To go to main Food Law Index page, click here.
I would like to begin by thanking Ambassador Schneider for the opportunity to speak at the end of this important conference organised around the topic of the science and impact of biotechnology.
As European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, I am particularly pleased to be here today and to give you my perspective on biotechnology and the public.
In the past, the citizen in his capacity as consumer, has often been overlooked in discussions on biotechnology even though he or she is a legitimate stakeholder in the debate and the decisions taken on the utilisation of this new technology.
I am also pleased that the aim of this conference is to discuss both advantages and disadvantages of biotechnology. The application of biotechnology has far-reaching consequences for society - as it has already been pointed out by many speakers before me - and apart from risks and benefits, ethical concerns are also important to the public.
The only way forward to face the controversy surrounding biotechnology is to promote an open-minded and balanced dialogue between all stakeholders - scientists, industry, farmers and consumers and by ensuring full transparency in the risk/benefit assessment of biotech products. Furthermore, we have to accept and respect the consumers' right to have clear information in order to take informed decisions on which products they want to buy.
I will return to this issue later, but let me first outline the recent European experience on food safety in general and the public concerns about biotechnology in particular.
Simply put, in the minds of the European public, safety is the most important ingredient of their food. Other considerations very important considerations such as quality, value for money, choice, taste etc, come second. When the consumer chooses a product from the supermarket shelve, their first and over-riding presumption is that it should be safe.
The recent crises or scandals in Europe such as BSE or the more recent dioxin contamination have called into question the very safety of food. The fall-out from such events can have grave consequences for health as well as the economy. One clear lesson from the BSE and the dioxin crises is that there are no winners.
Compromising on food safety is not a way for a farm or a company to reduce costs. It is actually a very dangerous path, not only for consumers, but also for the farm or company itself and for the whole sector involved. In an industry worth 600 billion euros annually in the European Union, that is about 15% of total manufacturing output, even a slight dip in confidence can have significant effects. Betweeen the agro-food sector and the farming sector, there are about 10 million employees in Europe. High levels of confidence are necessary to boost job numbers and competitiveness. Confidence and predictibility are also essential elements to boost trade and you all know how important this is between the EU and the US who are each other's best trading partner.
I fully accept that in many respects food has never been safer. I am also fully aware that zero risk is not achievable, as in most other human activities. Nevertheless the public's demands and expectations have never been higher and confidence is very fragile. We have one of the best informed, discerning and sophisticated group of consumers in the world.
Each successive crisis undermines the public's trust in the capacity of the food industry, in its broadest sense, and in the public authorities, to ensure that their food is safe. You can see from the press the extent of consumer unease about what they eat, you can read articles full of questions and analysis right and wrong- about genetically modified foods, the use of growth promoters, pesticide residues in food, salmonella, E-Coli, anti-microbial resistance to name only some. And, in addition to food safety, other legitimate factors play a significant role for many European consumers. Issues like animal welfare, environmental considerations, sustainable agriculture, consumers' expectations and fair information are being discussed more than ever. Ethical questions concerning food production have also entered into the political agenda all over Europe and need to be addressed.
We all suffer from the fall-out from this loss of confidence.
The crisis of confidence has had the unfortunate but inevitable effect of eroding the trust of consumers in systems and institutions at national and international level that should monitor and assure the highest standards of food safety. In saying all this, I would like to make it clear that Europe, nevertheless, has one of the best food industries in the world. And also one of the safest food control systems. The challenge is to make the systems even better.
In order to rebuild European citizens confidence that their food is safe "from the farm to the fork", the European Commission adopted last week THE WHITE PAPER ON FOOD SAFETY, on which I would like now to say a few words. I believe that, in the White paper, the Commission has put forward an ambitious action plan to transform today's EU food policy.
The actions planned are based on a comprehensive, integrated approach throughout the food chain - in other words from "farm to table" designed to make EU-legislation more coherent, understandable and flexible. The more than 80 separate actions proposed include proposals on GMOs as we are acutely aware of the need to have a coherent and predictable framework on GMO foods, animal feeds, and seeds, for example.
The White Paper provides that scientific assessment and advice must be based on independence, excellence and transparency. Public confidence can only be maintained in a system where scientific assessments are carried out by eminent scientists and independently of industrial and political interests. Scientific advice must be open to rigorous public scrutiny.
The Commission has proposed the establishment of an independent European Food Authority with particular responsibilities for risk assessment and risk communication.
The Food Safety Authority should provide a single, highly visible, point of contact for all stakeholders. It would not only act as point of scientific excellence, but would also be available to consumers to provide advice and guidance.
The Food Safety Authority will not be a European FDA, but will work in close co-operation with national scientific agencies and institutions in charge of food safety. Unlike the FDA, and this is very important, it will not have regulatory powers. These are entrusted to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. We wish to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, risk-assessment which has to be based on sciencific excellence and independence and, on the other hand, risk-management which is the responsibility of decision-makers, who are politically accountable to the citizens.
One very important element in the system is that the roles of all stakeholders must be clearly defined. This includes a clear understanding that feed manufacturers, farmers and food operators have the primary responsibility for food safety.
In this new comprehensive approach to food safety we are trying to meet some very specific consumer demands.
First of all, consumers have their right to make informed choices.
I firmly believe in and support the consumers' right to information and to take informed decisions about what products they want to purchase.
Consumers want to be in a position to take informed choices. Information on production methods and labelling of products are key to this increased awareness and to the development of a civil responsibility in this respect. I am of course not talking of products which are judged to be unsafe; clearly those should not be put on the market at all.
The Amsterdam Treaty, our new legal framework for European integration, has explicitly introduced the right to information for the consumers. European consumers have consistently demanded that GMO-food be labelled - not for reasons of safety, but in order to make an informed choice. A survey carried out in 1998 showed that 86% of the European consumers demand labelling of GMO food.
I think that consumers in Europe have never been so united on any one issue as on the labelling of GMOs. Regulators and the food industry must ensure that this demand for information is met if GMOs are to win acceptance.
The Commission is currently working on improving the EU-legislation on labelling of GMOs and on the legal framework for a "GMO-free" production line, to which producers can adhere on a voluntary basis. The objective is to provide consumers with clear information and a choice between products.
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 to food. Without appropriate consumer information, mistrust about biotechnology and GMO food is bound to proliferate.
I am therefore pleased to see that many other countries, such as Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, are adopting a similar approach. In some cases they have already acted! This responds to the demands we have had from consumers in the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue.
Information is of course very much linked to the issue of traceability.
A successful food safety policy also demands traceability of feed and food. This obviously applies to GMOs. Adequate procedures to facilitate traceability must be introduced. This includes the obligation for feed and food businesses to ensure that procedures are in place to withdraw feed and food from the market where it presents a risk to the consumer.
It must be emphasised however that unambiguous tracing of feed and food is a complex issue and must take into account the specificity of different sectors and commodities.
Let me now turn to another element: control.
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.
Another of the central elements in restoring consumer confidence is to make decisions concerning food safety which are based on science - that is a scientific assessment of potential risks. The Commission is determined to continue to use the best available science in developing its food safety measures.
Under the current European legislation, genetically modified food can only be placed on the European market after it has been scientifically evaluated and when, according to the latest scientific knowledge, it is considered to be safe for human health and the environment. This is a science-based approach.
However, in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain, and where possible risks to health or the environment are unacceptable, measures should be based on the precautionary principle.
This is in line with the consumer demand for a precautionary approach not only in relation to GMOs, but also to a variety of food safety issues, where scientific data are sparse and scientific judgement is uncomfortably imprecise.
The Commission is currently working on a communication defining the precautionary principle and clarifying when and how it can be applied to protect the public while avoiding its use for trade protectionist purposes. The Commission also wants to clarify the conditions for the use of the precautionary principle, and develop multilaterally agreed guidelines for that purpose.
To sum up, I think that the principles I have outlines are fundamental for a new framework on GMOs:
They are all contained in the Common Position recently adopted by Council on the revision of the EU-legislation on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment - and I believe that this is the way forward.
The debate on GMOs so far in Europe and elsewhere has been characterised by a great deal of emotion and insufficient reason. The EU is not against the application of biotechnology but I feel that the biotechnology industry has moved forward very quickly without taking sufficient account of the concerns of society and a parallel failure to inform citizens sufficiently as to the merits of this technology. A recent Euro-barometer survey revealed that only every second European finds it morally acceptable to apply biotechnology to food. Opposition to GMOs products has to date been largely found in Europe, but I am aware of growing concerns in the US as well.
I believe we all need to have a predictable and coherent framework in place, and I am determined to do my utmost in full collaboration with my other colleagues in the Commission, in particular the Commissioner in charge of the environment Ms Walstrom, listening to all interested parties.
Many consumers have questioned the benefits of biotechnology to the man in the street. In the public debate, there is a tendency to overlook many different aspects of biotechnology and sometimes to focus on negative effects.
I am sympathetic to the fact that for some products, the benefit to man may not be so obvious. However, it has to be recognised that most of the GMOs currently on the market are not targeted to deliver clear benefits for the consumer, rather to provide benefits for producers.
From a consumer point of view, this has given rise to scepticism, independent from safety questions. The public attitude towards GMO food might change once products with clear benefit to consumers are marketed.
But it is also essential to point to some of the advantages of biotechnology - as many speakers have already done during this conference. Can we afford to ignore the potential offered by biotechnology to address many important medical, environmental and nutritional challenges?
Taking the risk of repeating other speakers let me give you some examples.
For instance, we can now treat children, who suffer from retarded growth, without risking contaminating them with Creutzfeldt-Jacobs Disease, as was the case when we had to rely on growth hormone extracted from cadavers. I need not remind you that the latter practice led to a number of tragic deaths of children.
We can also alleviate the sufferings of haemophiliacs with unlimited sources of coagulation factors free from the AIDS or Hepatitis C viruses, which have killed many patients. For that alone, I think we should be grateful to biotechnology.
Take the situation on rare diseases. As most of them are caused by genetic disorders, the advances in gene technology will contribute very much to the understanding of the causes of these diseases and perhaps lead to a cure.
Gene therapy is currently the biggest hope for people suffering from genetic diseases. Without biotechnology, the causes of such diseases could not have been tackled. However, even though science is an indispensable basis for decisions on food safety measures, we have to acknowledge the inescapable limitations on its role. Determining the acceptable level of risk is a political exercise and cannot be confined to science. In some cases, there are demands - due for instance to ethical or environmental considerations - to go further in the area of health protection measures than the scientific evidence suggest is necessary.
Let me now conclude.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I firmly believe that biotechnology and GMO-products can only prosper in an environment where
Consumers not only want to understand, for instance the health and nutritional implications of their choices, but, in many cases, they are interested in the environmental and ethical implications of the way the products are produced. Clarity and improvement are needed in this area in order to provide essential information to consumers.
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 this 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 to demystify the application of biotechnology.
Thank you for your attention.