What the EU is doing about ‘Frankenstein’ food

Date: 31/10/02

By Karen Carstens

GENETICALLY modified organisms (GMOs) continue to top many EU consumers' list of food safety fears. Some 71 would rather not eat GM products, according to Friends of the Earth Europe.

As one consumer recently put it on a food website: 'If we are what we eat, with all the genetically modified and imitation foods we now eat, what the heck are we?'

But just what are GMOs? The European Commission defines them as 'organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination.' The technology involved is called 'modern biotechnology', 'gene technology', 'recombinant DNA technology' or 'genetic engineering'.

On 17 October, a 1991 GMO directive was replaced by one covering the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.

It updates and strengthens the previous directive via a case-by-case approval procedure through:

• a more detailed environmental risk assessment;
• monitoring including the long-term effects of interaction with other GMOs;
• information to the public (http://gmoinfo.jrc.it);
• rules on labelling and traceability at all stages of a product's life-cycle;
• a ten-year limit to first approvals for the release of GMOs;
• consultation of EU scientific committees, and;
• consultation of the Parliament

The new directive, which Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström hailed as 'a strong basis for a transparent and responsible way for governing the use of GMOs', also aims to pave the way for the lifting of an EU-wide moratorium in place since 1998 on the authorisation of new GMOs.

Prior to the ban, the Commission authorised the commercial release of 18 GMOs. There are currently 13 applications pending.

'The moratorium cannot be defended indefinitely,' said David Byrne, the consumer protection and health commissioner, during a debate in Brussels hosted by the European Policy Centre on Tuesday (29 October).

Moreover, he said: 'GMOs is a consumer choice issue, it's not a public health issue.'

But before the Commission can restart its GMO authorisations, proposals it put forth in July last year to provide a legislative framework for labelling and traceability would also have to come into effect. These would replace existing national rules.

The current system is based on the detection of GMOs in the final product. In practice, this means that highly processed food produced from GM material, such as refined oils, need not be labelled.

The new rules would extend the labelling requirements to all food and ingredients produced from GMOs and genetically modified animal feed.

Businesses would also have to transmit and retain documentation about products that contain, or are produced from, GMOs through all stages of the marketing process.

In addition to seeds and grain, the proposal covers food and feed derived from a GMO, such as paste and ketchup produced from a GM tomato or starch, or oil or flour produced from GM maize.

But the Confederation of Food and Drink Industries in the EU (CIAA) and other business groups warn the proposed changes would be expensive for industry to implement and for government to regulate.

'The big question for us is whether we will even be able to find the products in future that contain no GMOs,' said Raymond Destin, CIAA director-general. A more realistic option would be to stick to a 'may contain GMOs' label to keep consumers informed while at the same time keeping production costs down, he adds.

The proposals, however, do not require labelling of products such as meat, milk or eggs obtained from animals fed with genetically modified feed or treated with genetically modified medicinal products.

According to Byrne, the European Parliament backs the Commission on this approach. 'Some people have even suggested we label the second generation of GM-fed animals - those whose parents were raised on feed containing GMOs,' he said, adding that this would be going 'too far'.

One facet of EU legislation that continues to irk environmental groups - who would prefer a 'zero tolerance' approach - is a 1 threshold of GM content below which labelling is not required, if companies can demonstrate that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of GM material.

EU farm ministers squabbled over keeping the 1 threshold, or setting a new limit of 0.5, at a 14 October Council meeting in Luxembourg. They failed to reach an agreement.

Destin says the 'threshold' concept makes no sense because it is almost impossible to detect trace elements of GM material and they are virtually unavoidable anyhow since many European companies rely on imports from producers who cannot always guarantee their products are 100 GM free.

While Europe is using the 'precautionary principle', America views it as ridiculous in this context, added Destin.

The US Mission to the EU states 'there is no principle of international law defining or requiring precaution' and 'the term precaution must not be used as a guise for protectionism'. Surely the EU would beg to differ.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continue to top many EU consumers' list of food safety fears.