Product labelling plan gets stuck

Date: 13/03/1997

By Michael Mann

THE Union's approach to issues raised by advances in biotechnology has once again caused a major internal rift within the European Commission.

Moves by Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard to force through mandatory labelling requirements for genetically-modified agricultural products appear to have been scuppered by fierce opposition from Industry Commissioner Martin Bangemann and Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan.

Bjerregaard is believed to be furious that her colleagues are standing in the way of her efforts to honour the pledge made to MEPs by Commission President Jacques Santer to look into “compulsory labelling in all cases”.

A long-time supporter of labelling for biotechnology products, Bjerregaard is evidently concerned that it is she who will bear the brunt of consumer and environmental lobby groups' criticisms if no action is taken.

The internal battle comes amid continuing concern in several member states over the issue. Denmark has introduced labelling for genetically-modified soya, Austria and Luxembourg have banned imports of such maize, and France and Italy have stopped farmers from planting it.

The Commission has already begun an urgent review of the legislation covering the scientific assessment of the safety of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs).

Bjerregaard was due to issue labelling guidelines in advance of this, but chose to take the initiative with a formal proposal for a legal requirement for primary producers and processors to label their products as “containing or consisting of GMOs”.

She argued this would make it easier to apply the recently agreed 'novel foods' regulation, which requires the labelling of finished foodstuffs containing GMOs.

“People would know what they were dealing with all the way through the process,” said a Commission official.

But after it was discussed last week by the new sub-group of Commissioners charged with examining health issues, the plan was blocked before it could be put to an EU regulatory committee for a vote.

A Brittan official claimed the issue was far more complex than it seemed at first sight. “We need a proper examination of what kind of products will be affected and which legislation will need amending. So this will go back to the services first for analysis, before going through the normal Commission procedures,” he said.

Brittan believes that there are a whole range of problems with the review of the GMO directives, but that the only truly urgent matter is what to do with the two key products which have already been approved: Monsanto's soya bean and Ciba-Geigy's maize.

Some sort of action is necessary to prevent the single market being undermined by steps being taken in individual member states. Brittan is also concerned that any unilateral introduction of new labelling requirements by the Union could lead to trade difficulties with the US and impose additional costs on traders.

Although his officials are unwilling to comment on developments, Bangemann believes the problem will largely be dealt with once the new novel food regulation comes into force in May.

Bjerregaard has long been anxious to present consumers with the widest information available.

She also maintains there is a long list of GMOs awaiting final approval by the Commission which cannot be allowed on to the market until there is more clarity about labelling.

But Brittan and Bangemann claim it is wrong to mix up the issue of labels aimed at reassuring consumers with the existing directive, which deals specifically with the safety and environmental aspects of GMOs.

In the face of such powerful opposition, Bjerregaard's efforts to introduce common labelling standards appear to be in trouble and may have to wait until the full review of the legislation, promised before the summer.