BioWorld International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium - European Union ministers took a cautious approach Monday to the risks of genetically modified crops contaminating non-GM crops. Meeting here, the EU agriculture council reflected on the current controversy over how serious the risk of contamination is. And they decided that new guidelines are needed to confront the risk.

EU officials already are working on a draft text to provide guidance. That nonlegislative approach is based on the belief among officials that it will be simpler and more efficient for controls to be exercised at a national rather than EU level, to take into account specific regional or local characteristics. Ministers said they expect to see a completed proposal for guidelines by July "at the latest."

But Italy and some other EU member states said during the ministerial meeting that they would like to go further, putting more stringent and binding regulations in place immediately. The tenuous consensus that emerged, however, was to adopt a two-stage approach: the new guidelines should be allowed to function for a period, and on the basis of scientific experience - notably on GM maize and rapeseed - a decision should then be made as to whether co-existence was in fact feasible. If not, then a binding EU legislative framework should be put in place.

A recent EU expert review of coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops examined some of the conflicting pressures in Europe. The official EU starting point is that farmers should be freely able to cultivate the agricultural crops they choose, whether they are GM, conventional or organic. No form of agriculture should be excluded in the EU, according to EU officials. But conflicts inevitably arise, including the legitimacy of limitations imposed via farm management measures, the feasibility of GM-free zones, the liability for damages caused by contamination to farmers growing non-GM crops, and the increased costs for organic and conventional products when they have to take protective measures to avoid contamination at close range.

"Coexistence raises questions which have to be addressed. It is important to be clear about the rules and the legal framework, be it on a national or EU level," said Franz Fischler, commissioner for agriculture, rural development and fisheries. "Let there be no mistake: Co-existence is about economic and legal questions, not about risks or food safety, because only authorized GMOs can be cultivated in the EU."

The most cited example of income loss due to admixture is that of conventional and organic farmers who have to sell their crop at a lower price because of the adventitious presence of GM crops above the authorized threshold level. The opposite example is where a specialty GM crop could depreciate in value because of admixture with non-GM crops.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the European Parliament's environment committee voted to ban traces of GM material in imported products unless exporters can guarantee 95.5 percent purity. That is a more cautious position than the Parliament's scientific committee and the view taken so far by EU member states, which favor a 0.9 percent tolerance level.