Companies are told to stick to new rules on GMO labelling

Date: 12/06/1997

By Michael Mann

EUROPE's biotechnology companies are being warned that failure to accept the need for thorough labelling could delay approval for their products to enter the EU market.

Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard is talking to a number of firms which have so far proved unwilling to label existing products in line with new requirements voted into EU law two weeks ago.

But some companies have won praise from European Commission officials for their readiness to comply fully with recent changes in policy prompted by growing consumer concern over food safety.

“Most companies have seen the light, and have responded positively to our calls for voluntary labelling. Basically, the better the labelling they can offer, the more chance they have of being successful with their licensing applications,” said one insider.

Two weeks ago, an EU regulatory committee voted through a change to the rules requiring all new GMOs passed for use in the Union to carry labels indicating that they contained the results of biotechnology.

But this did not cover 11 products blocked earlier by the Commission.

Officials refused to approve them for use until the labelling issue had been cleared up.

Given that the rule changes could not be applied retroactively to these products, Bjerregaard asked the companies involved to introduce labelling voluntarily, in line with the new situation.

Sources have confirmed that three firms - AgrEvo, Plant Genetic Systems (PGS) and Monsanto - agreed to respect the new regulations fully in their applications to market genetically-modified oilseed rape and maize.

The first positive result of this came late last week, when the Commission unblocked two separate applications for licences for the release of genetically-modified oilseed rape developed by PGS.

Bjerregaard was satisfied by PGS' undertaking not only to label bags of seeds sold to farmers, but also to “indicate to the farmers ... that specific labelling requirements may be applicable for the harvested material”. But she was not so happy with the response from other major players in the sector. In a letter sent this week, the Commissioner warned both Pioneer and Novartis that their proposals for product labelling probably did not go far enough, particularly regarding bulk consignments containing mixtures of GMOs and conventional seeds.

Even worse, as far as the Commission is concerned, is the total lack of response from two other companies.

In the case of Valio, the Commission is reasonably happy that its product will meet the requirements anyway. But Bjerregaard is still waiting for a satisfactory undertaking from Dutch company Bejo Zaden to allow progress to be made on its licence application for its genetically-modified chicory.

“The message should be fairly clear. It pays to offer labelling. Because of the problems we have had, the PGS applications took over two years to approve. It is clear that all these companies will eventually have to present their products to member states for approval. Unless they offer clear labelling, they might not get through,” said an official.

Some of the companies involved have now been waiting for permission to market their products for well over a year.