In Europe, Consumers Think Twice:
A Look at the Uproar Over Genetically Engineered Food

Written by Daniel Hausknost
GLOBAL 2000
Vienna, Austria
IATP Visiting Scholar
Summer 1998

Produced by IATP
Edited by Marilyn Adams
July 10, 1998

In Europe, Consumers Think Twice:
A Look at the Uproar Over Genetically Engineered Food

Written by Daniel Hausknost
Produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
7-10-98

Contents

Introduction

The More They Know, The More Careful They Get: Europeans and Genetic Engineering

Relevant European Regulations on Biotech Issues

Directive 90/220

Case Study: The bt-Resistant Corn Developed by Novartis

The Novel Food, Feed, and Seed Regulations

The Struggle for Non-Genetically Modified Food

Overview of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the European Union

Conclusion

Tables
Table A: Approved GMOs in the European Union
Table B: Current GMO Applications in the European Union

Introduction

In April 1997, some Austrian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) called on the electorate to sign a referendum against genetically modified food and plants. The three main demands were

• no production or trade of genetically modified food in Austria
• no field trials or deliberate releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Austria
• an Austrian "no" vote on the European directive, which allows patenting of life forms and genes.

At first the organizers of the referendum forecast a successful outcome with about 400,000 signatures. This would have been twice as many as the recent protests against the USDA’s organic food standard regulation in the USA. All predictions were surpassed, however. More than 1,200,000 Austrians signed the referendum within five days. If these were parliamentary elections, the opponents of genetically engineered food would have become the third biggest voting block in Austria at that time. Taking into account that a referendum in Austria is not a binding yes or no decision, but a voluntary occasion to express one’s political will, this result was overwhelming. Since then the Austrian parliament had to deal with this issue and the government had to set a new course in their biotech policy.

As a result the Austrian Parliament approved one of the toughest laws in the world on genetically modified organisms in April 1998. It includes a high fine for anyone who illegally releases genetically modified organisms into the environment and holds companies liable for any environmental damage caused by GMOs. The law also allows those living near proposed GMO release sites to be parties in legal action, including individuals as well as mayors of neighboring villages. Also the scientific panel, which determines and approves new GMO release sites, has been expanded to include a number of ecologists, entomologists and other non-geneticists. Whereas environmentalists are complaining about their initial demands not being fulfilled, industry representatives such as the Novartis Austria president Erwin Schillinger call the law the strictest in the world.

A similar referendum was defeated in Switzerland on June 7, this year. The defeat can be explained by the differences between the direct democratic instruments used in Austria and Switzerland. A referendum in Austria is successful upon acquiring 100,000 signatures (about 2% of the electorate), but it is only a non-binding mandate to the Parliament which then deals with the issue as it will. In Switzerland, however, a referendum is a yes or no vote on a subject, which becomes law if more than 50% of the voters support it. The defeat in Switzerland was clear (about 65% no and 35% yes), yet the vote demonstrated the high degree of concern among the population. Another factor to consider is that Switzerland is home to some of the most powerful biotech-giants in the world. These corporations invested several million Swiss Francs in a huge campaign against the referendum.

The More They Know, The More Careful They Get : Europeans and Genetic Engineering

In a Union-wide opinion poll conducted at the request of the European Commission in 1996, Europeans expressed their views on so called "modern biotechnology" and genetic engineering. Key findings of the survey are outlined below.

• Modern biotechnology, particularly genetic engineering (GE), is a very important issue to most European citizens.
• The expectations of Europeans that GE and biotechnology will improve their way of life, are relatively low compared to other modern technologies such as information technology, solar energy and telecommunication.
• The two applications of modern biotechnology considered least useful and posing the greatest risk to society are use in food production and the introduction of human genes into animals to produce organs for human organ transplants.
• Europeans consider it very unlikely that the introduction of genetic engineering will lead to a substantial reduction in world hunger.
• Only three out of ten Europeans think some degree of risk resulting from modern biotechnology should be accepted, if this would increase economic competitiveness in Europe.
• Only three out of ten Europeans would be willing to buy genetically modified fruit if it tasted better.
• The vast majority of Europeans feel genetically modified food products should be clearly labeled.
• A majority of respondents tended to agree that Europe should stick to traditional breeding methods rather than change the hereditary characteristics of plants and animals through genetic engineering.
• Fewer than one in four Europeans are confident that current regulations are sufficient to protect people from any risks linked to modern biotechnology.
• The more "objective" knowledge of modern biotechnology Europeans have, the higher is their perception of possible severe risks that technology might pose to society. While only 27 percent of vastly uninformed people are aware of global risks posed by genetic engineering, 57 percent of the well-informed people are aware of those risks.

Source: European Commission, Directorate General XII: "The Europeans and modern biotechnology", Eurobarometer 46.1, Brussels-Luxembourg 1997

Relevant European Regulations on Biotech Issues

Most of the fifteen member states of the European Union (EU) had their own national regulations on modern biotechnology issues before the European Union attempted to regulate the matters of releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the introduction and labeling of genetically modified food. The national regulations were very ambiguous and so a newly written set of regulations became necessary within the process of European Integration.

The EU legislation on biotechnology issues is based on the Directive 90/220, which regulates the market releases of genetically modified plants and the release of GMOs in the environment. Directive 90/220 is currently in the process of revision, however, with additional regulations being written to cover the labeling of genetically modified products. These are the Novel Food Regulation, the Novel Feed Regulation and the Novel Seed Regulation.

Directive 90/220

Directive 90/220 regulates the releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment and the approval of genetically modified plant varieties for the internal market of the EU.

The legal process for countries applying for market approval of a new genetically engineered plant variety turned out to be rather undemocratic, as the European Commission has far more power in this process than the Council (of ministers) or the scientific committees.

Usually a biotech company files its application for the market release of a new genetically engineered plant variety at national government agencies in one or more countries. If the concerned country (-ies) approve the request, they have to send the file on to the European Commission. The Commission distributes the file to all member countries, asking for comments. Based on these comments by national authorities, the Commission prepares a proposal, whether to approve or to reject the request (usually to approve).

The first step of the approval process is the "Article 21 Committee". This Committee consists of government officials of all the member countries, who are responsible for the accomplishment of the directive 90/220 in their countries. In order to approve the request, the Committee must vote in favor with a qualified majority. If the Committee approves the request, the Commission immediately issues all measures necessary for the Union-wide market release. If no qualified majority in favor of the request can be reached, the case moves to the second phase.

The second phase of approval involves the Council of Ministers, which consists of all ministers of one department, including their expert teams. In this case all European ministers of the environment gather to decide on approval of a genetically modified plant. The Council moves in one of three directions:

1. The Council accepts the proposal of the Commission to approve the request by a qualified vote (62 of 87 votes).
2. The Council rejects the proposal of the Commission to approve the request. However, this can only be accomplished by a consensual vote (87 of 87 votes). This also means that the country which filed the request would have to vote against its own request.
3. The application does not earn enough Council votes for either acceptance or rejection and the case is referred back to the European Commission.

At the third and final phase (when the Council can not find a decision) the Commission has the right to act on their own proposal without any further consultation.

The voting process in the Council of Ministers is not a democratic one. The ministers of the member countries have practically no chance to resist the Commission’s will. Even though a majority of countries may oppose the market release of a particular GMO, the case will be returned to the Commission, which has the power to approve the release. If there is severe disagreement in the Council, the only strategy is to delay the decision to give the Commission the opportunity to withdraw its proposal in an effort to safe face, politically.

Case Study: The bt-Resistent Corn Developed by Novartis

Already in 1994 Ciba Geigy (now Novartis) filed a request for the market release of their new bt-corn in France.

Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) is a bacterium that produces a substance which is poisonous to pests. This "bt-toxin" has been used successfully in organic agriculture to fight pests in a sustainable way. The poison is natural and its effect expires after a couple of days. It is only used when needed and has no side effects on the environment when used responsibly. Ciba Geigy, however, removed the gene responsible for producing the poison, and inserted it into the DNA of corn plants, so the plants produce the poison within their metabolism. As environmentalists and agricultural scientists claim, this permanent presence of the poison in the field leads to an unnatural selection-process among the pests. Two thirds to three fourths of the insects are killed, while the fittest can resist the poison, which is expressed more weakly in the plants than it would be when applied directly to the fields. Thus, a certain amount of pests become bt-resistant and therefore a threat to future crops. In order to insert the bt-gene into the corn-DNA, Ciba scientists used an antibiotic-resistant marker gene. This gene, they proclaimed, was "necessary" to evaluate whether the new gene was inserted properly into the corn-DNA, as it "marks" the new DNA-sequence when treated with antibiotics. This antibiotic-resistant gene was the subject of major criticism not only from consumer activists and environmentalists, but also from doctors and medical scientists. It is possible, opponents say, for microorganisms in the human digestive tract to incorporate the antibiotic-resistant gene into their DNA and become invulnerable to antibiotics. This would mean a serious threat to human health and to the medical system.

France approved the Ciba request and filed it to the Commission. The Commission distributed the application to the member states and on the basis of their comments proposed the approval of the bt-corn application. In the "Article 21 Committee" the proposal, however, did not reach the necessary qualified majority: Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom voted "no", four more member states – Germany, Luxembourg, Italy and Greece abstained and the Netherlands’ vote was invalid. This remarkable vote was the consequence of several unsatisfactory evidences within the Ciba application, such as a missing risk assessment of the bt-corn, which is required in the directive 90/220.

Therefore the case moved to the second phase, where the Council of Ministers of the Environment had to decide. They could, however, neither approve (qualified majority) nor reject (consent) the proposal of the Commission, although 13 of the 15 member states opposed the proposal. In order to avoid a forced approval by the Commission, which would have been the next phase, the Council did not officially vote on the subject in the hope that the Commission would withdraw the proposal. Austria fueled the discussion by handing out five more scientific studies about pest-resistance and antibiotic-resistance to the Commission. In response, the Commission enacted three more Scientific Committees to evaluate the criticism and at the same time promised to execute whatever outcomes of the committees.

In December 1996 the Commission published the results of the Scientific Committees, which largely declared the new crop variety as safe. Despite the far reaching criticism of a large variety of scientists, environmentalists, consumer groups and member states the Commission issued market approval for the bt-corn, developed by Ciba-Geigy, in mid-December 1996.

On December 23, 1996, Austria proclaimed its intent to make use of Article 16 (90/220), which allows a member state to ban an approved genetically modified crop for (no longer than) three months on its own territory, if there is scientific evidence of a threat to the environment or to health. During these three months, the whole procedure starts again in the Article 21 Committee in order to determine whether the ban is justified or not. In January 1997, Austria enacted a ban on the bt-corn, according to Article 16 (90/220), subsequently accompanied by Italy and Luxembourg. Soon, "Article 16" became a standing term amongst Austrian journalists and a symbol of the resistance against "Gene-Food" amongst Austrian consumers. In fact, the article 16-procedure took far longer than three months; it is already 18 months since Austria issued the ban. Again, the Article 21 Committee could not come to a conclusion and passed the issue to the Council of Ministers. On June 16, 1998 the Council of Ministers of the Environment should have voted on the issue. It did not, because the Commission did not deliver their proposal until June 11, allowing too little time to find a decision. Moreover the European Parliament is supposed to give a statement on the issue before the Council’s vote, but the Parliament’s deadline for its statement is not until July 15. However on July 1, Austria starts its presidency of the European Union for half a year. There are rumors that the Austrian government has made a deal with the Commission that no decision on the corn issue will be made during Austria’s chair. This would mean another six-month’s delay. If the Austrian ban will be overruled after this postponement, stubborn Austria announced it would challenge the decision at the European Supreme Court in order to reinforce Austria’s right to ban the genetically modified maize. Maybe this particular battle can not be won for the consumers in the end, but the European approval system and the authorities behind it have become very cautious in recent months.

Also in France, the authorities, which at first applied for approval of two GE-corn strains (also made by Novartis), now refuse to sign the final approval paper, which has provoked outrage in the United States where this corn is grown already and is part of every shipload leaving US ports. The US usually does not segregate the different varieties of the same crop (such as different corn or soy strains), making it considerably vulnerable to a ban against selected strains, since it is now possible to block the whole trade of a crop. The French refusal to approve this corn means that it is banned from the whole European Union, as France is the applicant and has to sign the final approval paper. That is why the US has not sold any shipment of corn to Europe in 1998 so far (except to Spain and Portugal, who have special agreements with the US). Even in Spain and Portugal, the import of US corn has been cut drastically, since the genetically modified strains are not approved on the entire territory of the European Union.

The US considers this decision as a violation of the Free Market and of Free Trade Treaties between Europe and America. Rather than challenging France at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Clinton administration may retaliate against France in a yet unclear way. The US claims that the strains in question have been proven save by EU authorities and scientific committees, and that therefore there is no reason to postpone the approval of the strains any further. But EU officials say France’s decision to block the two strains of corn is justified under the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, which allows members to set their own level of phytosanitary protection. France is still concerned about the safety of these strains, as they contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes as well as herbicide resistance-genes. France scheduled a number of public hearings on GMOs, which shall take place before or during summer, a period which is too long for US officials. They say, retaliation or compensation can only be prevented if France approves the genetically engineered corn strains within a month, starting early June.

The Novel Food, Feed and Seed Regulations

The Novel Food Regulation can be considered an "offspring" of the Directive 90/220, as the European Commission soon found out, that 90/220 was not adequate to cover the whole issue of genetically modified organisms. Also, there is a difference between a "directive" and a "regulation;" the directive has to be implemented into the national legal system of the member states, allowing them to use their own words and measures. States, whose laws are in no contradiction with the subject of the directive anyway, do not need to adapt their laws. A directive is directed to states, not to individuals. Individuals can not be accused of violating a directive. A regulation, however, is a law with direct impact on everyone inside the European Union. It is directed to individuals (if appropriate) and companies, as well as state authorities and governments. A regulation is directly enacted as a law in the member country’s legal system. It is stronger than existing national law, and in case of legal contradictions, the national law has to assimilate to the European law.

Whereas the directive 90/220 operates on a state level and regulates the processes of approval of GMOs, the Novel Food Regulation (NFR) regulates the criteria of food labeling, which are to be carried out by every concerned company within the Union. The NFR also regulates the approval of genetically modified foods. If a company wants to release a new processed food product on the market, which contains GMOs, it has to act according to the NFR. Although the Novel Food Regulation exists, the more detailed rules of execution are still missing. They would include circumstantial rules about the wording of the label and where it has to be placed on the product. As these issues are the most controversial and most heavily disputed among food producers, retailers, consumer organizations and environmentalists, with their own points of view, the prospects for a prompt resolution to the conflict are slim.

The Novel Feed and Novel Seed Regulations have been drafted, but are still in very preliminary stages. For European politicians, the Novel Food Regulation is a priority. The Novel Feed and the Novel Seed Regulation will probably be designed after the model of the Novel Food Regulation.

The contents of the Novel Food Regulation as issued in late 1997, include:

• Every genetic modification in foods, which can be detected by scientific means, results in a label on the food product. But it is unclear, who has to undertake the scientific proof of the genetic manipulation. Is the food producer or European authorities or someone else supposed to send the product to a laboratory in order to get it labeled? The problem arises, when companies do not know, whether some of their ingredients are derived from a genetically engineered organism or not. It was the experience of GLOBAL 2000 that a majority of companies is entirely unaware of the origins of their ingredients. For them, corn is corn and soy is soy, as it always was. Therefore, there is a high chance that many products will not be labeled because of a lack of knowledge among the companies which produce them. Environmental and consumer organizations will be obliged to employ biotech labs with food samples.
• The wording of the label is not yet defined. The suggestions range from "genetically modified" to " improved with the help of modern biotechnology". The Novel Food Regulation itself is only the legal framework, whereas all the details from the label wording to letter size have yet to be defined by the Commission and published as "executive rules".
• A majority of food products will not be labeled even if they do contain derivatives of GMOs. The "Endless Summer" or "Flavr Savr" Tomato would have to be labeled if sold as whole vegetables. But ketchup, made of the same GE-tomatoes, would not require a label since tomato puree is not an organism and thus does not require a label. This resolution is highly unsatisfactory to consumers, since no one can know for sure, whether they are eating genetically modified substances or not.
• Products, which have been approved within the European Union already, such as Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Soybean or Novartis’ bt-corn, are not covered by the Regulation. As the NFR is not retroactive, those products do not need to be labeled. But this fact is highly incomprehensable from a consumer’s point of view. Therefore the European Commission issued a special regulatory measure for soy and corn. In fact, this single law is more accurate and effective than the whole Novel Food Regulation. Soybeans, corn and products, which contain derivatives of these grains, have to be labeled as "genetically modified", if the modified DNA can be detected in the final product. Also, ingredients which are processed and are no longer GMOs, but contain modified DNA, were included in this single regulation. Still, this "improvement" (compared to the Novel Food Regulation) leaves some 80% of foods containing soy- or corn derivatives unlabeled, because most processed foods contain either edible soy oil or soy lecithin. The DNA in soy oil and lecithin is mostly denaturalized, and thus undetectable. Now only products, which contain soy-flour, soy meal or concentrated soy proteins are left for labeling, and they are not very many.
• The Novel Food Regulation explicitly excludes food additives such as enzymes (cheese production, fruit juices, etc.), vitamins, artificial sweeteners or aromatic substances, although genetic engineering is most frequently utilized in this field.

Furthermore, the Regulation will not be able to prevent the import of mixtures containing both genetically altered and conventional commodities. Soybeans are a good example. In 1998, about 30% of US grown soybeans were derived from Monsanto’s genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" strain. But the US agriculture system, very dependent on the big businesses, is not ready to segregate crops in the grain elevators or at the grain terminals in the major ports. Therefore, all foods containing soy or soy derivatives are potentially genetically modified. The Novel Food Regulation, however, requires neither segregated importation of genetically modified and conventional crops nor labeling of these crops on the containers or bulks. It is therefore incapable of assuring the consumer the informed choice he / she deserves. The only significant change will be that those products containing the intact DNA of engineered soybeans (maybe around 10-15% of products containing engineered soy derivatives) will require a label. This makes a total of 6-8% of all foods sold in grocery stores and supermarkets. Bearing in mind that 60% of all foods contain some soy derivatives, this solution is more of a fraud than an opportunity to choose for consumers. As time passes, more engineered products apart from soy and corn will enter the market, but most of them will be able to "hide" their engineered DNA away from the law and the consumers. Most such products will contain genetically engineered food additives, which do not require a label, or derivatives of other GE-crops, where the DNA has been denaturalized during processing. Every now and then a "real" GMO, such as a genetically engineered lettuce, tomato or strawberry might come along and enter our market shelves. But these will be the more "exotic" products, attracting public attention while our traditional and fully familiar brands turn into "under cover" GMOs without our notice.

The main problem of the Novel Food Regulation seems to be one of distinction between "genetically modified" and "conventional" products. Two different approaches are incorporated into the European legislation so far:

• The first approach utilized by the Novel Food Regulation matches the end of genetic engineering with the end of the organism. A GE tomato is a living organism, which has to be labeled as a genetically modified food. The pulp of this tomato on a pizza in your local restaurant is not an entire organism anymore and therefore not worth labeling. This approach is neither logical nor consistent. But most political analysts predict that the European Commission will change its mind on this approach before the Regulation becomes law.
• The second approach, proving the presence of "live" engineered DNA, was incorporated in the single regulation covering genetically engineered soy and corn. It is a major improvement to the approach above but creates a range of new problems for both the food industry and consumers. European bureaucrats defined the detectability of engineered DNA as the borderline of their interest. Wherever and whenever scientific methods are incapable of proving the presence of "living" engineered DNA, the particular product is considered "conventional." As harmless as this may sound, scientists who have experience with the Mad Cow Disease or BSE, and its genetic basis, think differently.

Consider the case of Mad Cow Disease. The meal of dried sheep corpses, which was fed to cows over decades in Great Britain, was "denaturalized" by "toasting" it for 20 minutes at 150 degrees Celsius. It is common knowledge that the easiest way of killing germs in food is cooking the food properly, i.e., well done rather than rare. Feed mills prepared the sheep "flour" the same way. All the tests found the remaining proteins from the sheep corpses sterile, and therefore not hazardous from a bacterial perspective. However, the dangerous "prion", which is the protein responsible for the outbreak of the BSE-disease, was able to stay "alive" and cause damage despite its presumed denaturalization. This is one example of the supposed "miracles" of biotechnology, which filled the European public with a big portion of suspicion and skepticism about the promises of the Genetic Revolution.

The BSE example mirrors the current discussion among scientists - whether or not we know enough about life to manipulate it. Discovering the BSE-related "prion" made evident that the process of information transfer at the nuclear level of life exceeds the knowledge geneticists work with when they manipulate DNA. Proteins are even more important elements of life, as they are nearly infinitely complex and multiple in their appearance. While genes work as the "software" of an organism, the proteins, which are created according to the genetic information, follow orders as some kind of "workers in a computerized factory;" they create the "hardware" of the organism. And every genetic manipulation creates unknown proteins with sometimes unpredictable features.

Therefore the Novel Food Regulation can meet only some of the political and commercial needs for labeling, whereas it is powerless to set rules which are scientifically and ethically sound. According to most consumer and environmental advocates and organizations there is only one labeling approach which could be entitled as politically, scientifically and ethically acceptable - the approach of traceability.

Traceability requires documentation all along the trading line for genetically modified crops. The seeds of a GE crop must be labeled as well as the containers and bulks in which the harvested crops are shipped. Processed derivatives of genetically modified organisms, including food additives, must be labeled as well. If a food product contains even one of these ingredients or additives, it must say so on the package. As long as we do not know the whole truth about genetic engineering and its consequences, consumer groups believe this is the only thinkable approach to labeling.

The Struggle For Non-Genetically Modified Food

As soon as the first rumors occurred in 1995, that genetically modified strains of soybeans and corn would be shipped to Europe without labeling or segregation of the shipments, European environmentalists and consumer advocates started the battle against the genetic contamination of their food sources. It was evident that the companies, which launched these new strains had a strategy of intrusion in mind. The only way to market genetically modified food ingredients that no one had asked for, was to add them to the supply line at the very beginning and to pretend that they were "substantially equivalent" to so-called conventional crops, so that any attempt of segregating them later would be futile.

The media’s interest in this discussion was remarkable from the beginning and soon genetic engineered foods became a major issue in many countries in Europe. One of the first things concerned organizations did was poll the public’s opinion on this important issue. In early 1996, the Austrian Gallup Institute, one of the best recognized institutes for social studies, reported the following results:

• 67% of Austrians oppose the usage of genetic engineering to produce foods. (49% strictly against, 18% somewhat against)
• 74% of Austrians would like to see mandatory labeling for all genetically engineered foods.
• 63% of Austrians would not buy genetically engineered foods (if they had a choice). Only 6% would buy them, and 31% were indecisive.

The survey results provided a clear message that most consumers are concerned about the issue and want to be able to make an informed choice. Very soon, environmentalists in Austria started to put intense pressure on all the major supermarket chains, urging them to clearly state their opinion and policy on this issue. Within a couple of months, the country’s largest retail corporations went public with a clear policy against genetically engineered foods. Their most common statement was: "As long as the free choice can not be guaranteed to the consumers, we don’t want it!"

There are basically two things big supermarket chains can do:

1. Be sure that no genetically engineered food ingredients and additives are used in their house brands and employ a quality-control-system to monitor compliance; and
2. Offer special incentives to suppliers to produce foods without the use of GE ingredients and additives and then give priority placement on market shelves and special advertising to promote those products.

But although the retail grocers in Europe tried both measures, it soon became evident, that they would have to unite their forces and create something like a "working group", including retailers and producers, with the aim to create a definition of which standards a "non-genetically-engineered food" must meet.

The main problem that arose in the discussion was where to draw the line between GE and non-GE. What sounds simple at first is rather complex at a second glance: a range of food additives is composed of a number of chemical substances, whose origin is hard to trace. Many of these substances are produced by microorganisms, but only some of them are genetically modified. The regulations do not require information about whether the bacteria are genetically modified, as long as the substance they produce is chemically clean. Furthermore, the question arises whether so called "carry-over" substances, which play a technical role in some part of the production process but are not present in the final product, have to be non-genetically engineered as well. For example, do calves, from whose stomachs the rennet for cheese-production is extracted, have to be fed without genetically engineered soybeans?

A long list of such question arises while working on a certification system for "non-genetically modified foods." And the answers to these questions have to be economically feasible as well, or the whole plan remains a dream.

In June 1997, the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gentechnik-frei erzeugte Lebensmittel" (translation - Working Group On Foods Produced Without Genetic Engineering) was officially founded. By early 1998 its members include a number of highly influential companies, such as the three largest grocery retail companies in Austria (Billa, Spar, Adeg) and the largest dairy company in Austria (Berglandmilch, with a market share of 50%). Other members include a dozen medium and small food producers and traders. The group’s board of directors includes scientific and political experts from GLOBAL 2000, Greenpeace and the Austrian Federal Environment Agency. By late 1997, the group finalized the definition of the standards for "foods produced without the use of genetic engineering."

Meanwhile, the Austrian government had started to discuss the same issue and announced it would come up with its definition of standards later. These governmental standards turned out to be even "stricter" than the ones of the Working Group. They included some tricky details, which jeopardized the feasibility of the project, as they did not dare to draw a reasonable line between GE and non-GE foods. It was the understanding of the Working Group that, for example, substances which were used to produce food additives, to be added to final products, would not have to be scrutinized. Another very important argument against a too puritanical approach is the necessity of thresholds. Grain trade, especially with high volumes is unthinkable without a threshold for contamination. Usually the threshold for contaminants is around 3%, but this level would be too high for genetic material. The Working Group defined a very strict 0.1% threshold, which might be a little too strict, but the government did not define one at all and simply stated that there might occur something like "technically unavoidable contamination." Well, how shall this work legally? Who shall define what is technically unavoidable and what is beyond? Who would be held liable in case of a trial in a commercial court?

This big loophole has made the trade of non-genetically modified soy or corn virtually impossible in Europe so far. But the government says it is not able to define a threshold on a national level and wants to wait for a European solution, which may never come. Legally, nothing hinders Austria from defining a national contamination threshold for genetic engineered grains in GE-free trade. Meanwhile everything is left to a handful of risk taking traders, who are trying to develop this niche market before it is too late.

Overview of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the European Union

As of February 1998, there are 10 products (among them 7 plants), which consist of or contain GMOs, and which are approved for marketing in the European Union.

Table A:
Approved GMOs in the European Union

Source: Federal Environment Agency – Austria: UBA-INFO 3/98

Various restrictions apply, however. The first rape seed plant (4.) and the Chicoree (6.) are approved only for breeding and seed production and are prohibited from being used for food or feed purposes. The second rape seed plant (8.), approved by the European Commission, would include usage for food and feed purposes, however it still does not have the necessary signature from the French authorities who first applied for approval. The Monsanto soybeans (5.) are approved only for importation and processing into irreproducible products, but not for growing. The Novartis-corn (7.) is still banned in Austria and Luxembourg according to Art. 16 (90/220) EWG, because of serious safety risks (see above).

Apart from the 10 approved products, 13 more products are in the state of application in the European Union.

Table B:
Current GMO Applications in the European Union

Source: Federal Environment Agency – Austria: UBA-INFO 3/98

The chicoree application (1.) is for an extension of the already approved chicoree (6. in Table A) for use as food and feed stuff.

At present, all 13 applications are pending in different stages of the approval process. On March 18, applications 2, 3, 4 and 7 were essentially approved by the European Commission, but have not yet completed the formal approval process.

Conclusion

Drawing a conclusion on the Europeans’ attitude on modern biotechnology and genetic engineering does not go without contradictions. This fact may be our first conclusion.

As several different surveys, one of which is presented in this text, show, the European public is highly alerted about the fact that their food is or might be produced with the help of genetic engineering. The majority of consumers do not like this idea. The reasons for this rejection are diverse. Some are based on emotions and ethical principals and some are based on sound scientific evidence. As shown in the text (page 2) the level of education and knowledge about genetic engineering corresponds with the level of awareness about the potential risks of this technology.

Many consumers, environmentalists, farmers and religious people became active in this issue during the past few years. Genetic engineering of our food and agriculture definitely is the number one environmental issue in Europe nowadays.

This sometimes-highly-effective resistance in the European public created a political controversy over the use of genetic engineering which in turn has produced repercussions for the United States, where most of the controversial genetically engineered food products originate. The most obvious case is the current trade conflict between the United States and France, who has not been willing to approve two genetically engineered strains of US corn.

The public controversy reached its peak in 1997, when major decisions about the approval and labeling system of genetically engineered foods were made. However, the results are disappointing. Consumers in Europe still do not know whether their food contains genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) or not and they might never know if it contains any derivatives of GMOs.

Only a small group of (usually small) countries dared to object on the approval of genetically engineered plant varieties in the European Union. Their prospects of success are rather slim, but they managed to slow the whole process of approval down and to raise some significant food security questions on an international level.

Some of the major food producers and grocery retailers in Europe have listened to the voice of the majority of consumers and agreed to produce and sell only food without genetic engineered ingredients or additives or to sell such foods only. One of the most advanced groups of food producers and retailers who work to establish a GMO-free food market, is the Austrian "Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Gentechnik-frei erzeugte Lebensmittel". As a result of their work some certified GMO-free dairy products and vegetables are already available in Austrian supermarkets.

Genetic engineering of our food and agriculture is not very likely to vanish from the political agendas soon. On the contrary, it will be an increasingly important issue for the European public, since it affects everyone. The pressure on the European politicians therefore has to be maintained and the pressure on the United States still needs to be increased.