Government must try harder on GMOs

9.00.34am UTC (GMT +0000) Fri 15th Dec 2006

After quizzing the European Commission over illegal genetically modified organisms found in rice imports from the US, London Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Sarah Ludford is calling for a tightening up of EU but especially UK Food standards Agency vigilance.

In response to Baroness Ludford's question, European Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said the EU had taken measures to prevent unauthorised GM rice from entering the market through certification of consignments and strict counter-testing.

But according to Commissioner Kyprianou, it is member states' responsibility to ensure that products on the shelf are tested and if necessary removed from the market. He confirmed that it was only after intervention from the Commission that the UK Food Standards Agency finally told retailers to withdraw rice potentially containing unauthorised GM components from sale.

Commenting on his response, Baroness Ludford said:

"It is clear from the Commissioner's comments that once again, Brussels has had to step in to force a British government agency to protect consumers, this time from unauthorised and illegal GM products."

"While I welcome the apparently robust approach the Commission has taken on US rice imports, I am disturbed to learn from Friends of the Earth that in contrast the Commission has so far satisfied itself with mere reassurances from China that it will rectify contamination by illegal GMOs found in its rice products."

"Governments must pay heed to European public opinion which is deeply sceptical about GMOs and the Commission must make sure that European law designed to protect consumers is actually respected by member states."

Notes

Full text of Sarah Ludford's exchange with Commissioner Kyprianou:

Sarah Ludford's question:

While the Commission decision of October 23rd requiring mandatory testing for GMOs in rice imports is welcome, many aspects of this story raise deep concern.

Since the US authorities have been certifying their rice as free of the unauthorised GMO LLRICE 601 which was nonetheless discovered in the shipments, what confidence can EU consumers have in the reliability of such certification systems?

UK supermarkets were reportedly selling the GM-contaminated rice imported from the US with the permission of Britain's official food safety watchdog the Food Standards Agency. Does this inspire confidence in the FSA? How was their stance compatible with EU law?

UK government proposes to allow GM crops to be grown alongside conventional and organic crops. How will the Commission stop contravention of EU law regarding contamination?

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. ? It is true that this is a very important issue for us and it is clear that no unauthorised product can enter the market in the European Union. We have a very strict system in place to ensure that no product slips through the very high standard assessment procedure.

The question of the contamination of US long grain rice, involving unauthorised GM LLRICE 601, proves that this is not just a statement but a fact. Our reaction has shown that we intend to apply our legislation in every possible case. As soon as the Commission was informed of this contamination of US rice, we took every possible measure to prevent unauthorised products from entering the market. First, we introduced a requirement for certification of every single consignment arriving in the European Union. But when we became aware that shipments of US rice certified as GM-free tested positive at the port of arrival in the European Union, the certification requirement was strengthened by the imposition of systematic counter-testing of each consignment originating in the US.

Furthermore, it is also important that this counter-testing be carried out on the basis of a harmonised and very strict sampling and testing procedure, which guarantees reliability and comparability of the results, so our consumers can be assured that every consignment of US long grain rice is tested twice, both in the US and on arrival in the European Union.

I have to remind you that Member States bear the primary responsibility for enforcing these requirements and verifying that they are fulfilled by business operators. The Commission has systematically reminded national authorities of this obligation to carry out adequate checks and withdraw contaminated products.

The UK Food Standards Agency has clarified its approach by agreeing to the conclusions of the Standing Committee on 11 September 2006. In that context, Member States commit themselves to checking all stored bulk consignments of US rice already on the European Union market.

When it comes to products on the shelf, our legislation provides that Member States will take all appropriate measures to ensure that these are tested and removed from the market if necessary. But the aim is to provide the legislation. It is up to the Member States to ensure that measures are taken in the most effective way.

On the issue of cross-pollination, it is important to remember that no GM crop can be grown in the European Union unless it has been evaluated as safe for the environment and human and animal health and authorised for cultivation. Member States are developing coexistence strategies to ensure that they can limit as much as possible admixtures of GM and non- GM crops and address the economic consequences. The competence for this lies with the Member States, following the recommendations and guidelines of the European Union. However, the special characteristics of each Member State - the landscape, the environment, climate conditions - make it important for them to take the most appropriate measures.

We know that many Member States, including the United Kingdom, have defined or are in the process of defining approaches to ensure that GM crops can coexist with conventional and organic crops. Member States are obliged to notify national coexistence measures to the Commission and the Commission follows this very closely.

2-342

Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Commissioner, you may say that it is clear that no unauthorised product can enter the EU market, but that has simply not been the case. The fact that the US certified this rice as being GM-free turned out, as you have said, not to be true, and now you require testing.

You say that the FSA has clarified its position, but can you say what explanation you received from the FSA? Was it correct in telling shops that they did not need to withdraw this rice?

Given that it is illegal to sell GM rice, how can the conduct advised by the FSA possibly be legal? Have you reprimanded it? Does this whole episode not go to show the attempts to pretend that organic and conventional food can be protected from GM contamination to be utterly unconvincing?

2-343

Markos Kyprianou, Member of the Commission. ? As long as we have GM products throughout the world that are not authorised by us, we will always have to be alert and to take all measures available. I think the fact that we identified early on that we could not rely on US certification and that we introduced our own testing system proves that we are very serious about this.

On the UK issue, any product containing an unauthorised GM component has to be withdrawn because it is on the market illegally. That is an obligation for all Member States including the UK; this was made clear to them and they understood that.

It is true that the European Food Safety Authority said that there was no imminent danger to human health, and the UK repeated that, but, as far as the Commission is concerned, any product of this sort that has not been authorised through our procedures is on the market illegally and has to be removed. After we made it clear to the UK authorities that this was the legal position, they adjusted their position. In this respect, we make sure that Member States also apply the legislation, which is very strict, and no unauthorised product can reach the consumer. After some discussions, the UK has corrected its position.