New proposals by the European Commission, though needed, still fail toaddress a number of key issues, writes Nuala Ahern.
Europe is at a crossroads in dealing with genetically- modified food. Following the BSE and other food scares, consumers are unwilling to accept hollow assurances on food safety and want to know what they are eating.
Yet, new European laws on GM foods have infuriated the US, which has responded by bringing a case to the World Trade Organisation. Washington will soon see, however, that it has scored an own goal. Bully-boy tactics are not the way to convince European consumers that GM food is safe.
America's complaint to the WTO marks the opening shots of a trade war that has been simmering behind the scenes for some time. Serious consequences could arise if - and it is a big if - America gets its way. In this scenario, member-states may well reject the ruling, bringing Europe into direct conflict with the WTO. And this in turn brings the very legitimacy of that organisation into question.
Consumer demand for food safety and environmental protection, alongside very public dissent over GM foods, forced the EU to recognise that there were only two ways to deal with the problem.
It could either introduce a comprehensive legal framework for GM regulation, or introduce a total ban on all Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to completely rule out the possibility of contamination of conventional and organic agriculture and the food chain.
The absence of a regulatory framework led European governments to impose a moratorium on new GM authorisations four years ago. In October 1998 the EU halted the approval of new GMOs. Six countries - France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Austria and Luxembourg - declared that they would vote against any GMO marketing application until further rules were put in place to ensure that all GMO-derived products can be traced back to their source and are labelled.
In the following years the European Commission drafted stringent new rules on approval procedures, and their entry into force has enabled biotech companies to submit revised applications for approval of their products. Recently two cotton-seed oils for food use have been marketed in Europe following authorisation, and a number of new applications are at an advanced stage of examination and may be approved over the next months.
The Commission's new proposals on labelling and traceability are framed specifically to take account of consumer concerns and requirements. They will make sure that products are traceable, and, for the first time, they also give consumers the freedom of informed choice. Under the new legislation, all GM food will have to be labelled - rules that make so much sense that US consumers are beginning to question their administration's opposition.
The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, a forum of consumer organisations, has called on the Bush administration not to challenge European labelling and traceability policies because, it argues, consumers everywhere can only have a choice if labelling and protection exists.
While the proposed legislation on traceability and labelling does include some major improvements in the regulation of the GM market, the proposals still fail to address a number of crucial issues.
There is a distinct lack of adequate liability rules for damage caused by GMOs, including economic damage caused through "GM contamination". The threshold for unauthorised GMOs is still too high, and the labelling threshold of 0.9 per cent - below which products do not have to be labelled if the presence of the GMO was accidental or technically unavoidable - means that foods labelled organic may still contain traces of GM.
These regulations will not come into force until the end of this year and many EU member-states are committed to upholding the ban on new GMOs until that time.
What we also need now are clear rules on how to prevent GMOs from contaminating our conventional and organic food, feed and seeds. And we need political decisions which prevent GM contamination and which ensure freedom of choice, for consumers as well as for farmers.
The Commission needs to start work on legislation that establishes, or requires member states to establish, measures that will prevent GM contamination. Such legislation should require producers and users of GMOs to take effective measures to prevent the unintended presence of their GMOs in other products.
Take the problem of co-existence, for example. This is the term used to describe the growing of GM and non-GM crops together. Although only a small quantity of GM crops is grown in Europe, co-existence would significantly increase the risk of contamination of non-GM crops. The question of liability in the event of GM contamination has also yet to be settled. Contamination of crops or harvested seed by GMOs can happen through cross-pollination, during harvest or during processing. In some cases, contamination has occurred involving GM crops that have not been approved for human consumption.
The "Starlink" case in 2000, where GM corn not approved for human consumption was found to have entered the US food chain, is a clear example of the need for appropriate rules for authorisation and traceability.
GM crops are being grown commercially in North America and it is clear they are causing legal and logistical problems. Hundreds of farmers have initiated lawsuits concerning the failure of crops to meet their over-hyped expectations and the biotech companies are, in return, suing farmers for alleged patent infringements.
The organic farming sector in Saskatchewan, Canada, has taken legal action because they can no longer guarantee being able to supply organic non-GM oilseed rape.
Currently most major food producers are avoiding GM ingredients. Some companies have even switched ingredients away from soya and maize to European-grown crops such as oilseed rape.
However, if GM crops are grown more widely in Europe then it will become increasingly difficult to supply non-GM foods to consumers.
The governments and farmers on both sides of the Border in Ireland have already agreed that the preservation and promotion of a GM-free food industry - especially one that is organic - is an optimal strategy. And Irish and European consumers have emphatically pronounced their distaste for and mistrust of genetically-modified food.
Ireland is ideally suited, by virtue of its "green" image and its island status, to develop a GM-free, sustainable and organic agriculture industry. Then, as before when our Celtic Tiger economy was the focus of international attention, we can be a world leader again and a model for other countries to follow.
Nuala Ahern is Green MEP for Wicklow and a member of the Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Committee of the European Parliament.