In the current troubled geopolitical environment, we must not allow political
divisions in the Atlantic alliance to contaminate the U.S.-EU trade relationship,
now worth $1 billion a day. In particular, it would be a huge mistake to conduct
a trade war over biotechnology that could jeopardize the future of the entire
biotech industry.
The United States is considering taking legal action in the World Trade Organization
against the so-called EU moratorium on approvals of new genetically modiŽed organisms
(GMOs), which it claims constitute an illegal barrier to trade. There are three
reasons why Washington should not take such a step.
A U.S. complaint to the WTO could lead to a backlash among EU consumers against
American products; it could threaten the future of the European biotech industry;
and it would be pointless now that the standstill in the approvals process is
on its way out. In a few months’ time the European Union is likely to adopt
new legislation on the traceability and labeling of food products, as a result
of which the standstill will come to an end.
The European Commission and a number of member states have come out in favor of
biotechnology, in spite of the suspicion European consumers still feel about biotech
food.
This increasing awareness of the standstill’s negative impact on EU industry,
combined with legislative efforts to restore consumer conŽdence and a resumption
of the internal approval process of GMOs in the Commission, have created signiŽcant
momentum toward the adoption of new approvals. This progress should not be destabilized
by a case in the WTO.
The distrust of GM products originated with a series of European food crises that
undermined consumer conŽdence, especially in the regulatory system. It was perhaps
an unfortunate coincidence that GM foods were Žrst introduced to the European
market at the height of the crisis over BSE (“mad cow” disease).
Consumer conŽdence was further eroded by scare-mongering by tabloid newspapers
and certain non-governmental organizations. At the same time, industry employed
a poor marketing strategy: besides bad timing, the Žrst wave of GM agricultural
products beneŽts the farmer but offers no clear, tangible advantage to the consumer.
The mismanagement of the “mad cow” crisis by some national governments,
and the resulting consumer panic, created a need for an EU-wide response –
namely, the creation of a new European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and a new
EU regulatory framework for food safety. This was proposed in 2000 in the Commission’s
White Paper on Food Safety, of which the guiding principle is that food safety
policy must be based on a comprehensive, integrated and science-based approach.
For food safety issues in general, and GM foods in particular, there is a crucial
need to regain consumer conŽdence. Until recently, the European Union had an outdated,
patchwork and cumbersome body of food legislation, which was not good at dealing
with food or animal feed crises. It is worth remembering that feed contamination
was at the root of the majority of recent European food crises.
The latest Eurobarometer opinion survey of consumer attitudes toward biotechnology,
published by the Commission in March, suggests that Europeans continue to distinguish
between different applications of biotechnology. The poll shows general approval
of applications such as genetic testing, the cloning of human cells to help treat
diseases such as Parkinson’s and the production of enzymes to make detergents
less damaging to the environment. A majority of Europeans, however, still disapprove
of GM crops and foods, which they believe to be risky for society without bringing
any beneŽts.
Europeans, however, are not against new technology. Robert Zoellick, the U.S.
Trade Representative, was wrong to describe Europeans as “Luddites,”
as he did recently. The great majority of Europeans think that telecommunications,
computers and information technology, the Internet, solar energy and mobile telephones
will improve our way of life over the next 20 years. But food is different.
About 70 percent of Europeans have conŽdence in doctors, university scientists,
consumer organizations and patients’ organizations, according to the Eurobarometer
poll, which was based on a representative sample of 16,500 respondents in all
15 member states. Fewer than 50 percent, however, expressed conŽdence in their
own governments and in industry, demonstrating how hard it is for governments
to educate the European citizen about biotech.
Respondents were asked if they would buy or consume GM foods if they contained
fewer pesticide residues, were more environmentally friendly, tasted better, contained
less fat, were cheaper, or were on the menu in a restaurant. In each of those
cases, more Europeans said they would not buy or eat GM foods than that they would.
It is true, of course, that what people say and what they do are sometimes rather
different. Nevertheless, the survey indicates that while most Europeans are in
favor of medical applications of biotechnology, they are still skeptical of agricultural
and food-related biotechnology.
Such resistance is seriously slowing down biotech research and development in
the European Union, particularly in the private sector, and may endanger Europe’s
competitiveness in this promising sector of new technology, according to a recent
study. The number of applications for Želd trials of GM organisms in the European
Union has fallen by 76 percent since 1998. In the whole of Europe in 2002 there
were only 44 Želd trials, compared to 2,300 in the United States.
Research into GM organisms has also seriously suffered. The study found that 39
percent of respondents had canceled research and development projects on GM organisms
over the last four years. The proportion was even higher in the private sector
alone, where 61 percent of respondents had canceled projects.
This is why the European Commission’s paper, Life Sciences and Biotechnology,
which has been endorsed by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament,
strongly argues that EU member states need to act to ensure the survival of the
European biotechnology industry. The paper says that Europe should stop heaping
suspicion on biotechnology.
Biotech applications, of course, go beyond agricultural biotech and also include
pharmaceutical, industrial and environmental uses. The Commission, however, is
concerned about the detrimental impact the attitude of European consumers, and
the absence of new authorizations in agricultural biotech, has had on the European
biotech industry and European competitiveness as a whole. A ßight of companies
and a brain drain from Europe urgently need to be reversed.
According to Commission Žgures, by 2010 the biotechnology industry will account
for $2 trillion worth of worldwide business. But in Europe jobs are being lost
and thousands of potential new jobs are being jeopardized.
The fear of GM food and the resulting pressure from public opinion induced Žve
member states to block the approval process for GM food products in October 1998.
These governments said they were willing to resume the approval process only if
new legislation were adopted on traceability and labeling.
That is why the Commission came up with a new directive setting out rules for
authorizing the deliberate release of live GM organisms into the environment,
which was adopted in October 2002. A particularly important change is the introduction
of mandatory labeling and traceability at all stages of bringing a product to
market, as well as mandatory environmental monitoring. Two pending draft legislative
proposals ßesh out the traceability and labeling requirements.
In the Council of Ministers of Agriculture in January, ten member states explicitly
asked the Commission to defer all pending applications for GM food and feed until
the two new regulations enter into force. In other words, the standstill in the
approval process will disappear soon, since the draft regulations will probably
be adopted before the end of the year.
Nevertheless, like the precautionary principle, traceability seems to be a loaded
term for some U.S. policy makers and regulators. Some, in fact, even refuse to
acknowledge that “traceability” is a word in the English language.
Like it or not, however, traceability is here to stay. The concept is likely to
gain ground in the United States, too, for example in such areas as the Žght against
bioterrorism and country-of-origin labeling requirements.
“Traceability” is legally deŽned as “the ability to trace the
history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identiŽcations”.
The objectives are:
• To facilitate targeted withdrawals of products should an unforeseen risk
to human health or the environment be established.
• To monitor the potential effects of speciŽc products on the environment
over ten years.
• To control and verify labeling claims.
All foods, whether pre-packaged or not, are already subject to extensive labeling
requirements under existing EU legislation. The aim of the new proposal on labeling
is to inform consumers of the exact nature and characteristics of the food, so
as to enable them to make individual choices. Animal feed will also have to be
labeled, but the labels will usually be seen only by the importer (in the case
of imports) and by the farmer.
The purpose of labeling is not to inform the consumer whether a food is safe or
not – it is not a warning. If a food is unsafe, it cannot be placed on the
market. The current EU labeling system requires GM foods and seeds to be labeled
if traces of DNA or protein resulting from genetic modiŽcation are detectable
in the Žnal product. Labeling is not required, however, for products, such as
meat and eggs, that come from animals fed with GM feed.
Now that the internal EU approval procedure has restarted, four GM organisms could
be ready for Žnal approval by July at the earliest, with others to follow in September
or October. This would more or less coincide with Žnal adoption of the labeling
and traceability legislation, allowing member states to put an end to the standstill.
It would not be in the U.S. interest to interrupt this progress by launching a
WTO case, considering that we are nearing the end of the tunnel and that the approval
process has restarted vigorously. Such an action by the United States would not
only cause a signiŽcant setback to consumer conŽdence, but it might lead also
to a more general backlash by European consumers. Europeans would see U.S. recourse
to the WTO as an attempt to force unwanted American food down their throats.
The consequence might be to stigmatize GM food and feed even more profoundly,
killing GM food in Europe for years to come. In the light of the strong European
feelings about the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq, the worst-case scenario
could be an EU boycott of U.S. products.
Another consideration is that the WTO should not be forced to make decisions on
the legitimacy of measures that reßect societal choices, which could undermine
its credibility in the eyes of the public.
Equally, a further, possibly fatal setback to the European biotech industry would
clearly not bode well for the industry as a whole. Biotech would be perceived
as being a U.S. monopoly, which would be a mistake. That is why the survival of
the EU biotech industry is important from a global perspective.
As for the future of GM food in Europe, I am convinced that with good food legislation
in place, the scares will gradually go away. If, in addition, the biotech industry
comes up with new products that have a real and clear added value for the consumer,
Europeans will come to accept them.
Tony Van der haegen is Minister-Counselor for Agriculture, Fisheries and Consumer Affairs at the Delegation of the European Commission in Washington. He is responsible for consumer affairs, food safety, and in particular, biotechnology. He previously served in the Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection in Brussels from 1990 to 2000, and was Head of the Department's International Relations Unit dealing with consumer policy, food safety and Codex issues starting in 1995.
go to top
