BioWorld International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Parliament voted enthusiastically for tougher controls on GMOs in its plenary debate in Strasbourg, France, last week, to the open consternation of the European biotechnology industry. There were strong influences at work within the Parliament in advance of the vote, and the proposed new European Union controls were not only approved, but a loud chorus also went up from Socialists and Green Group politicians for the envisaged control provisions to be made even more stringent.

The European biotechnology industry described the vote as "a disappointment for green biotechnology." EuropaBio said the controls will be impossible to implement, will discriminate against new technology, reduce consumer choice and disrupt trade with third countries, "while adding nothing to safety." Simon Barber, director of EuropaBio's plant biotechnology unit, accused the majority in the Parliament of being "unrealistic" and of taking the same over-cautious approach that led to the de facto moratorium of new GMO products in the EU, which has stopped "while the rest of the world evaluates, authorizes and cultivates new products that are bringing significant environmental and economic benefits." EuropaBio said after the vote: "The ability of green biotech to contribute to the goal of Europe becoming the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy, as set out in the EU's own life sciences and biotechnology action plan, is now in question."

Industry was not universally negative about the outcome. The vote was greeted as "a major step forward" by the retail sector. The British Retail Consortium said that "strict traceability and accurate labeling are essential to provide consumers with informed choice and confidence in the use of GM technology in food products."

Retailers nonetheless regretted the call for lower thresholds for the labeling of adventitious presence of authorized GM material in non-GM food. "The existing 1 percent threshold is workable and acts as a legal safety net for operators. A lower threshold may eliminate incentives to ensure non-GM supply lines, as any error would mean failure and force operators to act defensively, indicating contains GMOs' on the majority of food," said Bill Moyes, director general of the British Retail Consortium. EuroCommerce, representing European chambers of commerce, also regretted the decision to lower the threshold, although it expressed satisfaction that Parliament did not extend the traceability and labeling regime to products from animals reared on GMOs.

Xavier Durieu, secretary general of EuroCommerce, insisted that more must be done to improve the climate in which biotechnology is viewed. "Labeling alone is not enough to develop consumer understanding of genetic modification. Communication initiatives should be undertaken and impartial information should be provided by independent sources," he said.

Friends of the Earth Europe greeted the vote with delight, saying it "paved the way for new legislation to give consumers and farmers the ability to avoid GMOs if they choose." They described the vote as "a major victory for civil society groups who have fought to ensure that food products derived from GMO crops are properly labeled." One of its officials, Geert Ritsema, said: "Today's vote is a major success for European consumers and a serious defeat for the biotech industry and the U.S. government, who have lobbied so hard to water down these proposals."

The debate was on two proposals for new legislation: one on traceability and labeling, and the other on limits on genetically modified food and feed. Notably, while the EU proposal was for a 1 percent threshold for accidental or technically unavoidable GMO contamination in food and feed, the Parliament said that should be cut to 0.5 percent. The Parliament called for full traceability and labeling of foods derived from GM crops, labeling of GMO animal feeds, no contamination by unapproved GMOs and a lower threshold of contamination.

The draftswoman of the report on genetically modified food and feed, Austrian Socialist Karin Scheele, welcomed the support for her proposals. She said she was pleased that it proved possible to "maintain the pro-consumer scope" of the proposal against the pro-industry lobby. "Consumers have the right to the best possible information," she said.

The center-right majority group in the Parliament, the European People's Party, voted against the tough new controls, saying that the legislation envisaged would be damaging for producers and consumers, and ultimately unenforceable. Antonios Trakatellis of Greece, the EPP spokesman, said after the vote that the proposals provide no guarantee for the safety of food products. "On the contrary, they will open the door to fraud, will distort competition and will mislead the consumer. At the same time, European producers will face distorted and unfair competition from third countries." Any labeling of adventitious contamination must be based on "a reasonable threshold," he said.

The European Commission took a measured response to the vote, describing it as a step toward "a trustworthy and environmentally safe approach to GMOs," and claiming that the majority of the Parliament's amendments did not alter the general thrust of the original proposals. It did, however, admit it was "pleased that Parliament rejected the more extreme amendments, which would have required, for example, compulsory labeling of meat, milk and eggs obtained from animals fed on GM feed." And it promised it would "hold a firm line in rejecting those amendments which would put significant obstacles in the way of the practical implementation of the legislation and hamper international trade," or "would represent a high cost for the operators without providing significant benefits in terms of risk management."

Speaking on behalf of the Commission, David Byrne, European commissioner for Public Health and Consumer Protection, dismissed the Parliament's calls for tighter thresholds on adventitious contamination. "We have to live in the real world. And this is not just a problem that is exclusive to GMOs. In the production of food, feed and seed, it is practically impossible to achieve end products that are 100 percent pure and totally free from foreign substances," he said. The debate now moves on to the level of European Union ministers, who are expected to reach a view this autumn.

Early next week one of the Parliament's committees will consider a draft report from left-wing Swedish member Jonas Sjöstedt on other new EU proposals covering cross-frontier movement of genetically modified organisms. He is urging 44 amendments to strengthen the envisaged controls, including the imposition of prior written consent before any GMO leaves a country, and a ban on EU exports of GMOs not authorized in the EU.