This is not the first discussion about food and GMOs in which I happen to be heavily involved. I would remind you of the debate surrounding the non-food regulation dating back some five years. The viewpoint which my group, and also I myself, expressed at the time was as follows: first of all, GMOs in food are allowed, provided that that is what the consumer wants, but we then need to choose in favour of a safe and transparent system in which only GMOs that are permitted and are thus also safe may be used. Secondly, the consumer should have freedom of choice. This means that consumers must be informed as effectively as possible in order that they can make up their own minds. Mr President, these two basic principles were at the time of the non-food regulation the reason why we were decidedly against the ‘may contain’ label. Indeed, this ‘may contain’ label does not inform; nobody is any the wiser. We, or rather I, on behalf of my group, proposed by amendment to this non-food regulation that when genetically modified DNA is identified in food, it should also be labelled. I can recall the protests of the foodstuffs industry at the time and I also remember very well the support given at the time by many organisations, including the Dutch consumer organisation. The proposal we are discussing today does not give the consumer any freedom of choice, but neither does current practice, despite claims to the contrary. Why? Very simply because in the so-called trash hold, a minimum of one percent of modified DNA in food may occur, without the need for it being labelled. For clarity’s sake, the European Commission now confirms that this non-labelling rule applies to values below one percent. This therefore means that there is food on the market that is not labelled, yet that contains nearly one percent of modified DNA. The European Commission’s proposal that is now before us makes the consumer’s freedom of choice even less transparent. Let me explain. The principle of analytical demonstrability in the end product has been abandoned. We have always been in favour of this principle with its one-percent margin, below which there is no labelling. What is now new is that all additions to the end product that theoretically originate from, or are processed by means of, GMOs, now have to be labelled. In practice, this could result in bottles of fruit juice, to which sugar, or perhaps vitamin C or a filling agent has been added, which have been confirmed on paper to possibly originate from GMO corn following the many processing stages, having to be labelled as genetically modified. This is bizarre. A theoretical one thousandth of modified DNA must be labelled, while the bottle without this vitamin C need not be labelled, although it may contain one percent of modified DNA. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at this rate, tens of thousands of products will have to be labelled of which it cannot be demonstrated that they contain GMO. I would mention the cheese on the pizza and the milk in the bar of chocolate. Introducing this paper tiger is, in my view, misleading the consumers. This is the only reason why I am opposed to this proposal. I, along with my fellow MEPs, will continue to be committed to offering genuine, objective and demonstrable information to consumers who are truly given the freedom of choice.

Political group: PPE-DE