Because European consumers have consistently demanded that GM food be labelled, not for safety reasons, but so that informed consumption choices are possible, the EU should pursue a bilateral agreement with the U.S. that mandates labels for foods that contain GM inputs. Such an agreement is the only way to ensure that consumers have a choice as to whether or not to eat GM foods. Additionally, the EU should seek agreement concerning use of the precautionary principle, which allows countries to take a safety first approach to GMO regulation. 

To reach such agreements, the European Commission should seek informal consultations with USTR. The consultations should address the labelling issue and the more general need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to biotechnology regulation. To help ensure the success of these consultations, the EU will first need to:

·        Develop and gain internal agreement on a harmonized, transparent regime for regulating genetically engineered products.

·        Begin building pressure on the U.S. government to accept a labelling requirement for GM products. (This will involve raising U.S. public awareness of the issue and building and international alliances of countries that favor GM regulations).

Given the growing public protest against GMOs on both sides of the Atlantic, there is no need for the EU to develop a formal negotiation strategy. Indeed, the EU's position is considerably stronger than that of the U.S.—at least from a public opinion perspective—and the U.S. has already proposed both standards for GM-free food labels and improved oversight of gene-altered crops.   

Instead, the Commission should request meetings with the U.S. concerning consumers’ right to clear information on GM products. The EU stands to gain a lot from such consultation; it has little if anything to lose. In addition to opening the possibility of finding a mutually agreeable solution to the labelling issue, such engagement will demonstrate the EU’s willingness to work out agricultural trade disputes on a bilateral basis, without the intervention of the WTO.

Preferred Outcome 

The preferred outcome for the EU Commission in these informal negotiations with the U.S. is a bilateral agreement concerning mutually acceptable, mandatory labels for foods containing or derived from genetically engineered material.  

Additionally, the EU should seek to gain U.S. acceptance of the precautionary principle in matters related to new biotechnological advances.  Ideally, this agreement would be achieved promptly and without the significant legal costs involved in formal WTO dispute settlement.

Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement 

Given the current status of the global GMO debate, the EU’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement with the U.S. is to let the WTO dispute settlement body rule in the matter.  In view of the stipulations of the recently completed Biosafety Protocol and the level of international public support for mandatory labelling of GMOs, a WTO panel would likely rule in favor of the EU's right to maintain its temporary ban on GMOs until more is known about their potential dangers.  

The goal of the legislative strategy for the EU is to establish a coherent, flexible, and transparent legal framework on GMOs that addresses public concerns about GMOs and mitigates the growing tensions between the U.S. and the EU concerning trade in biotechnology products.

The strategy has two parts:  

·        Consensus building within the EU Commission. The focus should be on clarifying current procedures for approving and labelling GM products and making these procedures more transparent and coherent across all of the EU countries. This strategy will focus in particular on the European Commissioners for Agriculture (Mr. Franz Fischler), Enterprise and Information Society (Mr. Erkki Liikanen), Trade (Mr. Pascual Lamy), Health and Consumer Protection (Mr. David Byrne), and Environment (Ms. Margot Wallström).   

·        Building public support for the Commission’s biotech policy. The focus should be on protecting the consumers’ right to clear and complete information and ensuring the public’s participation in the development of the EU’s food safety policy. This strategy will involve initiating a balanced dialogue regarding the risks and benefits related to biotechnology products.   

Consensus Building within the EU Commission 

The consensus building strategy should focus on implementing the white paper on food safety that was released on January 12 of this year by Mr. David Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, and Mr. Erkki Liikanen, Commissioner for Enterprise and Information Society.  

Building on the EU’s “farm to table” philosophy, the white paper is an ambitious plan for overhauling the EU’s policy on food safety, including its current policy on GMOs. The guiding principle behind the paper is that the Commission’s policy on food safety must be based on a comprehensive, integrated approach.  Among the more than 80 separate actions put forth is the establishment of an independent European Food Safety Authority by the year 2002.  Although this Authority is not envisioned to have any regulatory powers (i.e., it will not engage in risk management because this area of decision-making remains the responsibility of the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council of Ministers), it will be in charge of risk assessment and risk communication. 

With regard to GMOs, the paper proposes 1) that EU policy on novel foods[1] should be tightened and streamlined, and 2) that the labelling provisions for genetically engineered products need to be completed and harmonized.

Action Plan: 

·        As a first step in the legislative strategy, the Commission should adopt an implementing regulation to clarify the procedures of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 (see Appendix II) and present a proposal to improve this regulation in accordance with Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. 

·        Second, a task force should be created to harmonize the GMO policies of the Directorates-General of Agriculture, Environment, Health and Consumer Protection, Enterprise and Information Society, and Trade. This task force should be led by the Commission’s Head of Food Legislation, Mr. Patrick Deboyser, who also represents the EU Commission in the Codex Alimentarius Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.  Other members of the proposed task force should include Mr. Roland Feral and Ms. Nathalie Sauze, who also represent the European Community in the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling. 

·        Working closely with the task force mentioned above, the Commission should develop a set of transparent regulations governing the labelling of “conventional” food products (so-called GMO-free food), as well as clarify the existing rules for labelling GM food. The Commission should seek to incorporate, as far as possible, the results of the 28^th session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (which will be held in Ottawa, Canada, on May 9-12 this year).  

Building Public Support for the Commission’s Biotech Policy 

The only way to adequately address the controversy surrounding biotechnology is to promote a balanced dialogue between all stakeholders: scientists, agribusiness, farmers, and consumers. Accordingly, this strategy focuses on initiating a dialogue that will raise public awareness of biotechnology issues and equip consumers with the tools they need to make informed choices. 

Action Plan: 

·        The Commission should pursue the formation of an international panel on the ethical, environmental, social, and political implications of biotechnology. Originally suggested by Britain’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May, during the OECD Conference on GM food held in Edinburgh in late February, the purpose of such a panel would be to keep the public informed about issues concerning genetically modified food and biotechnology.  Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a model, the panel on GM food should include scientists who are both supporters and critics of biotechnology. 

·        NGOs should be invited to participate in the development of the EU’s GMO policies. This can be accomplished by sponsoring a series of public fora where representatives from the biotechnology industry, consumer groups, and environmental organizations discuss the risks and benefits of this new technology.  Ideally, these informal hearings/meetings should be arranged in all EU countries.

Given the high level of media exposure already given to GMOs and biotechnology advances, there is no separate media component of the EU strategy for this project.  Instead, it is assumed that the media will continuously cover all further developments related to the sale and marketing of genetically engineered products.

The general goal of the U.S. strategy is to put pressure on the U.S. government to accept an agreement that mandates labels for GM products. The strategy has three parts: 

·        Building coalitions in the U.S. among farmers, consumer groups, the business community, and environmental organizations. The focus should be on building a lobby campaign that can push for passage of the mandatory labelling bills that were recently introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).[2] This effort should be led by the NGOs that operate in both Europe and the U.S. such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Consumers International. 

 ·        Raising public awareness via the media. The focus should be on gaining press coverage of the controversies surrounding GM products. The NGOs mentioned above should send op-ed articles to the major U.S. media outlets. The op-eds should explain the need for 1) mandatory labelling of GM foods and 2) stricter rules for risk analysis of GMOs. Additionally, the European Commission should invite U.S. media representatives to attend its public fora on biotechnology issues. 

·        Forging an international alliance. The focus should be on putting added pressure on the U.S. by building an international coalition among countries that have opposed the unregulated sale of genetically altered products.

Building Coalitions in the U.S. among Farmers, Consumer Groups, the Business Community, and Environmental Organizations 

Action Plan:

 ·        Several companies have already publicly announced "GM-free" policies in response to the growing pressure from EU consumers.  These companies should be lobbied by U.S. consumer groups to endorse the push for mandatory labelling: 

Nestlé       
McCain Foods

Anheuser-Busch
Danone

Seagram’s
Unilever

Coca-Cola

Wild Oats Market

Kirin Brewery

Heinz

Kellogg’s

Mars

Whole Foods

PepsiCo (Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay)

Diageo (Pillsbury, Burger King)

·        The following NGOs operating in the U.S. should be contacted by their European counterparts, and encouraged to lobby all elected representatives to support Bill H.R. 3377:

        Greenpeace
        Friends of the Earth
        Consumers Union
        Union of Concerned Scientists
        Organic Consumers Association
        Environmental Defense Fund
        Alliance for Bio-Integrity
        Consumers International
        Consumers Choice Council
        Alliance to Label Genetically Engineered Food
        Citizens for Health
        Council for Responsible Genetics
        Soil Association
        Council for Responsible Nutrition
        International Alliance of Dietary/Food Supplements Associations
        Seeds of Resistance
        International Food Information Council

·        The European Commission should seek an invitation to testify before Congress on the importance of consumer choice and the need for mandatory labelling of food products that contain genetically engineered material.

Raising Public Awareness via the Media  

This effort should highlight 1) the need to maintain a cautious stance on biotechnology products and 2) consumers’ right to clear and unambiguous labels on GM food.

 
Action Plan: 

·        Write op-ed articles for publication in The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, and Los Angeles Times. 

·        Invite journalists such as Andrew Pollack (The New York Times) and Anita Manning (USA Today), who have already written on the U.S.-EU dispute over GMOs, to write about the need for mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods and the justified use of the precautionary principle.

Forging an International Alliance

The European Commission’s most important ally on this issue is the Japanese government.  Japan has recently announced its intent to require mandatory safety tests for GM foods in addition to its labelling requirement.  Moreover, Japan has significant leverage over the U.S.; it currently imports over 700,000 tons of U.S. soybeans per year, and it represents a crucial market for U.S. agricultural exports generally.   

The European Commission should seek to align itself with Japan and other countries that support mandatory labelling (New Zealand, Australia) in order to strengthen its bargaining position vis-à-vis the U.S. In addition, the European Commission should solidify the support of the so-called Like-Minded Group in its opposition to the U.S.'s current GMO policies.

Action Plan: 

·        Engage in informal bilateral consultations with potential alliance partners with the aim of developing a common strategy for pressuring the U.S. government.

top

Continue to Next Page