Despite advances in the application of genetically modified organisms the issue remains a divisive one within Europe, writes Judith Crosbie in Brussels
This month the European Commission approved a genetically modified maize for use in the EU.
It was the ninth authorisation for a genetically modified organism (GMO) to be passed by the EU in two years since a moratorium was lifted on GMOs entering the union.
Despite the lifting of the moratorium, Europe remains a highly restrictive place for GMOs. Legislation requires strict approval methods, and rules on labelling and traceability often result in reluctance among retailers and food processors to deal in the organisms.
Now the way the organisms are approved is under fire from some EU states and environmental activists, who fear the Commission is ignoring the health risks to prevent a trade war with GMO producers, particularly the US.
The decision to approve the latest type of maize was taken by the Commission after members states failed to reach agreement on it last December. Some EU countries consistently vote against GMOs, like Austria, Greece or Luxembourg. Some tend to vote for them or abstain from voting, like Ireland, the Netherlands or Britain.
But because national votes are weighted according to the size of a member state, half the EU countries can vote against a product without being able to block it, in a voting process known as Qualified Majority Voting. When this happens the ultimate decision then passes on to the Commission. Various issues apart from GMOs are dealt with in this way if approval is not reached.
Opponents of GMOs feel this is not the best way to handle this sensitive topic. They point to the fact that the Commission is advised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which has never given a negative opinion on a GMO and which, they say, relies on information supplied to it by the companies who make the organism. That information, together with tests carried out on animals to assess the potential health risks, is generally not made public to protect commercial sensitivity, though each member state is given a copy of the report.
"Decisions are being taken behind closed doors. We are discussing food which we eat, there shouldn't be any doubt at all," says Hiltrud Breyer, a German Green MEP.
Proponents of GMOs say the authority is made up of independent scientists who are just looking at the facts.
"It is absolutely important that this issue of approval is not politicised . . . the EFSA must stick to science when making their decisions," says Simon Barber of EuropaBio, a Brussels-based group which represents European bio-industries.
A public debate among EU environmental ministers last Thursday showed that there were concerns about the GMO approval mechanism.
"It doesn't do much for democratic legitimacy if the European Commission approves specific GMOs even in the face of objections from a majority of member states," said Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard.
"This procedure does not seem to be able to make the wishes of a majority of member states possible. There is a big majority against GMOs in public opinion," added Stavros Kaloyannis, Greece's state environment secretary.
Ireland's Minister for the Environment Dick Roche did not oppose the mechanism saying it was the ministers themselves who approved the system.
The authority also came in for criticism: "We need credibility, trust from the public for our authorisation procedure," said Humberto Rosa, state environment secretary for Portugal.
Mr Roche said while concerns were raised by member states, "no one questions the expertise of the EFSRA."
The matter will be raised again at the ministers' next meeting in May, but in the meantime fears have been raised that the EU will come under further pressure to approve GMOs. The US and other countries which grow genetically modified crops are putting pressure on the EU to accept their produce.
Their case has been buoyed up by a leaked judgment from the World Trade Organisation last month said that the 1998-2004 GMO ban by the EU was illegal.
At the back of the debate lies the issue of public health and whether the organisms pose a risk. "There's not a single long-term study which proves there are no risks," says Breyer.
Greenpeace addressed environment ministers last week in Brussels citing the halting of studies in Australia on peas producing an insecticide protein after allergic reactions and lung inflammation were noticed in mice fed the product.
On the other side, industry proponents say millions of people around the world have been eating GM products for years with no adverse reaction.
"Last year there were 80 million hectares of GM crops grown and not one reported incident of health side effects anywhere to animals or human," says Barber.
Even in the area of medical research the debate is not clear-cut. Research is being co-ordinated by Trinity College Dublin into ways of tackling obesity by taking genes from marine algae to produce a seed oil which would help reduce the level of saturated fat in the blood.
Other research by Lipgene includes changing the bacterial productions in cows' stomachs to alter the fat types produced in dairy products.
Prof Michael Gibney who works on the project believes people will change their minds and see the benefits of GM technology: "When trains came out first, people were afraid to travel in the opposite direction to the earth." But others disagree. "It is completely unnecessary. We should not be fooled by pie-in-the-sky ideas," says Eric Gall of Greenpeace's European unit. "We do not need GMOs or the reality of what they deliver."