Trade fear over biotech delay

Date: 19/10/1995

By Michael Mann

FEARS are growing that attempts within the European Commission to delay the authorisation of genetically-modified rapeseed will set a precedent for future cases involving biotechnology.

Blocking tactics employed by the Cabinet of Swedish Commissioner Anita Gradin have raised the spectre of future trade disputes with the United States in this most controversial field of modern technology.

There is also concern that European competitiveness could be undermined if other applications for approval of “Genetically Modified Organisms” (GMOs) are held up for social and ethical reasons.

Industry sources say the reasons for the delay “remain obscure”. Gradin's Cabinet is understood to be pressing for compulsory labelling on all GMOs, but staff in her department have so far been unable to give an official explanation of her motives.

Commission sources are confident that the log-jam will be cleared soon, but fear the dispute could set a precedent for future arguments over the desirability of other GMOs.

Despite the clear priority given to biotechnology in the Commission's own competitiveness White Paper and the impetus added by the Corfu and Essen summits, lobbies such as the Senior Advisory Group for Biotechnology remain frustrated that Europe is falling further and further behind its US counterparts in this field.

US officials are suggesting the rapeseed issue could have much further-reaching effects if it signals an unwillingness in the EU to base decisions on objective science-based criteria. Similar decisions are known to be pending for genetically-modified soya, maize and chicory.

Already, farmers in the US are making planting decisions for the 1996 harvest and are likely to be nervous about using the new soya seeds, developed by Monsanto and other major players in the market, if the EU has not yet approved them for use.

The new soya has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Any bar on its use in the EU could endanger US exports of soya worth over 1.1 billion ecu every year.

“If we were to see any deliberate attempt to block US products, we would make a lot of noise. The office of the US Trade Representative is very interested in this whole question; it's on a biotech kick,” said a US official.

Registration of GMOs for field trials and commercial use is managed under two 1990 directives. Under the very complex regulations, companies wanting approval for a new product must seek this initially in a member state. The Commission must then give other member states 60 days to give their views, before coming forward with a resolution, which - if not agreed unanimously - must be voted through the so-called Article 21 committee by qualified majority.

Although the modified rapeseed received the approval of a majority of member states - Denmark, Finland and Sweden voted against, while Luxembourg and Austria abstained - Gradin's Cabinet blocked agreement on the product at the final hurdle.

No-one is quite clear where the pressure is coming from for additional labelling requirements. Gradin is generally regarded as a supporter of free trade and Sweden has never been regarded as an opponent of biotechnology in general.

The manufacturers insist that the new products present no health risk and genetically-modified soya, already cleared in the US, is being marketed as an environmentally-friendly product, requiring 40&percent; less pesticide use than traditional varieties.

Traders say that labelling of the type demanded by the Swedes is impossible, as modified seed cannot be distinguished from traditional varieties once it has left the farm. This is particularly true for soya and rape, which are crushed for the manufacture of animal feed and vegetable oil.

The GMO directives do not give any legal basis for labelling and the US will be swift to pounce if the EU places restrictions on such products for which there is no scientific or legal basis. There are also several highly-influential companies in the biotechnology sector, for whom millions of ecus of investment are at stake.

The Commission as a body appears to favour a conventional regulatory approach, as shown by a communication from DGI, the Directorate-General for external affairs to DGXI, the Directorate-General for the environment, urging hasty action, and declarations agreed by EU leaders at recent summits. However, pressure remains from certain member states and sections of the Commission for more caution on ethical and social grounds.

“There are very varying amounts of enthusiasm throughout the Commission for biotechnology,” one senior official admitted.

Representatives of the biotechnology sector remain concerned “about being singled out from other industrial sectors in the first place”. They are continuing to apply pressure for the “obscure, burdensome and over-lengthy” regulations to be streamlined.

The biotechnology industry claims that a proposal to simplify the rules on registering GMOs has been sitting on Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard's desk since March.