BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) – Senior European Union policy makers are unclear where they stand on genetically modified food, even after years of debate, and are looking to a world trade ruling that may dictate where to move next.
While the EU resumed approving GM products in 2004 after a break of almost six years, the end of its unofficial biotech ban did not come with the blessing of all 25 governments, which repeatedly fail to agree on GMO policy.
Since 1998, EU member countries have not found enough of a voting majority to agree on any new GMO approvals, even though the European Commission, which is the EU’s executive arm, has rubberstamped five new authorizations on their behalf since the moratorium ended.
Read Also
Farmers urged to be grain-safe this fall
Working around grain bins comes with risk, from farmers falling to drowning in grain: Experts have five tips to help avoid grain-related accidents this harvest.
The limbo is reflected at the commission itself, which says it is following EU law by issuing new approvals, even though nobody in the top echelons seems to be driving policy forward.
The leadership vacuum on GMOs shows few signs of being filled until the World Trade Organization rules on a suit filed against the EU by Argentina, Canada and the United States.
Fearing a new trade war, the commission is keen to show the three complainants that Europe is ready to push GMO applications through the EU system, diplomats say. The WTO is due to issue its ruling in early January.
“The WTO outcome will clarify things and inject some reality into the GMO debate, which at the moment is dominated by the idea that the EU can do whatever it likes,” one said. “The ruling is the only thing that can bring any kind of political movement.”
European shoppers are known for their wariness toward GM products, with opposition polled at slightly more than 70 percent: a stark contrast with the U.S., where they are far more widely accepted.
Six European commissioners are pivotal for the direction of GMO policy in Brussels, representing the environment, trade, agriculture, research, industry and food safety portfolios.
Probably the most pro-biotech is industry commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who said in a speech in September: “The commission, public authorities, academia and industry together should try to present the usefulness of GMOs to the public.”
Officials say Verheugen may get backing from trade commissioner Peter Mandelson to push for accelerated GMO approvals if the WTO attacks EU biotech policy.
However, the other commissioners seem to be sitting more on the fence. Food safety commissioner Markos Kyprianou would like to see an end to the deadlock in GMO votes, where EU countries debate whether to authorize a particular product.
Not convinced about the benefits of GMOs, insiders say Kyprianou does not want EU agriculture to be dominated by biotech to the same extent as in the U.S.
Environment commissioner Stavros Dimas, one of the more GMO-wary commissioners, has refrained from putting GMO cultivation up for debate and looks in no hurry to do so.
As for agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, the main issue to be resolved is coexistence, which is EU jargon for how farmers should separate traditional, organic and GM crops.
Fischer Boel has often said she may consider a legal framework, maybe this year, for how EU governments should regulate coexistence on national territories, which would replace the current non-binding guidelines. However, her rhetoric seems to have faded recently.
“There seems to be a lack of urgency among some of the commissioners to address some of the problems,” said Adrian Bebb, GMO campaigner at lobby group Friends of the Earth Europe.
“They (commission) … know they’re not going to get support from the majority of member states so they’re just playing a long game now.”
Another factor that may force the EU to take a firmer stance on biotechnology – either for or against – will be the commission’s reviews of some of the EU’s plethora of GMO laws, due sometime next year.
“The commission will be under quite a lot of pressure to publish its review of the existing regulatory regime by the summer,” the diplomat said. “The pressure is building all the time for a serious debate and there’s a limit as to how long they (commission) can resist the pressure.”
