EU: Biotech troublemaker or food protector?

The issue has everything to do with the politics of biotech advances relating to food. Many activists and consumers feel they are being left out of the democratic process of deciding what goes into the food chain. Their viewpoints are expressed in a paper published last year for UBC's Institute for European Studies. "In other words, the issue of GMOs is loaded with meanings that go well beyond the mere regulation of biotechnology," professors Yves Tiberghien and Sean Starrs state. "The response to GMOs has come to be seen as a proxy for a larger institutional response to globalisation and the democratic deficit. Many actors have drawn a line in the sand over GMOs. The EU's regulatory response and global leadership with regards to GMOs may signal a growing willingness and ability of the EU to push for new international regulations to accompany economic globalisation." EU countries, with their powerful farmers’ unions and activist consumers, want to restrict the use of GM seed, food and products, or at least have it clearly labelled. Current EU requires that all food be tracked and labelled if it contains 0.9 per cent or more traceable GM content, along with derivatives such as paste and ketchup from a GM tomato. Products derived from GM processing aids, such as GM enzymes or yeast, are not affected. A proposed package of legislation would extend this labelling to foods without any traces of transgenics under the Cartegena Protocol being discussed this week in Montreal. The new legislations would also impose labelling and a traceability system based on documentation throughout the food and feed manufacture system. The regulatory issues of risk analysis and labelling are currently harmonised by Codex Alimentarius, a UN health body. The EU shift against GMOs came late, in a fragmented manner, and goes against the EU's economic interests and one that is holding back biotechnology food research in the bloc, they say. "Indeed, the EU took time both to find a common voice on the issue of biotechnology and to move from a concern to technological competitiveness to a primary concern about health and environment," they say. Even though the EU's environment directorate gained leadership within the EU commission over GMOs by the late 1980s and led the way to the drafting of two restrictive regulations in 1990, these two regulations made it difficult enough for the EU to block the approval of GM products. As a result, 18 GM products were approved for market consumption between October 1991 and October 1998. Only in June 1999 did the EU council reach a broad agreement in favour of a full moratorium on new approvals of GMOs. At the level of states, only three states acted consistently against GMOs throughout the 1990s: Denmark, Greece, and Austria. Big states, particularly France, Germany, and the UK, wavered back and forth. With its strong presence in the biotech industry, France took a position as the sole pro-GMO state in 1997 and 1998, allowing the EU to approve Novartis corn Bt-11. By 1999, France had turned anti-GMO, leading the battle against the US in words and at the World Trade Organisation. “The EU chose not only to pass the strictest GMO regulations in the world, so strict that the industry argues that they are unenforceable, but also to pursue tight international regulations through a new UN treaty and through stonewalling at the WTO," they say. "These latter steps partly contradict the EU’s prior commitments to the WTO." But even with a common regulatory regime, the issue of biotech food within the EU results in deep divisions between the various countries. As reported last week by FoodNavigator, a sister publication to Food Production Daily, food and feed experts from the member states failed to reach a qualified majority that would have cleared the way for imports of Monsanto's Mon 863 maize into the EU. Reflecting disparate opinions on biotech foods, the vote saw ten members in favour (including the UK and France), eight voting against (Greece and Italy for example) and six abstaining. EU Actions Regulating GMO Modified from a presentation by Professors Yves Tiberghien and Sean Starrs of the University of British Columbia, The EU as Global Troublemaker in Chief: a paper presented in Chicago 13 March 2004. 1982: European Parliament and Council adopt non-binding recommendation from Commission (1980) requiring only notification of rDNA work 1984 Germany: Bundestag inquiry on Gene Technology (pushed by Greens). A gene law passed in 1990 1986: France creates Commission of biomolecular genetics (CGB) to encourage biotechnology. Subsidies given for GM crop testing. French company Rhone Poulenc (just privatized) plays key role 1986 Denmark passes Environment and Gene Technology Act; Commission proposal of framework to regulate biotechnology 1986-1987: Single European Act gives EC new role in environment and R&D. 1990: Directives 90/219 (Contained Use) and 90/220 (Deliberate Release) drafted by DG XI. Tight approval procedure for GM products but requires state unanimity to refuse approval in the face of Commission’s OK 1992: France transposes EC Directives and decides not to open a public inquiry on biotech; Maastricht Treaty creates new EU responsibility: consumer protection and public health policy 1993: Norway law on genetic technology, bans GMO imports that are not "socially justifiable" 1994: UK Conference of Citizens (state sponsored) proposes labeling; Denmark and Sweden pass GMO labeling law. April 1994: EU Commission and EU states sign Marrakech Treaty (WTO founding treaty). Includes two key pro-GMO features: the "science-based" health and phytosanitary standards and intellectual property rights on GMO seeds (part of TRIPS); global coalition of NGOs against GMOs forms in response to TRIPS (Third World Network, ECOROPA) Feb 1997: Austria bans Novartis Corn Bt (although approved by EU); Mar 1997: Italy votes ban on growing GMO corn; Apr 1997: Austrian public petition against GMOs garners signatures from 20 per cent of voters 1997-1998: French triple flip flop on Novartis corn Bt-11. France’s highest court (Conseil d’Etat) freezes the authorisation Dec 1997: Treaty of Amsterdam enshrines precautionary principle and specifically allows states to adopt measures to protect environment and health, even if it impedes free trade (Art 95) 1998: Swiss Referendum on GMOs: 66 per cent vote against GMO ban May 1998: European Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnology Inventions (98/44/EC), harmonizing national legislation, allowing patenting of plants and animals. June 1998: European Patent Office (EPO)’s Administrative Council adopts similar resolution (applying to all 20 signatories, including non-EU states). Oct 1998-Feb 1999: Netherlands (first), Italy, and Norway sue at the ECJ for annulment of EU patent directive Jan 1999: Greek ban on GM canola Feb 1999: Cartagena negotiations over biosafety: clash between EU/developing countries, stalemate June 24, 1999: de facto moratorium on new GMO approvals decided by council of ministers Jan 2000: Montreal Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, EU emerges as pro-regulation leader Sept 2000: Starlink Corn scandal in the US, Japan. Developed by French company Aventis Dec 2000: Final Report of EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum: admits need for labeling and some limits on IPR. Feb 2001 (implemented Oct 2002): Very tight directive passed by Council and EP on the release and tracking of all GMOs (Directive 2001/18 replacing 90/220) Jan-April 2002: GMOs appear as one key issue in French presidential elections. Parties are divided. Anti-GMO parties prosper in election. Aug 2002: EU ratifies Cartagena Protocol. EU-US controversy over food-aid to Africa. US aid refused by Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique because it contains GMOs May-Aug 2003: WTO legal complaint against EU (launched by US, Canada, Argentina). EU commission pushing for rule-based regime and end of ban July 2003: France. Anti-GMO activist Jose Bové jailed. Strengthens anti-GMO feelings. EP vote marks adoption of tight new regulations on labeling (with low threshold of 0.9 per cent) July 2003: Commission sues Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Spain at the European Court of Justice for not implementing biotech Directive 2001/18 Sept 2003: EU Commission sues eight states at the ECJ for their refusal to transpose EU patent directive: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Lux, Netherlands, Sweden Dec 2003-Jan 2004: Battles over approval of Syngenta sweet corn Bt-11 and Monsanto NK corn. EU punts and does not lift moratorium. States are divided equally