Byrne backs new regime
the United States to give Europe's new imposed GM traceability
regulations time to work. The move comes in response to widespread
opposition to the new regime from many food processors across the
Atlantic, writes Anthony Fletcher.
Nonetheless, some US food processors have threatened to issue a complaint with the World Trade Organisation case against what they see as highly anticompetitive legislation.
"These new requirements establish a serious trade barrier that will keep many US food products out of the European market," claimed John Cady, president of the National Food Processors Association (NFPA). "Moreover, the traceability requirements are a classic case of regulatory overkill, putting complex and detailed new requirements on food companies, with no benefit - but with added expense - for consumers."
The new GM rules from Brussels - (EC) 1830/2003 on the Traceability and Labelling of GMOs and (EC) 1829/2003 on Genetically Modified (GM) Food and Feed - are stringent indeed, and reflect European consumer suspicions about food safety. Under the new rules, all foods which contain or consist of GMOs or which are produced from GMOs will have to be labelled regardless of the presence of GM material in the final product.
The EU claims that the rules have been set up to bring choice to the consumer - if they see 'GM ingredient' on the label they can decide to buy, or not. US officials have not yet decided whether to file a WTO case against the legislation.
Byrne has therefore had his work cut out in trying to convince US food manufacturers that the new rules are workable. Earlier this month he assured food processors that there will be an opportunity to adjust the regulations if necessary, as the legislation is up for review after two years.
But one problem that has consistently emerged has been about uneven enforcement by EU member-states. Byrne himself admitted that for the legislation to be effective, a uniform response is required, though he believes that the EU has the muscle to deal with this. The Food Traceability Report quotes him as saying that "if there isn't uniformity, we have mechanisms to deal with that."
Earlier, European Commission food safety chief Paula Testori-Coggi defended the new rules at a conference organised by the National Corn Growers Association. She told industry leaders that the EC would be issuing two technical guidelines, one on sampling and detection of GMOs, and another on applications for authorisation of new biotech products.
However, many US food producers remain highly sceptical. "European consumers will see such labels on food products as `warning labels,'" said Cady. "However, there is no safety or nutrition issue associated with the products of agricultural biotechnology on the market, and there is no scientific basis for requiring the labelling of biotech foods."
There is some good news for US biotech companies, however. Europe's food watchdog has given the green light to a genetically modified maize designed by US firm Monsanto, a move that could herald change as the Commission seeks to end Europe's unofficial six-year ban on new genetically modified foodstuffs.
The moratorium will be under the spotlight next Monday when farm ministers from the EU block meet to debate the authorisation of Bt-11, a GM maize concocted by Swiss agrochemicals firm Syngenta. If the ministers clear the maize for entry into the food market but not for growing, the de facto moratorium - slated by the US as an illegal barrier to trade and that sent it running to a World Trade Organisation dispute panel - would be lifted.
The 15 EU-bloc countries are split on the sensitive issue and a deadlock is likely between the farm ministers. But under the convoluted rules that govern European law, the Commission has the legal power to push through the authorisation, heralding in an end to the ban.
