The European Commission has chosen high summer to put on the table a set of proposals to lift an unofficial moratorium on genetically modified food authorisations in the EU, and also to "fast-track" approvals. The carrot for member states, consumers and environmentalists still anxious about GM foods is tighter regulation promised by the Commission.
The Commission feels the time has come to accept that GM foods do not pose a serious threat to public health. Nobody among the millions of people eating GM foods daily in the US has become ill as a result. If the Commission's proposals emerged a year ago, they would have re-ignited anti-GM hysteria, nowhere more so than in Britain. Yet many British newspapers did not see fit to cover this latest move.
It is an indication of how the issue has moved on, and means the proposals have some chance of adoption even if the exact details are not yet known. Green interests across the EU are not pleased. The fast-track mechanism would be in place as soon as agreement is reached by EU governments and the European Parliament but before they legally enter into force in individual states. Yet it remains to be seen how exactly the EU will deliver traceability of genetically modified organisms, proper labelling and segregation of GM and non-GM foods, and provision for liability should something go wrong - the key requirements of consumer and environmental interests.
Regardless of individual states' attitude to GM foods, it is undeniable that a shambolic arrangement has existed since 1998. An agreement reached by EU environment ministers to ban approvals pending agreement on regulatory reforms had no legal standing. No new GM foods have been authorised in Europe since then. Under current cumbersome arrangements notably directive 90-220 on the release of GM foods into the environment which is going through a tortuous process of reform it could be a further two years before any can come to the market. Looking at the global picture, food biotechnology is expanding significantly within large economic powers such as the US and Japan and is set to bring tangible benefits. This is in contrast to the EU "freeze" on GMOs. The Commission feels this was not sustainable.
The Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr David Byrne, has correctly identified the bottom line. There is a strong scientific basis to the commission approach even if it also amounts to an attempt to by-pass difficulties that were likely to arise before a new GM food could be authorised within the EU. But the Commission must tread carefully. It is not only good science that will secure the future of food biotechnology; consumer acceptability is also important.
At the very least, Europe's citizens are entitled to a regulatory system that ensures GM foods are properly (and independently) researched before being allowed on the market, and then carefully monitored when crop versions are growing. Despite good intentions and understandable urgency, these regulations have yet to be delivered. What is on offer is a promise of them sooner than anticipated.