European Parliament backs tougher rules for labels on GM food products

The European Parliament voted to toughen compulsory labelling rules for genetically modified foods yesterday, despite deep divisions and claims from some MEPs that consumers would be misled.

The Parliament, sitting in Strasbourg, backed a draft regulation to label items with at least 0.5 per cent content of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), or lower if scientifically acceptable – instead of the European Commission proposal for a 1 per cent threshold.

The vote sets the stage for a lengthy battle between MEPs and the governments of EU countries over the minimum level of GMOs at which to begin marking food for consumers.

The tougher regime, which needs the approval of EU member state governments, would require labelling of all products containing GM ingredients, including animal feed bought by farmers, and the labelling of products containing GM ingredients such as oils and sugars, even if they are not scientifically detectable but are identified through traceability schemes reliant on documents.

MEPs rejected moves to label products – such as vegetarian cheese – which are made with processing aids but have no GM ingredient in the final product. They also threw out efforts to identify products made from ingredients such as milk or eggs derived from animals reared on GM feeds.

The decision was welcomed by Chris Davies, spokesman for the environment, health and consumers for the Liberal Democrats. He said: "We have got the right balance where we meet the concerns of those who are most worried. At the same time we have not extended the scheme in a ridiculous way, such as including enzymes made in cheese or products such as cake, biscuit and cheese which might have come from a cow which had eaten some GM maize."

Labour efforts to force through a scheme under which products could be marketed as GM-free only if they had zero GMO content were rejected. David Bowe, Labour's environment spokesman, said: "We are going to see products that are coming into our supermarkets that people will think are non-GMO but which will contain up to 0.5 per cent. That is like telling 99 per cent of the truth – it can be 100 per cent wrong."

Labour believes the law could provoke a conflict with the United States in the World Trade Organisation because American producers have made little effort to separate GM and non-GM crops.

Critics of the Labour proposal argued that a totally GMO-free line would be too expensive for the shopper. They also worried that, without other measures, the approach would remove the burden on producers to show how much GM material was in their products.

The Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evansdescribed the vote as a "great victory for consumers and for the millions of people across the EU who do not want to eat genetically modified food and who do not want to feed it to their animals". Green MEPs were pleased with the fact that no GMOs would be allowed on to the European market if they had not gone through the EU authorisation procedure – even if approved elsewhere.

Efforts to draft the new rules could last for years. The issue now goes to back to member states, who are expected to take a more conservative line.

At a second reading, 314 MEPs – half of the whole parliament – must approve the measure. Some MEPs believe the European Commission's original proposal of a 1 per cent threshold could still win.