THE US has reacted with dismay to Europe鈥檚 plans for tough laws on labelling genetically modified foods. A source at the US State Department who spoke to New 杏吧原创 slammed the proposals and branded them 鈥渦nnecessary鈥�.
The European Union鈥檚 agriculture ministers rubber-stamped the draft rules last week after months of argument, and they will become law in around four months鈥� time if the European Parliament gives its approval, which looks certain. 鈥淲e think it鈥檚 a milestone, a real breakthrough,鈥� said a spokeswoman for the European Commission.
鈥淚 feel strongly that our citizens need to be able to make this choice,鈥� says David Byrne, EU commissioner for consumer protection. 鈥淏ut I deplore scaremongering about GMOs.鈥�
Advertisement
Although not willing to discuss Washington鈥檚 reaction in detail, the State Department source denounced the new rules. The US has already warned that a trade war could flare up unless the European Union lifts its unofficial 4-year block on GM imports.
鈥淲e believe the EU鈥檚 moratorium on approvals of new kinds of biotechnology foods has no scientific basis, and we urge the EU to lift it,鈥� the source said. 鈥淔ailing that, we鈥檙e actively considering taking action through the World Trade Organisation.鈥�
If the law is approved, products that contain more than 0.9 per cent EU-approved GM material will have to be labelled. That includes glucose syrup produced from GM maize, or soybean and rapeseed oil from GM plants. But no known test can distinguish between such products and those from unmodified plants.
Only products that contain levels of unauthorised GM material above 0.5 per cent will be banned. This would allow a little leeway for accidental contamination in transit or during production.
Lastly, animal feed containing GM material or produced from it will for the first time need to be labelled as such. So too will fodder laced with GM-derived additives such as vitamin B2. But meat and dairy produce from animals fed GM produce will not have to be labelled.
Aside from exacerbating tensions with the US, the rules could also create further divisions within Europe. Britain鈥檚 Food Standards Agency, for example, says the rules are 鈥渦nenforceable and impractical, and do not represent a positive move in terms of consumer choice鈥�.
A spokeswoman at the FSA branded the rules a 鈥渃heat鈥檚 charter鈥�. Because the laws would demand labelling of products devoid of any detectable GM material, trading standards officers would have to rely on 鈥減aper trails鈥� documenting the history of the product. 鈥淲e think that鈥檚 absolutely open to fraud, and you鈥檇 often have to rely on the honesty of a producer in a third country,鈥� she said.
But opponents of genetic engineering are delighted with the proposals. 鈥淭his will send a strong message to commodity-exporting nations such as the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil,鈥� says Lorenzo Consoli of Greenpeace. 鈥淭he times when you could sneak millions of tonnes of GM soybeans and maize unlabelled into the food chain are definitely over.鈥�