Home » Archive 1997
Genetically-modified food - the debate continues
The use of genetically modified plants in food is the subject of a growing dispute both within Europe and between Europe and the USA. The argument started many years ago when genetically modified crop plants were first developed. Consumer groups and some environmental campaigners argued that all foods should be labelled if genetic engineering had been used at any stage of its manufacture.
By 1994, the argument arrived in Brussels in the form of the EU's draft Novel Foods Regulation, which was designed to set Europe-wide rules for the approval of new foods and food ingredients. The campaigning groups maintained their demands for labelling where any genetic engineering had been involved, and they were supported by the European Parliament but not by the Commission or Council of Ministers.
After a two years of argument, the Council of Ministers produced a compromise proposal in which two main types of genetically modified food would be labelled. The first would be any foods containing genetic material which would give rise to ethical concerns - ie pig genes which might be of concern to Jews or animal genes which might be of concern to vegetarians. The second category was food which contained an organism which had been genetically modified for purposes other than agricultural. This would mean flavour- or texture-enhanced food would be labelled, but not food from crops made resistant to pests or herbicides. In addition, foods produced using genetically modified organisms, but not actually containing them, would only need to be labelled if they were 'significantly different' in composition from the original.
However, the European Parliament rejected the proposed compromise and passed several amendments including one which would require the labelling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms. When the regulations went back to the Commission, all the substantive amendments proposed by the Parliament were rejected. Since the Novel Food Regulation was being handled by the new co-decision procedure, this mean that a conciliation procedure was invoked. This involved setting up a joint committee of the Parliament and Council of Ministers to seek a compromise.
By the end of 1996, after the Council of Ministers had made a number of concessions, agreement was reached. Genetically modified foods would be labelled if they had any detectable chemical differences from the original, where there were possible ethical concerns, where they might affect people's health (ie by causing allergies), or where they contained any live, genetically modified organisms.
As a sideshow to the argument about the Novel Food Regulation, the EU was also arguing about the labelling of the raw produce. In 1995, approval had been sought for a genetically modified soya bean produced by Monsanto, called Roundup-Ready soya because it was resistant to the glyphosate herbicide marketed by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Denmark, Sweden and Austria insisted that the bags of soya, which would only be seen by the food manufacturers and not consumers, must be labelled as 'genetically modified'. One of the main objections was that, although only a very small fraction of the USA soya crop would be genetically modified, these beans would not be separated out from the rest, making it impossible to know whether any particular batch of soya beans contained any modified material. Processed soya, mostly of US origin, is found in a large proportion of prepared foods sold in the EU. Under pressure from the US government, the EU finally agreed to accept the soya imports unlabelled.
It was Monsanto's soya bean which took centre-stage in the growing political and public debate, mostly because of the insistence by American soya traders that the Roundup Ready beans could not be separated from the unmodified product. The modified beans constituted only 2% of the 1996 USA soya crop, in the first year they were grown commercially. Greenpeace claimed that, by late 1996, 60% of food products sold in the EU could contain genetically modified ingredients without consumers being aware of the fact. Environmental groups around the world joined forces with some consumer and retail organisations to oppose the import of the mixed beans into the EU. However, their protest came much too late and almost all supermarket chains eventually decided the best thing to do was simply to accept that the mixed beans would be used to manufacture food products and put leaflets in their stores to inform their customers of this fact. The leaflets were somewhat low profile and tended to be quite positive about genetically modified foods. At the end of the day, the fierce competition between supermarkets meant that none of them wanted to do anything which might drive customers away.
The campaign against Roundup Ready soya resulted in a number of food production companies stating that they would not use beans from the USA unless they can be guaranteed free of the modified beans. However, it was noticeable that some of the larger companies only applied this policy in countries where the campaign had been strongest.
Direct action tactics were used by Greenpeace who deployed their rubber dinghy crews to prevent ships carrying cargoes of US soya from docking in Hamburg, Antwerp, Liverpool and on the Rhine. Protesters occupied the office of the Austrian Health Minister when she refused to ban the import of Roundup Ready soya. Other protesters occupied Monsanto's offices in the UK.
Media attention particularly focused on nude protests when three female activists stripped off their clothes in front of US Agriculture Dan Glickman at the World Food Summit in Rome. In October this year five demonstrators staged a nude protest on the roof of the London office of Bartle Bogle Hegerty, the advertising agency used by Monsanto. Of particular concern was a threatened contamination of soya beans in the UK. Shortly after the first US soya containing Roundup Ready beans had arrived in the UK and been stored in silos, the storage site was broken into and the silos containing the soya marked with a large cross. At the same time a notice was sent to the press claiming the soya in the marked silo had been contaminated with a toxic substance in protest at the genetic engineering of the food.
Greenpeace is increasing its activity in the campaign against genetically modified foods by tracking the movement of all cargoes which they can discover. Calling this campaign their 'Genetic Hazard Patrol', they have blocked the docking of some vessels and, with other cargoes, they have publicised when they reach dock, where they move to from there and their final destination. In addition, Greenpeace dumped 10 tons of US soya outside an exhibition centre in Amsterdam which was hosting the congress of Europabio, the new European biotechnology industry association.
The radical environmental movement also became involved in the campaign against genetically modified foods. Many field trials of new genetically modified crops have been sabotaged and the crops destroyed. To date over 12 such attacks have occurred in the UK and in Germany, where only eight such trials have been conducted, all eight crops were destroyed.
A genetically modified maize produced by Ciba Geigy has also become a focus for protest. In April 1996, a committee of officials from EU Member States voted against an application from Ciba Geigy to market the genetically modified maize in the EU. The maize, which had already been approved in the USA, was resistant to the herbicide glufosinate, but the genetic construct also contained a gene for bacterial resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin, which caused some concern about the possibility of transmission to gut bacteria.
Following the rejection by officials, the EU Council of Ministers also rejected the marketing application at a meeting which was very heavily protested by Greenpeace campaigners in costumes and hanging banners off the Council building. The European Commission reacted to the Council vote by referring the application to three of its scientific committees, which all approved the maize. As a result, the Commission granted approval.
Two Member States, Austria and Luxembourg, reacted to this decision by unilaterally banning the marketing of the Ciba maize. The Commission demanded that they retract their national bans and threatened to take them to the European Court if necessary. However, several Member States have indicated that they would not support this action by the Commission. At the time of writing, the Commission has decided to defer taking action for two months to permit further discussions with officials from Luxembourg and Austria.
The arguments about genetically modified foods look likely to get worse in the future. The USA is taking a very strong stance and threatening to invoke World Trade Organisation rules against anything they consider a trade barrier against the modified foods ingredients. However, within Europe the campaigning by environmental, consumer and retail organisations is leading to increasing resistance amongst Member States. The latest development, as we go to press, is that the Commission has proposed that all genetically modified foods should be granted seven-year marketing licences during which time they would be constantly monitored for any harmful effects on public health or the environment. At the end of that time, if no harmful effects had been documented, they could apply to be re-licensed for a further seven years. Whether this proposal will defuse the growing row remains to be seen