SHOULD we all pay more for our food to cover the costs of labelling schemes that tell us if it鈥檚 genetically modified? Or should the costs be borne entirely by people who want to be sure that the food on their plate is transgene-free?
The European Union thinks that knowing where our food comes from is important enough for all its citizens to pay a little extra. But last week a British parliamentary committee decided that the European Commission鈥檚 proposals for labelling and tracing genetically modified food are unwieldy, impractical and could land Europe in a costly trade war with the US.
The proposed rules are designed to break an impasse that has effectively kept most GM foods out of Europe since 1998. Seven member states have refused to approve any GM foods until laws on labelling and traceability are in place.
Advertisement
But like Britain鈥檚 Food Standards Agency, the House of Lords committee doubts if the commission鈥檚 plan would solve the problem. 鈥淭he commission鈥檚 proposals are unworkable and disproportionate,鈥� says John Selborne, the committee鈥檚 chairman.
At present, food on sale in Europe must be labelled if it contains more than 1 per cent of GM material. The EU wants to extend this to all foods and animal feed produced from GM crops, even if they contain no detectable GM material. This would apply, for example, to foods containing highly processed oils or sugars from GM crops. It would also apply to animal feed.
Because no tests can detect whether the refined oils and sugars come from GM plants, the only way of policing the new regulations would be through costly schemes that would trace the food to its source, the Lords conclude.
Equally nightmarish and expensive would be the challenge of tracking commodities such as soybeans and maize right back to individual farms, especially if the produce originated in other countries. This would push up food costs generally. 鈥淧eople who weren鈥檛 bothered about eating GM foods would still have to pay for this traceability scheme,鈥� says Selborne.
Instead, the Lords are backing the status quo. To satisfy consumer choice, they advocate the introduction of 鈥渋dentity-preserved鈥� schemes for bona fide GM-free produce. The committee is urging the government to push for this solution and to persuade those countries with a moratorium on GM food to end it. 鈥淥therwise, we鈥檒l end up in a dispute at the World Trade Organization,鈥� says Selborne.
But the commission is sticking to its guns and insists that its plan is workable. 鈥淲e鈥檝e learned through the food scare experiences in the past how important it is to keep track of food ingredients,鈥� says a commission spokeswoman, referring to mad cow disease, cases of which are still turning up around the world.
Sue Flook of Britain鈥檚 Soil Association, representing organic farmers, agrees. 鈥淐onsumers need to know where food is coming from,鈥� she says.
