Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 35 • 17th October 2002
EU Agriculture Ministers Fail To Finalise GMO Rules
The European Council of Agricultural Ministers at its 14-16 October meeting failed to reach agreement on the European Commission’s proposed labelling and traceability regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), instead postponing the debate to next month’s Council meeting. This comes at a time when the US is reported to have stepped up pressure on the EU to restart the approval process for GMOs, effectively on hold since 1998, following the entry into force of the revised EU Directive on the environmental release of GMOs.
Disagreement persisted, inter alia, over how strict the labelling requirements for GMOs should be. While the UK opposed labelling of products derived from GMOs (as proposed by the Commission), others called for the proposed regulations to be tightened even further by including labelling for meat and dairy products from animals fed on GM feed. Countries also disagreed over the labelling threshold for the accidental presence of GMOs. The European Commission had proposed a threshold of one percent, which was amended to 0.5 percent by the European Parliament at its last meeting (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July 2002). However, some countries and civil society groups regard these thresholds as too high, instead calling for zero percent. Denmark, as the current EU president, put forward a compromise proposal for a two to three year transition period on accidental GMO presence for the GMOs currently awaiting approval. While the current de facto moratorium on the approval of new GMOs was not explicitly discussed in the meeting, there was a general understanding that the legislation was "the next step to lifting the moratorium", one Commission official noted.
The US is reported to have stepped up pressure on the EU to restart the approval process for GMOs. US Undersecretary of State for Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson, speaking at a conference, described the de facto moratorium as a "threat to the trading system", which was based on political considerations and not on sound science. "It is widely recognised as an unlawful act," he added. "It really is incumbent on EU decision makers to fix this problem." He did not specify, however, whether the US was going to challenge the moratorium at the WTO if it was not lifted. Others, however, believe that the US position might be softening. "In August, the signal we were getting was that a swift dose of WTO action would be a good think," said one EU official. "Now there’s a certain amount of optimism that they will hold off as long as some progress is made in the meantime with the approval process," he added.
Whether the approval process will be restarted now depends on agreement by EU member states. While the moratorium was originally intended to remain in place until the entry into force of the revised Directive 2001/18/EC (17 October 2002), several countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, France and Italy, continue to oppose a lifting of the ban until the traceability and labelling requirements (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July 2002, referenced above) enter into force (expected in spring 2003 at the earliest). Under the revised Directive, new market approvals of GMOs will be granted for a fixed period of up to ten years. New approvals will be subject to strict environmental risk assessments on a case-by case basis, including long-term cumulative effects of GMOs on human health, the environment and the food/feed chain. Furthermore, the Directive provides full traceability of GMO products at all market stages and labelling of all GMO products, including those derived but no longer containing GMOs.
ICTSD reporting; "US shifts tactics in GMO clash with EU," FT, 15 October 2002; "EU deadlocked on GMO food control, mulls compromise," REUTERS, 15 October 2002; "EU puts off deal on biotech rules," AP, 10 October 2002.