans on GMs. Those bans are in apparent conflict with the quest for a single market. In February last year, member states rejected a Commission proposal for Hungary to overturn its national veto on biotech maize. They also threw out a Commission request for an end to Austrian GM bans, in December 2006.

The Commission proposals are likely to come round again (last year’s proposal on Austria was itself a repeat of a proposal in 2005), unless new health safety or environmental evidence arises to support national bans.

The EU’s deadlock is all the more embarrassing when ministers cannot raise a qualified majority either for or against a GM variety - as was the case with a modified carnation earlier this year. The Council of Ministers is then accused of lacking the courage to take a stand one way or another.

If member states cannot make up their minds, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, it is left to the Commission to approve the biotech crop. So, little by little, GM approvals are increasing, but the WTO ruling has not had the dramatic impact that biotech companies desired.

Supporters of genetically modified (GM) agriculture might have been tempted to breathe a sigh of relief last year when the World Trade Organization (WTO) in September issued a ruling confirming that the EU had breached international trade rules, as alleged by the US, Canada and Argentina, by not approving any GM crops for cultivation in 1999-2005.