European
Commission

Biotechnology: Building Consumer Acceptance

(Speech by Commissioner Byrne at the European Business Summit)

It gives me great pleasure to be invited to todays "European Business Summit" and, as European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, I am particularly pleased to give you my perspective on biotechnology and the possible means of building consumer acceptance.

A recent opinion poll, Eurobarometer, conducted between 1^st November and 15th December last year, and entitled "The Europeans and Biotechnology" gives a relatively precise picture of European attitudes to biotechnology in general and in particular to genetic engineering in the food chain.

The results show a significant increase in consumer resistance to GMOs (the last poll was carried out during 1996). For example, 66% of Europeans would not buy GM fruit even if it tasted better, nor would they eat eggs from hens fed on GM maize. Consumers strongly support statements such as even if GM food has advantages, it is basically against nature!

Interestingly, at the same time according to the same Eurobarometer, 81% of Europeans feel they are inadequately informed on biotechnology! There is no doubt in my mind about the link between consumers reluctance to accept biotechnology and the serious lack of information on the subject.

My first answer to the question raised about how to restore citizens confidence in biotechnology for agriculture and food is therefore to have better and comprehensible information. Why after all do we have so much anxiety when, at least for human health, science does not point to safety problems? Better and comprehensible information implies several things:

First, this implies an informed debate about the various uses and the complex aspects of biotechnology.

This is not simple but is absolutely necessary. My colleague, Mr Busquin, the Commissioner in charge of research, has just created a group of high level scientists to advise on the way to better communicate complex scientific data. In more general terms, this is a challenge we face in other areas: for example in the proposal I have made to establish a European Food safety Authority, I have stressed, and there is, I believe, broad agreement on this, that a key function of the future authority is communication. Not every one is a micro-biologist or a genetician, but citizens want and need to know.

But for GMOs at least, leaving the debate to the scientists is clearly not sufficient; there are many other issues involved in the debate: issues related to the environment, health, ethics, to the ownership of this technology, to access by developing countries, to competitiveness and the future of dynamic research as the motor of the "fourth economy". Some fear that the concerns and anxieties expressed for food will spill over on other sectors such as the pharmaceutical sector. I believe a comprehensive debate is necessary, involving all stakeholders, that is scientists, industry, consumers, ethicists, public authorities.

I would like to emphasise here that although the Commission can contribute to a rational debate, it is at national level, taking account of the specific interests and specificities of each country that communication will be effective. National authorities have a key role to play.

Second, there should also be clarity and transparency in the decision-making process. The Common position of the EU Council of ministers on the revision of the horizontal EC directive 90/220 on the placing onto the market of live GMOs, adopted in December 1999 clearly indicates that transparency in the decision-making process through consultations and reporting on ethical issues should be increased. It also speaks about involvement of the public in the decision-making process itself. We have to see how best this can be reflected in the regulatory framework on GMOs.

Thirdly, information implies labelling as a means to provide the information consumers demand. I believe that an appropriate labelling system of genetically modified food is one of the cornerstones in resolving the current controversy concerning the application of biotechnology. Consumers are demanding labelling throughout the food chain in order to be able to make an informed choice. The Edinburgh conference on the scientific and health aspects of genetically modified foods organised by the OECD last February concluded that consumers need to be able to exercise choice. For this, they need information on the way products have been manufactured. Almost all participants recognised the value of labelling in enabling consumer choice.

A survey carried out in 1998 showed that 86% of European consumers demand labelling of GMO food. Furthermore, the Council common position I was referring to earlier, provides for labelling and traceability at all stages of the placing on the market of GMOs.

We are at present looking at these complex issues to make appropriate legislative proposals. I have committed myself to bringing forward a proposal on novel feed before the summer which will include provisions on labelling and traceability. The labelling rules concerning GMO foods and GMO seeds need to be completed. My intention is to make proposals on the latter in the autumn.

This leads me to my second answer on how to restore and maintain confidence in biotechnology for agriculture and food. It is the need to have a coherent and predictable regulatory framework on GMO foods, animal feeds and seeds. The White Paper on Food Safety adopted by the European Commission in January this year includes a timetable for a number of proposals.

The horizontal directive 90/220, as its number indicates, was adopted in 1990, at a time when concern about GMOs was less obvious. The authorisation procedure became obsolete as consumer concerns grew and consequently, Member States have become more and more reluctant to approve the placing on the market of new GMOs under Directive 90/220. This has resulted in a complete standstill in the current authorisations and a de facto moratorium on the commercial release of GMOs. A revised version of Directive 90/220 is currently going through the "codecision" procedure and could result in adoption by the Council of Ministers of the revised directive next October. The directive will, of course, have then to be subsequently transposed into national laws.

My third answer, and I should stress that there is no order of priorities in my tentative answers on restoring consumers confidence, and maybe the point I am going to make now should have in fact come first, is the need to develop in the agro-food sector products which bring clear benefits to consumers.

I have to say that the biotechnology industry has moved forward very quickly without taking sufficient account of the concerns of society and has failed to inform consumers as to the merits of this technology. Furthermore, it has to be recognised that most of the GMOs currently on the market are targeted to provide benefits for producers, not consumers.

My fourth answer is appropriate monitoring and traceability:

European Consumers have repeatedly stressed the link between consumer acceptance of biotechnology and rigorous and transparent control of GMOs.

Biotechnology is a new area. Because of this I believe that it is fully justified that authorisations should be reviewed and time-limited and that genetically modified organisms are carefully monitored in the light of evolving science. Indeed, when important new scientific information on an authorised product becomes available, a new scientific assessment should be carried out.

The December 1999 Common position of the EU Council of Ministers on the revision of Directive 90/220 introduced the concept of traceability for GMOs at all stages of the placing on the market. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology, particularly in food, will depend on the ability to trace a GMO back to its source, that is the history, use or location of an individual GMO. A traceability system will enable the competent authorities to withdraw products when a risk is posed; to identify and monitor long-term effects on human health and the environment; to facilitate the control of labelling

However, we have to address, and I would very much welcome your ideas and expertise on these issues, what in concrete terms traceability, and labelling, mean. How far can we go with current DNA or protein detection methodology in the food chain? What organisation and costs are involved?

My last answer will be on the international dialogue necessary on all these issues. You know as well as I do that we live in an interdependent world. The trade impact of GMOs acceptance is tremendous.

I do not think that European consumers are alone in their concerns. Australia and New Zealand require mandatory labelling of foods derived from GMOs. They are at present considering the methods to apply these requirements. Other countries including Japan, Korea and Canada are also prepared to set a standard for labelling of GMO food. US consumers are also asking for more rigorous testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods.

I am pleased that the Biosafety Protocol was signed by 68 countries two weeks ago in Nairobi. The OECD and the Codex Alimentarius, the joint FAO/WHO joint committee on food, have been working on certain aspects of GMOs. I think that more work should be done at the international level, possibly through an ad hoc panel looking at issues comprehensively and bringing together developed and developing countries.

Let me now conclude.

I firmly believe that biotechnology and GMO-products can only prosper in an environment

• where GMOs are safe
• where proper information and dialogue of all stakeholders takes place
• where the consumer is fully recognised as a legitimate stakeholder
• where the consumer is given a free choice
• where risk/benefit assessments are fully transparent
• where traceability and monitoring are organised
• where authorisations are time-limited
• where all consumer concerns are addressed and taken into account

We do not solve problems by digging trenches. I have sometimes heard scientists and industrialists dismissing consumers apprehensions as being groundless and irrational. I do not share that view.

Consumers are entitled to clear information and a free choice of products. It is after all, the consumer who decides what products to buy and who pays.

Only an open-minded, transparent and balanced dialogue between all stakeholders, including the consumer, can in the long-term help demystify the application of biotechnology. I am ready to contribute today to this dialogue.

Thank you for your attention.