Wallström says GMO 'deadlock' holding up research
EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said that the current commercial and ideological deadlock over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is holding up research in the area. Speaking at a stakeholders' workshop on 'Implementing the new regulatory framework (Directive 2001/18/EC)' on 19 November, Ms Wallström said that sceptical public opinion about GMOs led to the introduction in some EU Member States of trade barriers and to the slow-down and eventual halt of the authorisation of new GMOs. Since October 1998, no authorisations have been given. 'In the presence of this deadlock,' Ms Wallström said, 'the research activity has been progressively reduced and the firms have basically abstained from submitting additional demands for new authorisations.' She added that 'at the same time, the products which have been placed on the market on the basis of the old rules benefit from a privileged treatment with respect to new and probably better tested products.' Ms Wallström also warned that a new regulatory framework on the release of genetically modified products might not be enough to turn the tide of public opinion and provide reassurance. 'Once we have filled the regulatory gap,' she explained, 'we still need to bridge the big communication gap that exists between industry, the scientific community and civil society.' She called upon both industry and the scientific community to play a role in communicating with the public and addressing their concerns: 'Biotechnology is not only a big challenge for the legislator, but requires a fundamental change in the culture and in the behaviour of industry and the scientific community.' Ms Wallström also outlined the main objectives of the new Directive, which she described as 'ambitious.' The first aim is to restore public confidence in the regulatory system by establishing rules to safeguard public health and address environmental concerns. The new legislation also aims to give consumers the right to choose by creating the conditions that allow for an informed choice, and providing a predictable and stable legislative process which European research and industry can rely upon. William Moens of the Belgian biosafety advisory group, who chaired a discussion on 'Challenges for the future' at the event, pointed out, however, that the new Directive will only provide regulation for certain types of genetic modification. He explained that there are several categories of GMO and said herbicide resistant plants are now being produced by conventional methods which fall outside the scope of Directive 2001/18. He said that these categories of genetically modified products are being 'used in food and feed and nobody says a word about that.' He said that the issue raised the question of how to define and categorise risk. The categories of genetically modified organism which are covered by Directive 2001/18 are set out in Annexes 1A and 1B of the Directive. These include mutagenesis and cell fusion of plant cells of organisms which can exchange genetic material through traditional breeding methods Mr Moens added that the difficulty may lie in the definition of a 'genetically modified organism' which he explained is a legal definition 'invented by the EU and nobody else'. He asked whether the 'first definition is correct or not' and said it raises questions of how novelty is defined. He also pointed out that the USA defines GMOs differently from Europe. Directive 2001/18/EC, which was formally adopted in March 2001, will replace Directive 90/220 as of October 2002.