Pressure To Label GM Food Mounts In EU And US

On 3 July, the European Parliament voted in favour of a proposal put forward by the European Commission on new regulations for the traceability and labelling of genetically modified (GM) food and feed products. While the decision by the Parliament was applauded by environmental NGOs, voices in the US and UK criticised the vote, warning that the European consumers would have to bear the additional costs of implementing the regulations should they be adopted. In related developments, discussions on labelling GM food products, including transgenic fish, are also gaining momentum in the US states of California and Oregon.

Opinions diverge on the Parliamentary vote

The European Parliament adopted the European Commission proposals for GM food labelling and traceability regulations during the first reading on 3 July, including most of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament's Environment Committee earlier in June (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 27 June 2002). The Parliament thereby moved one step closer to establishing EU legislation, which would require the tracing of all GM food and feed products at all stages in the production and marketing chain, and establish a comprehensive labelling system aimed at ensuring consumer choice when buying food containing or derived from GMOs.

The European Parliament supported the Environment Committee's amendments to lower the threshold for accidental presence of GMOs from 1 to 0.5 percent, and to keep in place the de facto moratorium on the approvals of GMOs at least until the new regulation became effective. However, the Parliament rejected some of the more extreme amendments of the proposals, notably an amendment for the compulsory labelling of meat, milk and eggs obtained from animals fed on GM feed. Both the European Commission and the Parliament argue that such a system would not be workable. The European Commission proposals will now be transmitted to the European Council, which is expected to adopt its Common Position this autumn. Another two votes are likely to be needed by the European Parliament over the next year before the labelling and traceability regulations could become law.

The result of the vote evoked differing reactions. Friends of the Earth applauded the decision, saying "this is a major success for European consumers and a serious defeat for the biotech industry which has lobbied hard to water down these proposals". In contrast Britain's Food Standards Agency, the independent food safety watchdog that advises the British government, expressed discontent with the vote, claiming that the legislation would not be enforceable and could lead to the deception of consumers. Similarly, US farm groups and biotech industry representatives -- including the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau, the American Soy Bean Association and Grocery Manufacturers of America -- expressed their disappointment, emphasising that the new traceability measure would require tedious and expensive segregation of GM crops and conventional crops. They furthermore warned that European consumers would have to pay the extra costs and that the legislation was likely to result in a trans-Atlantic trade dispute.

The US and Canada are expected to raise similar concerns at the WTO where the proposed EU labelling and traceability regime have already been discussed in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). At the last SPS Committee meeting in June, the US had informed WTO Members that it would decide shortly whether to formally challenge the continued EU de facto moratorium on the approval of new GMOs at the WTO (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 27 June 2002; referenced above). The outcome of the European Parliament's vote might accelerate further action by the US to initiate a trade dispute, some observers noted.

The US - the next country with labelling legislation?

Labelling of GM food and related legislation are not only being discussed in the EU, but also in the US itself where the California Assembly Committee and consumers in Oregon are currently looking into mandatory labelling requirements for GM fish and foods.

The Californian proposal (AB 791), which would require all transgenic fish and shellfish to be labelled, passed the first vote in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. The main argument used by supporters of the bill resembled that advocated in the EU, namely that "consumers should be entitled to make informed decisions about genetically engineered fish," according to Assembly member Virgina Strom Martin. The AB 791 bill is the first labelling bill for GM foods that has passed a major policy committee in the US.

However, another related bill in California to prohibit the introduction of GM fish into state waters stalled due to strong opposition from biotech industries. The issue of labelling and releasing GM fish is of particular importance in the US as Aqua Bounty Farms is currently applying for permission to market genetically engineered salmon with enhanced growth rates. If the application were approved, this would be the first transgenic animal in the US released for commercial use and human consumption. Conservation groups have expressed serious concerns with regard to GM fish, arguing that genetically engineered fish that escaped from the ocean pens into the environment would likely affect wild populations of fish and cause some species to become extinct within only a few generations.

Regarding GM labelling, consumers in Oregon now hope that they can replicate the precedent set in California. On 5 July, the consumer organisation Oregon Concerned Citizens for Safe Foods handed in over 100,000 signatures to the Oregon Secretary of State's office for a ballot initiative in November 2002 on GM food labelling. Specifically, the proposal suggests that food derived from or processed using genetically engineered materials are labelled by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Ballot initiatives give direct legislative power to the voters to enact new laws, change existing laws or amend the Oregon Constitution. In this case, the number of signatures is sufficient to place an initiative measure on the ballot that would amend the Oregon Constitution

Additional Resources

Proposed EU regulations on labelling and traceability: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/gmo/biotech09_en.pdf; http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/gmo/biotech08_en.pdf

Californian proposed labelling bill for GM fish.

Oregon initiative (No. 23, 2002) searchable online.

ICTSD reporting; "Commission proposals for a trustworthy and environmentally safe approach to GMOs and GM food and feed backed by European Parliament," EU PRESS RELEASE, 3 July 2002; "UK groups hail EU vote on GM labels, swipe at govt stance," REUTERS, 5 July 2002; "Labelling for genetically engineered food may happen in California and Oregon," FISHLINK SUBLEGALS, 26 May 2002.