Will GM food ever be on Europe's menu? (commentary) | Article

Although the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is pressing to bring coherence to political decision-making in the council, which is made up of ministers representing the EU member states, nonetheless, a deadlock remains.

It is disappointing that this situation continues despite the enactment of legislation more than five years ago laying down the procedures necessary to deal with applications for authorizations of GM products.

It is worth recalling that this legislation was put in place following the so-called moratorium on authorizations that existed previously. For instance, these new laws require a positive evaluation from scientists working in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as a fundamental first step in the process.

EFSA was established by law in 2002 and was loosely modeled on the Food & Drug Administration in the U.S. However, it is different from FDA in that it is not a regulatory body. Its function is scientific evaluation and advice.

Most importantly, EFSA was established as an independent institution. This aspect was regarded as of considerable importance to ensure that its risk assessment advice would be free of political interference and free from undue pressure from industry, consumers or "green" groups.

It was my task, as the responsible commissioner, to steer the negotiations toward enactment of the GM legislation. This was painstaking work. As is normal in such circumstances, adjustments and compromises were made not only in the European Parliament but especially in the Council of Ministers.

These compromises were achieved with the not unreasonable expectation that the newly agreed-upon laws would lead to a rationally and efficiently functioning system for authorizations to be approved. Instead, we have a stalemate.

When an application is made and cleared by EFSA scientists, the European Commission places it before a regulatory committee made up of officials from EU member states. For an authorization to be approved by this committee, a qualified majority vote, weighted by population, is necessary.

However, experience shows that a conclusive vote is never achieved at the regulatory committee stage, thereby requiring the application to be forwarded to the Council of Ministers, which is made up of national ministers for agriculture.

As many member states entertain profound doubts about the safety of GM products such as maize, soy or potatoes, a positive outcome is never achieved here, either.

It then reverts to the commission, where approval is granted. This approval authorizes free circulation within the EU. This tedious process has happened on more than a dozen occasions over the last few years.

However, the GM-skeptic member states can, under EU law, invoke safety clauses where there is evidence of a risk to health or the environment. This procedure effectively stifles the general authorization for free circulation and prevents the release of GM products within the borders of such member states.

Justification for the imposition of safety clauses rests with the member state asserting it, and such justifications have consistently failed. Efforts by the European Commission to set aside these national safety measures have consistently failed in the council.

For instance, last month, the commission asked France and Greece to repeal their safeguard measures against the cultivation of GM maize MON810. France refused to do so, even though EFSA opinions declared that the bans were scientifically unjustifiable. All of the scientific opinions are consistent with one another.

Last September, the European Commission's scientists backed the safety of GM food following a detailed study carried out by its research center.

In addition, the French food safety agency stated last month that GM maize variety MON810 presented no danger to human health. A report in the French newspaper Le Figaro has alleged that France's ban appears to have been politically rather than scientifically motivated.

Under the leadership of President Jose Manuel Barroso, the commission is displaying a new determination to achieve coherence in the council.

Whereas consumer concerns exist in many countries as a result of the food safety scares in Europe over the past 15 years, it is nonetheless disappointing that the political leadership in Europe has failed to emphasize the consistent scientific advice, which is that GM food and feed are as safe as conventional varieties.

Politicians must take a more courageous approach and encourage a more balanced understanding of GM food among European consumers. It is to be hoped that the new initiatives from the European Commission will be successful. Otherwise, Europe will pay too high a price.

Failure to achieve progress will show European political decision-making as dysfunctional and will risk further trade disputes with the EU's trading partners. These disputes could ultimately lead to the possibility of financial sanctions from the World Trade Organization.

European livestock producers also suffer. The absence of GM feed in Europe means producers are forced to import more than three-quarters of their supplies of protein feed from outside the EU. The bulk of this is in soy products imported from the U.S., Argentina and Brazil.

Also, what about Europe's reputation as a welcoming location for research in biotechnology? Companies need to know that the results of their research will not be threatened by unscientific criticism.

The boundaries of scientific knowledge in many areas of activity are expanding exponentially. This is particularly true in discoveries in public health and in increased food and feed production productivity.

It is estimated that the world's population will increase 50% over the next 40 years. This will place a huge burden on food production. GM technology is part of the solution.

It is the responsibility of the EU to promote this development, not hinder it.

Daily Commentary provided by Farm Futures, a sister publication of Feedstuffs