1.EU votes against compulsory GM food labelling on animal products - Ecologist
2.Europe's New Approach to Biotech Food - NYT

EXTRACT: Campaigners may take some heart from another vote by MEPs in favour of a ban on meat and dairy products from cloned animals and a moratorium on foods using nanotechnology until potential health risks can be ruled out. (item 1)

The Dutch were eager to ease tensions over biotech crops with the United States and other trading partners, and to ensure continuing imports of animal feeds that contain biotech products. Animal farming is a big part of the economy in the Netherlands, which, in turn, is a major exporter of meat and dairy products. Dutch researchers also are involved in developing biotech products. (item 2)
---
---
1.EU votes against compulsory GM food labelling
The Ecologist, 7 July 2010
http://www.theecologist.co.uk/News/news_round_up/532007/eu_votes_against_compulsory_gm_food_labelling.html

Campaigners angry at EU's decision to keep consumers 'in the dark' over food from animals given genetically modified (GM) feed

Consumers will continue to be none the wiser about whether they are eating food from animals raised on genetically-modified feed after MEPs voted against introducing a compulsory label rule.

There is currently no requirement on the food industry to label meat or dairy products produced using GM animal feed, usually made from GM soya or maize. However, campaigners have argued that consumers should be given a choice about whether or not to buy such produce.

A recent poll commissioned by Friends of the Earth found that less than 40 per cent of the public was aware that GM was creeping onto their plates via imported GM cereals and protein crops fed to livestock in the UK. Almost 90 per cent of those surveyed wanted these products to be clearly labelled.

Genewatch director Dr Helen Wallace said consumers should be 'given a choice' and blamed the vote against labelling on lobbying from the food industry.

'They want consumer decisions to focus on the end product you see on the shelf and not the wider issues,' she said.

The vote against feed labelling comes as the EU commission prepares to approve the import of six new GM maize varieties after lobbying by biotech firms Syngenta and Monsanto.

Renewed calls for cloning ban

Campaigners may take some heart from another vote by MEPs in favour of a ban on meat and dairy products from cloned animals and a moratorium on foods using nanotechnology until potential health risks can be ruled out.

At present there are no specific rules covering either cloned food or nano-sized ingredients or processes, although nanotechnology is already being used in food and food packaging.

Although MEPs voted in favour of the ban, the EU Council must still approve the decision. It has previously rejected calls for a ban by MEPs, hence the need for a second vote, and is said to be in favour of simply 'regulating' food from cloned animals. A final decision on both issues is expected this autumn.
---
---
2.Europe's New Approach to Biotech Food
JAMES KANTER
New York Times, July 7 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/business/energy-environment/08biotech.html?_r=1

BRUSSELS - After decades of pushing nations to surrender more power to Brussels, the European Union is about to throw in the towel on one highly contentious issue: genetically modified foods.

On Tuesday, the European Commission will formally propose giving back to national and local governments the freedom to decide whether to grow crops that many Europeans still call Frankenfoods.

The new policy is aimed at overcoming a stalemate that has severely curtailed the market for biotech seeds in Europe for years. Only two crops, produced by Monsanto and B.A.S.F., are sold for cultivation here.

The new flexibility is supposed to open up markets in countries like the Netherlands, where governments are broadly favorable toward growing and trading biotech products, while countries like Austria, where the products are unpopular, can maintain a ban.

But far from celebrating, the growing global industry, as well as some farmers themselves, is extremely wary of the new approach.

“So many different authorities suddenly doing so many different things risks sending a message to successful growers in Africa and Asia that authorities are unsure how to deal with biotech,” said Nathalie Moll, the secretary general of EuropaBio, an industry group.

She said it also remained to be seen whether the proposals would conform with World Trade Organization rules.

The United States and the Union are still trying to resolve a dispute over genetically modified organisms, or G.M.O.s, and related issues after the W.T.O. ruled, in 2006, against Europe's de facto ban. Washington could still retaliate in that case.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to comment on the new approach but said it would be on the agenda at a meeting with E.U. officials this month.

Despite "some progress” in recent months, the United States "still has a number of concerns,” said Nefeterius Akeli McPherson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. trade representative. They include "a substantial backlog of pending biotech applications, and bans adopted by individual E.U. member states on biotech products approved at the E.U. level.”

The reality remains that the European Union still produces few genetically modified crops.

The United States, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada are the top five producers in terms of land under cultivation. The European Union, with 27 member nations, is the 14th largest, just after Burkina Faso.

A key factor behind the proposed change in Europe is a growing frustration in Brussels with the current system, under which meetings between government officials and ministers routinely end in deadlock. That forces unelected officials at the European Commission to make the final decision on authorizing biotech products ”” and to take the heat.

The commission has found itself repeatedly pressured on one side by the United States and the W.T.O. to follow the recommendations of its own scientific authorities and enforce the use of approved products and on the other by countries like Austria and environmental groups that believe the E.U. authorities are too eager to promote newfangled technologies.

Under the new proposals, the commission would continue to make the approvals itself but leave it to members and local and regional authorities to decide what they want to grow at home.

But whether the new rules will win the necessary approval from E.U. governments and the European Parliament still is unclear.

In an unlikely alliance, the Austrian and Dutch governments first made the proposal back in 2008.

The Dutch were eager to ease tensions over biotech crops with the United States and other trading partners, and to ensure continuing imports of animal feeds that contain biotech products.

Animal farming is a big part of the economy in the Netherlands, which, in turn, is a major exporter of meat and dairy products. Dutch researchers also are involved in developing biotech products.

The Austrians supported the changes as a way to keep its national ban on growing any such crops without facing regular challenges from the E.U. authorities.

Other countries, though, have expressed concern about setting a precedent that could undermine European integration. The crisis this year over how to supervise the finances of the 16 nations that use the euro already has highlighted the limits to European cooperation.

“If the agricultural policy is common, why wouldn’t the policy of cultivation of G.M.O.’s be?” asked Elena Espinosa, the Spanish environment minister. Spain grew 80 percent of the biotech corn, designed to resist a pest called the corn borer, produced in Europe last year.

In addition, Belgium, which has just taken over the rotating E.U. presidency, is concerned that a ban by a single country could put the entire bloc in danger of facing retaliatory trade sanctions.

Even farmers that favor biotech crops are concerned that the commission is offloading a problem on them ”” and that the issue could become even more politicized than it is now.

“The Welsh and the Scots are vehemently opposed to genetically modified crops,” said Philip Lodge, who would like to farm biotech sugar beets in Yorkshire, in northern England. “With these conflicts of interest so close to home, I just don’t see how I’ll be able to grow G.M. in practice.”

Other farmers warned that the Union risked stirring up new confrontations with activists, who in the past have destroyed crops planted in trial fields.

“The prospect terrorizes me,” said Jerome Hue, who farms in Carcans, France. “If every locality can ban G.M.O.’s, I don’t see how we will be allowed to grow the crops anywhere in France anymore.”

Mr. Hue grew corn produced by Monsanto before the French government imposed a national ban in 2008. France has said it would consider lifting that ban once the European authorities have assessed new evidence about the effects of G.M. crops on the environment.

Mr. Hue said anti-biotech activists could erect beehives at the edges of some farmers’ fields to put pressure on the authorities to impose new bans if the honey picked up traces of the modified genes.

But commission officials and some other member states like the Netherlands say the new policy points the way to managing an increasingly unwieldy group of 27 countries.

Last week, in the latest example of the persistent differences, countries failed for a third time to break a deadlock over whether to allow imports of six varieties of bioengineered corn for food and feed made by Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Pioneer and Syngenta.

That leaves the decision up to the E.U. health commissioner, John Dalli, who is expected to approve the products in coming months. He caused a furor among environmentalists in March when he approved cultivation of a biotech potato by B.A.S.F. ”” the first such approval in more than a decade in Europe.

In the European Parliament, among those reviewing the proposed new rules will be José Bové, a French sheep farmer who captured worldwide attention a decade ago for ransacking a McDonald’s restaurant to protest the influence of multinational corporations. Since then he has served time in a French prison for damaging biotech crops.

He is now a deputy chairman of the agriculture committee at the European Parliament, where he was elected as a member of the Green party.