State of play in the EU
on GM-free food labelling
schemes and assessment of
the need for possible
harmonisation
Final report

Written by ICF GHK
October – 2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Directorate E - Safety of the Food Chain
Unit E1 - Biotechnology
E-mail: SANTE-CONSULT-E1@ec.europa.eu

European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

State of play in the EU
on GM-free food labelling
schemes and assessment of
the need for possible
harmonisation
Final report

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety

2015

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators,

phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
ISBN 978-92-79-49485-7
doi: 10.2875/4437
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

State of play in the EU on GM-free food
labelling schemes and assessment of the
need for possible harmonisation
Final report
DG SANCO, European Commission

A report submitted by ICF GHK
in association with

ADAS, UK Ltd
Date: 8 October 2013
Job Number 30258974

Elta Smith
ICF GHK
2nd Floor, Clerkenwell House
67 Clerkenwell Road
London
EC1R 5BL
T +44 (0)20 7611 1100
F +44 (0)20 3368 6960
www.ghkint.com

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Document Control
Document Title

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the
need for possible harmonisation

Job number

30258974

Prepared by

Main report authors: Elta Smith, Andrew Jarvis, Mavourneen Conway
Case study authors: Meike Henseleit (AT and DE), Sophie House (FR), Stefano
Boccaletti (IT), Huib de Vriend (NL), Angelica Marino (SE), Steven Tompkins (UK)
Inputs and contributions: Joel Marsden, Nihar Shembavnekar, Stefania Chirico,
Angina Jugnauth, Katarzyna Majkut, Anna Kaxira, Julie Herman

Checked by

Andrew Jarvis

Date

8 October 2013

ICF GHK is the brand name of GHK Consulting Ltd and the other subsidiaries of GHK Holdings Ltd.
In February 2012 GHK Holdings and its subsidiaries were acquired by ICF International.
© European Union, 2013. All rights in the depicted logos are the exclusive property of their respective
owners.

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Contents
Glossary of terms................................................................................................................ix
Acronyms.............................................................................................................................x
Executive summary............................................................................................................xv
1

Introduction ...........................................................................................................1

2

Study context .........................................................................................................2

2.1

2.4

The EU’s current legislative framework for labelling GMOs specifies when ‘positive’ labels
are required and allows for use of ‘negative’ labels................................................................. 2
Different approaches to GM(O)-free labelling are currently used in the EU and some
issues with this variation have been identified ......................................................................... 2
This study provides a detailed assessment of current GM(O)-free labelling schemes and
the potential for a harmonised EU-wide approach................................................................... 4
Method ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3

GM(O)-free labelling ‘landscape’ in the EU and Switzerland .................................10

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11

Government-led Type I schemes: explicit GM(O)-free labelling rules and guidelines........... 10
Private operator-led Type I schemes: explicit GM(O)-free labelling rules and guidelines..... 17
Type II schemes: ‘GM(O)-free’ is one attribute of a quality label........................................... 19
Type III schemes: ‘GM(O)-free’ is a supply chain requirement, but no labels appear on
product packages................................................................................................................... 21
Labelling rules ........................................................................................................................ 23
Product scope ........................................................................................................................ 30
Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence .......................... 33
Input specifications and exemptions ...................................................................................... 34
Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals ......................................................................... 36
Certification, controls and monitoring requirements .............................................................. 38
Market share .......................................................................................................................... 43

4

GM(O)-free labelling outlook in the EU.................................................................48

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

EU consumers express a preference for GM(O)-free products, but attitudes are changing
towards GM............................................................................................................................ 48
Market growth as an indication of consumer demand ........................................................... 51
Costs to produce GM(O)-free products.................................................................................. 53
The market share of GM(O)-free products in the EU cannot be determined with existing
data, but where data at local and national levels exist, the schemes tend to have limited
market share .......................................................................................................................... 56

5

Problem definition ...............................................................................................57

5.1
5.2

Problems for consumers ........................................................................................................ 57
Problems for operators........................................................................................................... 61

6

Policy objectives and options ...............................................................................64

6.1
6.2
6.3

Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 64
Elements and options for a harmonised system .................................................................... 64
Interplay with and added-value compared to PDO/PGI and organic labelling....................... 86

7

Appraisal of elements to include in a harmonised approach ................................89

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8

Approach to the appraisal of elements and options............................................................... 89
Element 1: Labelling rules...................................................................................................... 90
Element 2: Product scope ...................................................................................................... 94
Element 3: Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence............... 96
Element 4: Input specifications and exemptions.................................................................. 101
Element 5: Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals ..................................................... 105
Element 6: Certification, inspection and monitoring............................................................. 108
Elements in combination ...................................................................................................... 111

2.2
2.3

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 1

Study terms of reference .........................................................................116

Annex 2

Questionnaire – stakeholders and MS representatives ............................127

Annex 3

Case study consultees..............................................................................156

Annex 4

Consultation responses – EU level stakeholders ......................................160

Annex 5

Data tables for questionnaire responses..................................................162

Annex 6

Non-food/non-feed products...................................................................166

Annex 7

GM(O)-free labelling ‘landscape’ in third countries..................................168

Annex 8

Meta-analysis of WTP studies for GM(O)-free products ...........................173

Annex 9

References...............................................................................................176

Table of tables
Table 1.1
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Table 3.13
Table 3.14
Table 3.15
Table 3.16
Table 3.17
Table 3.18
Table 3.19
Table 3.20
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5

Proposed elements and options ..................................................................................... xxiii
Questionnaire response rate............................................................................................... 7
Case study interviews conducted ....................................................................................... 8
Type I schemes: government-led explicit GM(O)-free label ............................................. 11
Legislation / guidelines - overview .................................................................................... 11
Prohibitive rules - overview ............................................................................................... 15
Private operator-led Type I schemes: context and rationale for scheme development.... 18
Type III non-GM supply chains: context and rationale for scheme development............. 22
Food product labelling distinctions in France under Decret no 2012-128 ........................ 23
Wording and logos to identify a product as 'GM(O)-free' specified in national legislation 24
Wording and logos to identify products as 'GM(O)-free' used by private operators ......... 27
Logos used by private operators to identify quality products where ‘GM(O)-free’ is a
requirement for its use ...................................................................................................... 28
Product scope ................................................................................................................... 30
Product scope – Type I, II and III private operator-led schemes ...................................... 32
Threshold levels set by MS for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence.... 33
Type I – threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence set by
private operators ............................................................................................................... 34
Type II – threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence set by
private operators ............................................................................................................... 34
Input specifications ........................................................................................................... 35
Exceptions......................................................................................................................... 35
Minimum non-GM feeding times set by Member State legislation and guidelines ........... 37
Minimum non-GM feeding times set by private operators ................................................ 37
Information concerning Type I product market share and other information on GM(O)-free
labelling product coverage in EU MS................................................................................ 45
Information concerning Type I product market share and other information on GM(O)-free
labelling product coverage in EU MS................................................................................ 47
Proposed elements and options ....................................................................................... 66
Potential labelling options and views from respondents as to their appropriateness ....... 70
Mandatory labelling threshold levels for authorised GM content, various countries ........ 72
Threshold levels set for products labelled as ‘-free’ in the EU and the US ...................... 76
USDA Process Verified Program 'Never Ever 3' .............................................................. 84

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table A1.1
Table A1.2
Table A1.3
Table A1.4
Table A1.5
Table A1.6
Table A1.7
Table A4.1
Table A5.1
Table A5.2
Table A5.3

Assessment of a harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling...................................... 89
Element 1: Labelling rules................................................................................................. 93
Element 2: Product scope................................................................................................. 95
Element 3: Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence ....... 100
Element 4: Input specifications and exemptions............................................................. 104
Element 5: Minimum non-GM feeding times................................................................... 107
Element 6: Certification, inspection and monitoring........................................................ 110
Consultation overview - Austria ...................................................................................... 156
Consultation overview - Germany................................................................................... 156
Consultation overview - France ...................................................................................... 157
Consultation overview - Italy ........................................................................................... 157
Consultation overview – The Netherlands ...................................................................... 158
Consultation overview – United Kingdom ....................................................................... 158
Consultation overview - Sweden..................................................................................... 158
EU Consultees ................................................................................................................ 160
Elements ranked as the most (or second most) important to respondents .................... 162
Q15: What products should be included in a GM(O)-free system? ................................ 162
Q16: What wording do you think is appropriate for a label indicating that the product is
‘GM(O)-free’ and for what products? .............................................................................. 162
Table A5.4 Q17: What other production process-related elements do you think are important to
ensure the scheme’s success?....................................................................................... 163
Table A5.5 Q18: Should the label allow for any exceptions?............................................................ 163
Table A5.6 Q20: MS Representative views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling scheme
........................................................................................................................................ 163
Table A5.7 Q20: National stakeholder views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling
scheme............................................................................................................................ 164
Table A5.8 Q20: EU stakeholder views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling scheme 164
Table A5.9 Q21: MS Representative views on the qualitative impacts of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme on different groups .............................................................................. 164
Table A5.10 Q21: National stakeholder views on the qualitative impacts of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme on different groups .............................................................................. 165
Table A5.11 Q22: MS Representative views on where the costs will arise of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme among different groups ....................................................................... 165
Table A5.12 Q22: National stakeholder views on where the costs will arise of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme among different groups ....................................................................... 165
Table A7.1 Product categories for which a GM(O)-free label may be used...................................... 168
Table A7.2 Voluntary labelling guidelines in the United States......................................................... 169
Table A7.3 Canadian National Standard for GM(O)-free labelling.................................................... 171
Table A8.1 Results of a meta-analysis of GM food valuation studies (Lusk et al., 2005)................. 173

Table of figures
Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3
Figure 2.1

Labelling rules and product scope are the two elements that require specification for a
harmonised approach; other elements may be specified depending on the labelling
approach and scope of the scheme................................................................................ xxiv
General impacts arising from scope and strictness specifications in a GM(O)-free labelling
scheme............................................................................................................................. xxv
The EU market currently features GM(O)-free schemes that are defined by private and
public standards, and in which the GM(O)-free attribute is either a free-standing label,

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

packaged in a product label with other attributes, or integrated into own label standards
but not given a distinctive label ........................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.2 Project workflow .................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3.1 The Carrefour ‘Nourri sans OGM’ logo - prior to (left-hand logo) and from October 2012
(right-hand logo)................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.2 Organic producers’ marketing material in the Netherlands – ‘gentechvrij’ (‘GMO-free’) .. 29
Figure 5.1 A majority of respondents thought consumer confusion over multiple labels was a
problem (though not necessarily the most important one) ............................................... 58
Figure 5.2 Consumer confusion over multiple labels, views by sector .............................................. 59
Figure 5.3 A majority of respondents thought ‘misleading the consumer’ was a problem (though not
necessarily the most important one)................................................................................. 60
Figure 5.4 ‘Misleading the consumer’ is a problem, views by sector................................................. 60
Figure 5.5 Most respondents thought the current situation causes problems ................................... 62
Figure 5.6 Problems for the single market, views by sector .............................................................. 62
Figure 6.1 Options for harmonised rules concerning labelling rules for ‘GM(O)-free’ products......... 67
Figure 6.2 ‘GMO-free’ is the preferred food labelling option .............................................................. 69
Figure 6.3 ‘Fed with GM-free feed’ is the most appropriate option for animal products labelling...... 69
Figure 6.4 Options for harmonised rules regarding product scope.................................................... 70
Figure 6.5 Options for harmonised rules regarding threshold levels for authorised GM presence ... 73
Figure 6.6 Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced with/from
GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’? ........................................................................... 74
Figure 6.7 Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced with/from
GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’? Sectoral views ................................................... 75
Figure 6.8 Options for harmonised rules regarding the use of GM processing aids / compounds.... 77
Figure 6.9 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow preparation aided by
compounds or processing aids that contain or are derived from GMOs .......................... 78
Figure 6.10 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow preparation aided by
compounds or processing aids that contain or are derived from GMOs, views by sector 78
Figure 6.11 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – allowing for exceptions (additives or
enzymes)........................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 6.1 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – allowing for exceptions (additives or
enzymes), views by sector................................................................................................ 79
Figure 6.2 Options for harmonised rules regarding inputs to GM(O)-free animal production............ 80
Figure 6.3 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow production from animals
treated with GM veterinary pharmaceuticals .................................................................... 81
Figure 6.4 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow production from animals
treated with GM veterinary pharmaceuticals .................................................................... 81
Figure 6.5 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – exceptions for the use of GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals ................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 6.6 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – exceptions for the use of GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals ................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 6.7 Options to consider for minimum non-GM feeding times for animals............................... 83
Figure 6.8 Options to consider for certification, inspection and monitoring rules .............................. 85
Figure 6.9 Organic and GM(O)-free labels......................................................................................... 88
Figure 6.10 Organic and GM(O)-free labels, views by sector.............................................................. 88
Figure 7.1 Labelling rules and product scope are the two elements that require specification for a
harmonised approach; other elements may be specified depending on the labelling
approach and scope of the scheme................................................................................ 112
Figure 7.2 Illustrative example of the scope and strictness considerations that may be applied to
threshold levels for GM presence in a GM(O)-free product............................................ 113

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

General impacts arising from scope and strictness specifications in a GM(O)-free labelling
scheme............................................................................................................................ 114
Figure A7.1 Non-GMO Project label................................................................................................... 170
Figure 7.3

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Glossary of terms
Term

Definition

Additives/ enzymes

Food additives are substances added intentionally to foodstuffs to perform certain
technological functions, for example to colour, sweeten or preserve. Feed additives
are products used in animal nutrition for purposes of improving the quality of feed
and the quality of food from animal origin, or to improve the animals’ performance
and health. Food additives may be added to food enzymes in order to obtain food
enzymes preparations.

Adventitious or technically
unavoidable presence

Conventional products, i.e. those produced without genetic modification, can be
contaminated unintentionally by GMOs during harvesting, storage, transport or
processing. The presence of GM material is considered technically unavoidable
when farmers can show that they have taken appropriate measures to avoid such
presence of GMOs.

Conversion period /
minimum non-GM feeding
time

Amount of time during which the animal has been fed with GM(O)-free feed.

Credence attribute

An attribute for which quality cannot be assessed even after the product is
purchased and consumed.

Threshold level

The level set for allowable analytical detection of GMO traces in food and feed
products.

Genetically modified /
genetically modified
organism

GMOs are organisms with artificially altered genes to change their characteristics
in some way. GMO technology is used in agricultural, biological and medical
research, pharmaceutical development and experimental medicine.

Identity preserved or
identity preservation

Identity preservation is a system of crop or raw material management which
preserves the identity of the source or nature of the materials.

Input specifications

Rules concerning the presence of GMOs in agricultural inputs including processing
aids and animal feed.

Medicinal products /
Veterinary
pharmaceuticals

Medicinal products are substances presented for treating or preventing disease in
human beings or animals (Directive 65/65/EEC). Veterinary pharmaceuticals are
medicinal products intended for animals (Directive 81/851/EEC).

Positive labelling vs.
negative labelling

Positive labelling affirms the presence of GMOs in the product. Negative labelling
indicates that products do not contain, or are not produced using, GMOs. An
example of negative labelling is ‘GM-free’.

Processing aids

Any substance or material not consumed as a food ingredient by itself, intentionally
used in the processing of raw materials, foods or its ingredients, to fulfil a certain
technological purpose and which may result in the unintentional but unavoidable
presence of residues or derivatives in the final product.

Willingness to pay

Amount that a person would be "willing to pay" to obtain a good or a service.

ix

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronyms
Acronym

Term

AOC

Protected Designation of Origin (Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée)

CA

Competent authority

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid

ERA

Environmental Risk Assessment

GM

Genetically modified

GM(O)-free

Genetically modified (organism)-free

GMO

Genetically modified organism

GRAS

Generally recognised as safe

DOP

Protected Designation of Origin (Denominazione di Origine Protetta)

IGP

Protected Geographical Indication (Indication Géographique Protégée)

IP

Identity preserved

MS

Member State

MSG

Monosodium glutamate

N/A

Not available

NGO

Non-governmental organization

PDO

Protected Designation of Origin

PGI

Protected Geographical Indication

QM

Quality of Marche (Qualita’ delle Marche)

WTP

Willingness to pay

x

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronym

Organisation name

AAF

European Starch Industry Association (Association des Amidonniers et Féculiers)

ABG

Austria Bio Guarantee (Austria Bio Garantie)

ADAS

Agricultural Development Advisory Service

AETMD

European Association of canned and frozen sweet corn processors

AGROCERT

The Agricultural Products Certification and Supervision Organisation

AMA

Agri-food market Austria (Agrarmarkt Austria)

Amfep

Association of Manufacturers and Formulators of Enzyme Products

ANIA

National Association of Food Industries (Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires)

ARGE
Gentechnikfrei

Platform for GMO-free Food Products (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gentechnik-frei)

AUSL

Local health agency (Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale)

BEUC

European Consumers’ Association (Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs)

BMELV

German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium für
Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz)

BMG

Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit)

BMWFJ

Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth (Bundesministerium für Familie, Wirtschaft und
Jugend)

CAA

Consumer Affairs Agency, Japan

CBL

Dutch Food Retail Association (Central Bureau voor Levensmiddelen)

CELCAA

European Liaison Committee for Agricultural and Agri-Food Trade (Comité européen de liaison
des commerces agroalimentaires)

CLCV

National Association for the Defence of Consumers and Users (Consommation, Logement,
Cadre de Vie)

COCERAL

European cereals, rice, feedstuffs, oilseeds, olive oil, oils and fats and agrosupply trade
association (Comité du commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail, oléagineux, huile d’olive,
huiles et graisses et agrofournitures de l’Union européenne )

COFRAC

French Accreditation Committee (Comité Français d’Accréditation)

Coldiretti

Federation of Italian Framers (Confederazione nazionale coltivatori diretti)

COOP Italia

Italian consumer cooperative (Cooperativa di Consumatori Italia)

COPACogeca

Comité des organisations professionnelles agricoles de l’Union européenne – Confédération
générale des coopératives agricoles de l’Union européenne

CSQA

Agri-food quality certification (Certificazione Qualitá Agroalimentare)

DG AGRI

Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development

DG SANCO

Directorate General for Health and Consumers, European Commission

DGCCRF

Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud (Direction
Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes)

EC

European Commission

ECCA

European Crop Care Association

ECPA

European Crop Protection Association

ECVC

European Coordination Via Campesina

EFFCA

European Food and Feed Cultures Association

EFTA

European Free Trade Association

xi

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronym

Organisation name

EMRA

European Modern Restaurant Association

ESA

European Seed Association

EU

European Union

EUROCOMM
ERCE

European Representation of Retail, Wholesale and International Trade

EUROCOOP

European Community of Consumer Cooperatives

EUROPABIO

European Association of Bioindustries

Euvepro

European Association of Manufacturers, Distributors and users of Vegetable Proteins for
Human Consumption

Evira

Finnish Food and Safety Authority (Elintarviketurvallisuusvirasto)

FCEC

Food Chain Evaluation Consortium

FDF

Food and Drink Federation

FEDIOL

European Vegetable Oil and Proteinmeal Industry Association

FEFAC

European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (Fédération européenne des fabricants d’aliments
composés pour animaux)

FERCO

European federation of contract catering organisations (Fédération européenne de la
restauration collective)

FNLI

Federation of Dutch Food Industries (Federatie Nederlandse Levensmiddelen Industrie)

FNSEA

Federation of farmers’ trade unions (Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants
Agricoles)

FoE

Friends of the Earth, Europe

FoodDrinkEu
rope

European Food and Drink Industry

FQC

First Quality Certification

FRESHFEL

European Fresh Produce Association

FSA

Food Standards Agency

HOTREC

European trade association of hotels, restaurants and café industry (Confédération des
associations nationales de l’hôtellerie, de la restauration, des cafés et établissements similaires
de l’Union européenne et de l’Espace économique européen)

IFOAM EU
GROUP

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements — European Union Regional Group

IFOP

French Institute of Public Opinion (Institut français d'opinion publique)

IGD

Institute of Certificated Grocers

IKC UM

Institute for inspection and certification, University of Maribor, Slovenia

INAO

National Institute for Origin and Quality (Institut National de l'Origine et de la Qualité)

IRQUA

Regional Institute for Agri-food Quality (Institut Régional de la Qualité Agroalimentaire )

ISO

International Organization for Standards

JAS

Japanese Agricultural Standard

JRC

Joint Research Centre

LIS Consult

Life sciences, Innovation and Society (Life sciences, Innovatie en Samenleving)

LIVSFS

Food Administration Code of Statutes (Livsmedelsverkets författningssamling)

LNV

Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en
Voedselkwaliteit)

LRF

Federation of Swedish Farmers (Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund)

xii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronym

Organisation name

M&S

Marks and Spencer

MAFF

Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Ministerie
EL&I

Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (Ministerie van Economische Zaken,
Landbouw en Innovatie)

NAS

Nuclei antisofisticazioni e sanità (anti-fraud enforcement authority)

NASAA

National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia

NFU

National Farmers Union

NVWA

Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en
Warenautoriteit)

ODG

Defence and Supervisory Body (Organisme de Défense et de Gestion)

PFP

Primary Food Processors

rBST

Recombinant bovine somatotropin

REWE

Auditing association of western purchasing cooperatives (Revisionsverband der WestkaufGenossenschaften )

SCFCAH

Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health

SFS

Swedish Code of Statuses (Svensk författningssamling)

SLOW FOOD Slow Food Associazione Internazionale
SPD

Social Democratic Party

UECBV

European Livestock and Meat Trading Union (Union européenne du commerce du bétail et de
la viande)

UFS

Union Française des Semenciers (Union of Seeds Producers)

UGAL

Union of Groups of Independent Retailers of Europe (Union des groupements de détaillants
indépendants de l’Europe)

UNAF

French Beekeepers’ Trade Union (Union Nationale de L’Apiculture Francaise)

UNI

Italian National Unification Body (Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione)

UNISTOCK

European association of professional portside storekeepers for agribulk commodities

US FDA

United States Food and Drug Administration

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

USDA FAS

United States Department of Agriculture - Foreign Agricultural Service

VLOG

German Non-GM food Association (Verband Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik)

ZLTO

Southern Agricultural and Horticultural Association (Zuidelijke Land-en Tuinbouworganisatie)

xiii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronym

Country

AT

Austria

BE

Belgium

BG

Bulgaria

CH

Switzerland

DE

Germany

DK

Denmark

FR

France

EL

Greece

HU

Hungary

IT

Italy

LT

Lithuania

LU

Luxembourg

LV

Latvia

NL

The Netherlands

SE

Sweden

SK

Slovakia

UK

United Kingdom

xiv

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Executive summary
This study assesses the existing situation regarding GM(O)-free labelling schemes
operating across the EU and in a selection of third countries, and the need for
harmonisation at EU level
This report on GM(O)-free food labelling in the European Union (EU) was prepared by a team led by
ICF GHK for the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission. The
Commission procured this ad hoc study to:
■

Identify and describe food labelling schemes that contain a ‘GM(O)-free’ dimension, which are
being applied or developed by public or private entities in the EU; and

■

Identify and analyse core elements to be considered in the context of an EU harmonised approach
to GM(O)-free labelling.

EU law requires that where products contain or consist of authorised GMOs or are produced from
GMOs (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and No 1830/2003), they must be clearly labelled as such.
These requirements do not apply to foods containing authorised GM material at <0.9%, provided that
this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable. This is called ‘positive labelling’. Labelling
food to highlight that, in addition to what is prescribed by the EU legislation, specific measures have
been taken to strictly exclude the presence or the use of GMOs in food or feed products (so-called
‘negative labelling’) is neither forbidden nor specifically regulated at EU level. General food labelling
rules apply (Directive 2000/13/EC).
A previous study identified various issues with the current use and regulation of negative labelling.
These include: the potential for disruption to the European single market from the expansion of
national schemes that vary in their requirements and presentation, the potential problems of having
both positive and negative labels in the same market, demand for changes to the labelling of livestock
products produced with GM feed and whether the terms used on some labels were misleading. This
report was commissioned to look into these issues and potential solutions in greater depth.
The evidence gathering phase of the study on which this report is based involved a literature review,
desk research and consultation with Member State representatives and stakeholders, including 70
interviews and 91 survey responses. The research activities comprised:
■

A market scan to identify GM(O)-free schemes across the EU-28 Member States and third
countries, including government-led and private initiatives;

■

Case studies of existing approaches in seven Member States: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom;

■

Definition of the GM(O)-free labelling landscape: specification and market share of current GM(O)free labelling schemes;

■

Collection of information on policy perspectives on GM(O)-free labelling in Member States and at
EU level; and

■

Examination of labelling implications, including an assessment of the accuracy, reliability,
feasibility, efficiency, related costs and perceptions of the labels and covering the social, economic
and environmental implications of harmonised GM(O)-free labelling at EU level.

Information was gathered on schemes operating in all EU Member States and Switzerland. In-depth
case studies were conducted for Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United
Kingdom, and Sweden. These seven countries illustrate the spectrum of approaches to GM(O)-free
labelling currently operating in the EU. Additional information was also obtained on schemes operating
in Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, and Switzerland through a second round of consultation with
stakeholders, but these were not developed as stand-alone case studies. Evidence was also gathered
on GM(O)-free schemes in a selection of third countries: Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, New
Zealand, and the United States.
Information gathered on GM(O)-free labelling schemes in the EU and Switzerland covered:
■

The scheme type (e.g. public / private, explicit / implicit), history and motivations for the scheme;
xv

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Legislative framework and basis (if applicable);

■

Product scope and specifications of the scheme, including threshold levels for adventitious or
technically unavoidable presence and rules regarding the use of certain GM inputs and any
exceptions;

■

Operation, administration and verification procedures; and

■

Types of labels used (if applicable).

Many different types of scheme exist, including well-established national and
private operator-led schemes that aim to facilitate GM(O)-free labelling, public and
private schemes under development and national legislation that restricts or bans
such labelling
The term ‘GM(O)-free’ is used in this report to indicate that the requirements underlying different
labelling schemes may involve product requirements (‘free from GM materials’) or process
requirements (‘free from the use of GMOs in the production process’). The following ‘GM(O)-free’
labelling approaches are in use:
■

‘GM(O)-free’ is the main focus of the label, and the label explicitly highlights the ‘GM(O)-free’
attribute to the consumer;

■

‘GM(O)-free’ is one requirement of an explicit product label to the consumer which also signals
other product attributes (e.g. organic, Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected
Geographical Indication (PGI), and eco-labels); and

■

‘GM(O)-free’ is a requirement of private supply chain standards, but is not supported by a specific
product label for the consumer.

There are examples of schemes codified in private and public standards, and examples of both explicit
and implicit labelling (i.e. where ‘GM(O)-free’ criteria are embedded in supply chain requirements but
no labels appear on product packaging that could indicate that the product is ‘GM(O)-free’).

Three different approaches to government-led explicit GM(O)-free labelling rules and
guidelines have been identified
Three different approaches to government-led GM(O)-free labelling rules have been identified in ten
Member States and Switzerland.1 The remaining 18 Member States have not become directly involved
in GM(O)-free schemes.
■

■

■

Legislation that facilitates GM(O)-free labelling has been identified in two Member States:
Germany and France. Austria has developed guidelines to facilitate GM(O)-free labelling as well.
Croatia, Greece and Luxembourg are currently developing facilitative legislation, though no rules
are yet in place.
Legislation that allows GM(O)-free labelling under highly restrictive circumstances has been
identified in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finland has developed guidelines to assist the
supply chain with GM(O)-free labelling, but under similarly restrictive circumstances to those set
out in the legislation adopted by the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Two countries, Belgium and Sweden, have labelling legislation in place that prohibits GM(O)-free
labelling. In both cases, the legislation itself does not refer specifically to GM(O)-free labels, but
guidelines for implementing the legislation explain how the general rules apply in the specific case
of GM(O)-free labels.

National government policies on, and (in some cases) regulation of, GM(O)-free labels have been
motivated by objectives that include:

1

Switzerland is included here as it is a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country.

xvi

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Ensuring consumer provision of information and consumer choice: this is a primary motivation in
the policy position of Austria, Germany, and France.

■

Avoiding consumer confusion or misleading information: This is a primary motivation for the UK
position that if harmonised EU labelling were to be introduced, it should not provide for allowances
or threshold levels for GM ingredients or processes. This is also a primary motivation in the policy
position of the Netherlands and Sweden.

■

Allowing GM(O)-free labelling on animal products where positive labelling is currently not required
under EU law: this is an important motivation in the policy position of Austria and Germany, for
example.

■

Enabling economic operators to produce ‘GM(O)-free’ products: this is another important
motivation in the policy position of Austria and Germany.

Explicit GM(O)-free labels are also present on a variety of products through private operator-led
schemes
Evidence collected in this study shows that GM(O)-free labels are present on a variety of products in
Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom. These schemes are run by
producers, manufacturers and retailers.

Labelling schemes where ‘GM(O)-free’ is one amongst a number of quality attributes operate in
many European countries
Quality schemes that include a ‘GM(O)-free’ requirement alongside one or more other product
attribute(s) operate in many European countries. EU Organic rules prohibit products from carrying an
organic label if GMOs have been used in their production, unless GMO presence is adventitious and
technically unavoidable, and below the 0.9 per cent threshold set out in Regulation (EC) No
1829/2003. In France, the specifications for some Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) cheeses
include a GM(O)-free requirement for their production. Regional quality schemes in France, Germany,
and Italy, eco-labels in Sweden, and the ProTerra label in Switzerland also include this requirement.

Non-GM supply chain requirements, but where no labels appear on product packages, are in place
in the EU as well
Non-GM supply chains are particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom. They have also been
identified in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Main elements of GM(O)-free schemes
1 - Labelling rules
A wide range of explicit GM(O)-free labelling approaches has been taken at Member State level:
■

France and the Netherlands: national legislation specifies the particular words that may be used to
identify a product as ‘GM(O)-free’, but does not specify a logo;

■

Austria and Germany: national legislation sets out both the words that may be used and provides
for non-prescriptive logos; and

■

All four countries: private operators may use their own logo, if they follow the national rules.

Private operators have also taken a variety of approaches.
Labels that refer to a number of quality attributes have been identified in Germany, Austria and
France. Mandatory and harmonised EU labelling rules have been established for organic products.
Non-GM supply chains do not employ labels, but marketing materials may contain reference to the
‘GM(O)-free’ status of the supply chain or products. In the Netherlands, several producers claim to be
‘gentechvrij’ (i.e. ‘GMO free’) in their general communications. In other Member States, such as the
UK and Sweden, many manufacturers and retailers maintain non-GM supply chains for their products.
Where product labels themselves do not make ‘GM(O)-free’ claims, websites may provide information
xvii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

on the non-GM policy. In Sweden, national guidelines have been established to facilitate GM(O)-free
supply chains.

2 - Product scope
National legislation in Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands allows for any eligible product to
be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ as long as it meets the national rules.
Private operators restrict GM(O)-free labelling to products from a particular animal species or of a
particular type or extent of processing. For example:
■

The ‘Brez GSO’ label in Slovenia covers plant and animal products (meat, milk and eggs),
aquaculture and apiculture.

■

The COOP Italia scheme covers a wide and heterogeneous scope of processed products,
including those that are free from both GM soybean and maize ingredients. It also covers animal
products including poultry, pork, beef, farmed fish, eggs, milk, cold cuts and cheeses.

■

The Italian National Unification Body (Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione) working group norm
applies to food and feed products and covers animal products produced from animals fed on nonGM feed.

■

Carrefour’s scheme covers only food products from animals including veal, pork, poultry, eggs and
farmed fish.

■

In France the Loué scheme covers poultry meat and eggs.

■

All tinned sweet corn produced in France carries a GM(O)-free label.

3 - Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence
The threshold levels for GM presence used in the EU vary in the product scope and the threshold level
used. There are two threshold levels (<0.9% and <0.1%) used for two general product categories to
which the limits are applied: food and feed.2
Thresholds for food and feed vary by scheme, such that <0.9% may be set for feed and/or food and
<0.1% may be set for feed and/or food. There is variance in this practice across Member State and
private operator schemes.
In very restrictive schemes, such as that in use in the Netherlands, ‘zero’ is the target but the threshold
level is set at <0.1% due to analytical constraints. Nevertheless, the Dutch authorities do not use
analytical methods in practice because there is only one ‘GM(O)-free’ product on the market which is
verified through documentation.

4 - Input specifications and exemptions
GM plants or microorganisms can be used in several categories of inputs to food production. In
addition to the direct use of GM plants and their products for food and/or feed production, GM plants
may be used to produce additives for food and/or feed. There are also veterinary pharmaceuticals
which are produced using modern biotechnology. Use of these GM inputs is specifically prohibited
from most ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes operating in the EU.
Member States that wish to provide more opportunities for producers to label products as ‘GM(O)-free’
have granted exceptions to the general rules that exclude these inputs. Operators would otherwise
find it very difficult if not impossible to ensure a supply chain that did not rely on one or more GM input.
In the Netherlands, where a very strict approach is used, only one product is available on the market
carrying the ‘GM(O)-free’ label.

2

A <0.01% threshold level has also been identified for seed, which is used by private operators in two instances.

xviii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

5 - Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals
Process-based approaches to assuring ‘GM(O)-free’ status have been adopted for GM(O)-free
labelling schemes involving animal products. Process-based approaches rely on documentation and
other means of assessing the non-GM status of the supply chain rather than analytical tests. The
baseline data demonstrate that where Member States have legislation, minimum non-GM feeding
times for animals vary along two dimensions:
■

The amount of time that animals must be fed on non-GM feed and the way in which the feeding
time is framed (i.e. as the time from birth, the time from production/slaughter, or the total period of
fattening during which non-GM feed must be used); and

■

The type of product/animal species covered.

Member States have developed legislation and guidelines for non-GM feeding time requirements. The
greatest variation in such requirements occurs in Member State legislation:
■

In Finland, the Netherlands and Switzerland, all animals must be fed on non-GM feed from birth.

■

In Austria, the minimum non-GM feeding time for dairy animals is two weeks before milk
production while Germany requires three months, and France six months.

■

For poultry, both Austria and France require non-GM feed from three days from birth. In Germany
the requirement is non-GM feed 10 weeks before slaughter.

■

Pigs must be fed on non-GM feed for approximately 4.5 months before slaughter in France, for
four months before slaughter in Germany and for the total period of fattening in Austria.

■

The requirements are more consistent for egg production. Austria, France and Germany all require
non-GM feed for six weeks before egg production.

■

Cattle must be fed non-GM feed for 12 months before slaughter in Austria, France and Germany.
Additional rules apply in these Member States for small ruminants, horses, and fish.

■

In Austria, these minimum feeding times are transitory provisions to 2017, after which all animals
must be fed non-GM feed from birth. In practice, operators currently try to feed animals non-GM
feed from birth.

Private operators have set their own non-GM feeding time requirements. The requirements generally
match the strict approach taken in Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland where non-GM feed is
required from birth for all animals before production or slaughter.

6 - Certification, controls and monitoring requirements
Some of the schemes operating in EU Member States use certification bodies that meet the scheme
requirements to certify individual operators wishing to make ‘GM(O)-free’ claims or operate a non-GM
supply chain. For example, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economy, Family and Youth introduced
guidelines for the risk-based control of the absence of GMOs. The scheme includes guidelines for selfcontrols, external controls and oversight from an accredited independent body as well as a
compulsory monitoring system. Compliance must be checked at all productions steps and the
certifying authority must be displayed on the label.
Other schemes do not require certification but provide guidance on this matter. For example, the
German legislation does not require certification but producers of non-GM feed are advised to obtain
certification. Verification of compliance with legal rules is the responsibility of the competent food
control authorities of the federal states. Where non-compliance is found by the certification body, the
operator’s right to use the ‘ohne gentechnik’ label may be withdrawn. Some of the schemes run by
private operators also use certification bodies to certify individual operators wishing to make ‘GM(O)free’ claims or operate a non-GM supply chain.

xix

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

The use of GM(O)-free labels is expected to grow in the near future in some
markets, although some operators are moving away from non-GM supply chain
requirements.
The GM(O)-free labelling outlook in the EU is a projection of the outcomes that may occur if no action
is taken at EU level and operators and national governments continue to develop their own GM(O)free labelling schemes on a business-as-usual basis.

The market share of GM(O)-free products in the EU cannot be determined with existing
data, but where data at local and national levels exist, the schemes tend to have limited
market share
Though there are some ‘snapshots’ of the market situation, robust time series data on sales of GM(O)free labelled products are not readily available either in the public domain or via market research
organisations. Direct contact was made with label operators and some assessments have been
possible, but complete information is unavailable for the different schemes operating across the EU. In
the cases where data on market share exist, these schemes tend to have limited market share – with
the exception of the government-led Austrian GM(O)-free label scheme which has much broader
coverage (including 100 per cent of eggs and dairy). The use of GM(O)-free labels is expected to grow
in the near future in some markets (e.g. Germany), although some operators are moving away from
non-GM supply chain requirements (e.g. in the UK).

EU consumers express a preference for GM(O)-free products, but attitudes are changing
towards GM
It is difficult to directly evaluate consumer demand for GM(O)-free labelling in the EU since no such
labelling scheme has been broadly implemented and EU-wide consumer surveys have not been
undertaken on this issue. Most available studies indicate that EU consumer attitudes towards GM
products are generally negative, and some consumers show a willingness to pay for GM(O)-free
products. But some studies indicate that consumer aversion to GM is decreasing over time, and
willingness to pay studies may overestimate consumer preferences.
Attitudes are notoriously poor predictors of behaviour; there is an evident lack of consistency between
people’s engagement in ethical issues and their food choices. Individuals’ decisions can therefore
differ drastically between when they are hypothetical, as in a contingent valuation study or other
survey, and when they involve an actual commitment to purchase, especially where the study does
not assess purchasing decisions at specific price levels. Expressed negative consumer perceptions of
GM products do not always translate directly into purchasing behaviours; consumers who say they
would not buy GM foods when surveyed have been found to do so in some cases in real life.

Market growth is an indirect indication of consumer demand
Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a market for GM(O)-free products in the EU. Market demand can
be considered an indirect indication of consumer preferences for GM(O)-free foods. It is impossible,
however, to determine from such data whether there is a direct link between purchases of GM(O)-free
products and consumer preferences for this attribute, or only an association. Other factors may
influence purchases of GM(O)-free products that are not directly related to this quality, particularly
when a product has multiple quality attributes.

Producing GM(O)-free products entails significant costs in most cases, and these are rarely
reflected in additional costs to consumers
Some retailers and manufacturers use GM(O)-free labels or maintain non-GM supply chains due to
expressed and revealed consumer demand for these products. But producing GM(O)-free products
entails significant costs in most cases, and these are not often reflected in additional costs to
consumers, but are rather absorbed by the supply chain. Price premia have been observed on some
GM(O)-free products, but many products are priced no differently than equivalent conventional
products. Some operators are concerned about their ability to maintain a supply of non-GM feed for
livestock in the future.
xx

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Variations across GM(O)-free labelling schemes suggest potential underlying Single
Market and consumer protection issues. A majority of stakeholders and Member
States also show an interest in harmonisation. The assessment of the current
evidence, however, does not indicate a marked need for harmonisation at the
present time.
The different approaches to negative labelling in the EU can give rise to issues that include:
■

Consumers being misled by labels where labelling scheme standards differ across schemes
and/or the standards underlying the schemes do not match consumer expectations from a GM(O)free label.

■

Consumers being confused because there are too many different labels on product packages (i.e.
labelling proliferation).

■

Food business operators facing challenges where the single market does not operate smoothly,
such as additional costs or lack of market access.

Consumers may find it difficult to interpret and understand GM(O)-free labels
Food labels help consumers to exercise their preferences, and can be an effective means of
communicating useful information to consumers. But most stakeholders and Member State
representatives consulted for this study did not indicate that lack of information was a major concern
for consumers regarding GM(O)-free labels.
Although most consumers claim to read food labels often or sometimes, consumers can find it difficult
to identify the information, even when it is present. This suggests that even if a label is present,
consumers have not necessarily seen, read or processed the information. Even where consumers
identify and process the information contained on labels, some consumers struggle to understand the
information provided. For example, consumers may be misled by a ‘GM(O)-free’ label used for
livestock products, which could be interpreted to suggest that the animal from which the product was
produced was not genetically engineered, whilst the label actually refers to the fact that the animal
was fed on non-GM feed.
There are many labels in the market that indicate quality food attributes. Their proliferation can
increase the risk of consumer confusion and misunderstanding, and reduce the effect of food
businesses’ efforts to put in place sustainable certification schemes. A move towards clearer and more
understandable food labels has been one of the aims of the recent review of the EU food labelling
legislation. A majority of all respondents for this study believe that the current situation creates
consumer confusion due to the existence of multiple labels.
Some studies also suggest that consumers expect standards of purity in products labelled as GM(O)free that are higher than what is required by existing GM(O)-free labelling schemes. There are also
GM(O)-free verification issues, especially where labelling is process-based, rather than product-based,
and thus relies on an audit trail rather than testing. Consumers are generally sceptical of negative food
claims. Several studies have also found that consumers react negatively to GM(O)-free claims.
The GM(O)-free food market is potentially vulnerable to problems of false labelling because
consumers are unable to determine the quality of the product even after consumption. Exposure of
false claims can erode consumer trust in GM(O)-free labelled products.

Although most respondents to the consultation for this study believe that the current
situation causes problems for the European single market, there is little supporting
evidence to substantiate this view
Operators may encounter difficulties with the current situation in the EU where multiple GM(O)-free
schemes co-exist. For example:
■

Variation in national requirements may inhibit the smooth operation of the single market and create
an ‘uneven playing field’ for producers operating under the different schemes.

xxi

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Having multiple schemes is likely to increase the monitoring, verification and certification burden
on the sector.

The survey conducted for this study asked respondents whether the current situation regarding
‘GM(O)-free’ schemes causes problems for the European single market. Overall, 84 per cent of
respondents answered ‘yes’, including 44 out of 52 national stakeholders (85 per cent of national
stakeholder respondents), 9 out of 10 EU representative associations and other EU level
organisations (90 per cent of respondents) and 23 out of 29 MS representatives (79 per cent of
respondents). Little other evidence exists of problems related to the operation of the single market
arising from the current use of GM(O)-free labelling in EU Member States.
Nevertheless, additional Member States are developing regulation in this area or considering the
possibility of doing so and the market is maturing, which could create new and as yet unanticipated
issues for the single market in the future. There is potential to revisit the case for harmonisation at a
later date.

Six elements of a potential EU-wide harmonised GM(O)-free labelling scheme were
assessed
The second stage of the study involved identifying a set of core elements that should be considered in
a potential harmonised system at EU-level for GM(O)-free labelling.
Research conducted in the first stage on the current specification of GM(O)-free labels in use across
the EU and in some third countries showed that active schemes contain most or all of the following
elements:
■

Labelling rules, including the wording used, the format of the label and in some cases, a logo;

■

Indication of the scope of products covered;

■

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence;

■

Specification of inputs to be excluded and any exceptions;

■

Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals fed on GM feed; and

■

Certification, inspection and monitoring procedures.

These elements would form the ‘building blocks’ for a harmonised EU-level scheme for GM(O)-free
labelling. Three possible options have been examined for each element, as summarised in Table 1.1.
Their impacts have been assessed by comparison with a status quo reference scenario in which
GM(O)-free schemes continue to be developed at national level and by private operators. A future EU
scheme could, in principle, use all the available elements or only some them, imposing common EU
rules in respect of some aspects of GM(O)-free labelling schemes but not introducing additional
regulation at EU level for other aspects.
The elements that may be included in a harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling in the EU were
considered on their own merits. The analysis identified where impacts are likely to be most significant
and/or where outcomes are uncertain, or conflicting information makes it difficult to determine the most
likely direction of change arising from a particular choice. The assessment considers potential impacts
on consumers, operators and national authorities of elements that may comprise a harmonised
approach to GM(O)-free labelling against the interaction with and value-added compared to EU
organic rules and according to the following assessment categories: economic impacts, social
impacts, trade impacts, consumer impacts, and environmental impacts.

xxii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 1.1 Proposed elements and options

Labelling rules are the core element of a potential harmonised GM(O)-free labelling
scheme
Labelling rules are the core element of any harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling and will
determine whether labelling is allowed or prohibited. If labelling rules are not set, the situation in the
EU will remain as it is (the status quo), with multiple GM(O)-free labelling schemes developing through
national legislation or private operator rules and with continued variance between these across the
EU. Labelling rules are the only element of a harmonised approach that may be set out independently
of other elements.

A harmonised approach could also specify the product scope and strictness of the
elements
Figure 1.2 illustrates the priority for specifying the elements, starting with labelling rules and product
scope. A harmonised GM(O)-free approach can also specify the scope of products covered by the
scheme and the strictness of the rules applied to the scheme, including:
■

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence;

■

Exceptions for the use of certain GM inputs; and

■

Minimum feeding times for animals fed on non-GM feed.

The rules could be stricter for some elements than others. For example, different threshold levels for
adventitious or technically unavoidable presence may be specified for animal products and food
products as they are in many existing GM(O)-free schemes, and different minimum non-GM feeding
times could be defined for different livestock animals.

xxiii

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 1.2

Labelling rules and product scope are the two elements that require specification for
a harmonised approach; other elements may be specified depending on the labelling
approach and scope of the scheme

xxiv

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

In general, moving from a broad scope and less demanding criteria to a narrower scope and more
demanding criteria results in an improvement in consumer understanding and the match between
expectations and underlying standards, but increased negative impacts on producers of GM(O)-free
products and fewer GM(O)-free products on the market.
Figure 1.3

General impacts arising from scope and strictness specifications in a GM(O)-free labelling
scheme

Requirements for certification of GM(O)-free operators and any inspection and monitoring rules could
be specified in a harmonised scheme, but are not essential. Evidence suggests that consumer trust
increases where government is involved in setting out specific rules to ensure that all operators have
met a common set of requirements and that they are complying with the rules. But existing laws may
also be used to monitor and enforce GM(O)-free labelling rules without creating new requirements.

xxv

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

1

Introduction
This is the draft final report for the study on the state of play in the European Union (EU) on
GM(O)-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation.
The study was delivered by a team led by ICF GHK for the Health and Consumer Protection
Directorate General (DG SANCO). ICF GHK worked with the support of:
■

ADAS Ltd., UK;

■

LIS Consult, The Netherlands;

■

Giessen University, Germany; and

■

Istituto di Economia Agro-alimentare, Italy.

The assignment examines existing GM(O)-free labelling schemes in the EU and identifies
and analyses elements to be considered in the context of a possible EU harmonised
approach to such labelling. The term ‘GM(O)-free’ is used in this report to indicate that the
requirements underlying different labelling schemes may involve product requirements (‘free
from GM materials’) or process requirements (‘free from the use of GMOs in the production
process’).
Building on the evaluation of the GM food and feed legislation, this study examines the
extent to which ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes are in use in different Member States, considers their
specification and impacts, defines possible elements and combinations of elements for an
EU harmonised approach to such labelling and assesses the implications of different
formulations. This report provides the results of the study.
The first half of the report provides a summary of the current state of play (i.e. the baseline
scenario) on GM(O)-free schemes in the EU and third countries based on information
gathered through an EU-wide stakeholder consultation, seven country case studies,
international experiences with GM(O)-free labels, and a literature review on consumer
attitudes and behaviours towards GM(O)-free and other relevant labelling schemes.
The second half of the report identifies elements that may be included in a harmonised EU
GM(O)-free scheme and a preliminary impact assessment of those elements.
The complete case studies of GM(O)-free schemes operating in Austria, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom are provided as a series of annexes
in a separate document.

1

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

2

Study context
This section of the report:

2.1

■

Briefly outlines the EU’s legislative framework for product labelling on the basis of GM
status;

■

Describes the types of label currently in use and associated issues;

■

Explains the study scope and approach; and

■

Describes the method underpinning the evidence gathering phase of the study.

The EU’s current legislative framework for labelling GMOs specifies when
‘positive’ labels are required and allows for use of ‘negative’ labels
The EU regulates products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The
legislative framework for labelling products that contain or are produced with GMOs specifies
the conditions for ‘positive labelling’ (i.e. labelling that affirms the presence of GMOs in the
product) and is harmonised at EU level. ‘Negative labelling’ (i.e. labelling indicating that
GMOs are absent from the product) is not forbidden by the legislation but is not harmonised
at EU level. Negative labels are used at multiple levels across the EU.
Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 regulates the traceability and labelling of GMOs as well as
food and feed products derived from GMOs. It was developed alongside Regulation (EC) No
1829/2003 on GM food and feed. The two regulations are designed to operate together and
rely on each other for certain requirements.
The legislative framework specifies conditions for EU harmonised ‘positive labelling’
(>0.9% GM presence). It does not apply to foods containing GM material at <0.9%, provided
that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable. Animal products are specifically
excluded from the EU rules governing positive GM labelling. ‘Negative labelling’ is neither
forbidden nor specifically regulated (contains <0.9% GMOs) but general food labelling
rules apply.

2.2

Different approaches to GM(O)-free labelling are currently used in the EU
and some issues with this variation have been identified
Current ‘negative’ labelling approaches are based on product and/or process requirements,
and the labels can reflect these differences (e.g. GM-free or GMO-free labels). For the
purposes of this study, the term ‘GM(O)-free’ captures the multiple possibilities for these
types of label.
There are various types of GM(O)-free schemes being used in the EU, including both private
and public standards, as well as explicit and implicit standards (i.e. where ‘GM(O)-free’
criteria are embedded within a wider label). The following ‘GM(O)-free’ approaches, all of
which are assessed in this study, are in use in the EU:
■

Type I - ‘GM(O)-free’ is the main focus of the label, and the label explicitly highlights the
‘GM(O)-free’ attribute to the consumer;

■

Type II - ‘GM(O)-free’ is one requirement of an explicit product label to the consumer
which also includes other product attributes (e.g. organic, Protected Designation of
Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), eco-labels); and

■

Type III - ‘GM(O)-free’ is a requirement of private supply chain standards, but is not
supported by a specific product label for the consumer.

These types are shown in Figure 2.1.

2

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 2.1

The EU market currently features GM(O)-free schemes that are defined by private
and public standards, and in which the GM(O)-free attribute is either a free-standing
label, packaged in a product label with other attributes, or integrated into own label
standards but not given a distinctive label

A 2009 evaluation of the GM food and feed legislation conducted on behalf of DG SANCO
identified a range of benefits and drawbacks arising from the current situation with nonharmonised ‘negative labelling’ across the EU (FCEC 2010). The study also suggested that
there is mixed support for harmonisation in this area amongst stakeholders and Member
State representatives.
It found that different approaches to negative labelling operating in the EU may present
challenges for consumers and food business operators across the food chain. The specific
issues it identified were:
■

GM(O)-free schemes currently exist in several Member States;

■

These schemes are variously regulated by public authorities or developed by private
companies;

■

The ‘GM(O)-free’ branding may suggest comparability across such schemes that does
not exist since there is variation in requirements and labels;

■

Consumers may be misled by the labels through inconsistencies in the standards across
schemes and/or a mismatch between consumer expectations and the actual standards
or practices ‘behind the labels’;

■

Different national requirements may impede the smooth operation of the European single
market and unequal conditions for producers operating under the different schemes; and

■

Monitoring, verification and certification costs for exporters and burden on authorities
may be multiplied for each market.

The report also identified some potential issues associated with harmonisation of GM(O)-free
schemes, including :
■

Consumer confusion where positive and negative labels operate in tandem;

■

That EU labels could be misleading due to the challenge in guaranteeing that products
are entirely free from GM material; and
3

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

The organic sector may already fulfil GM(O)-free consumer needs.

The study found that more than two-thirds of MS competent authorities favour a harmonised
labelling scheme because they believed it may put an end to confusion caused by different
national schemes. Most MS CAs also favoured a harmonised approach co-existing with
positive labelling. Fewer than half of stakeholders favoured harmonisation, however.
Amongst those stakeholders that favoured harmonisation, most favoured those provisions
co-existing with positive labelling.

2.3

This study provides a detailed assessment of current GM(O)-free labelling
schemes and the potential for a harmonised EU-wide approach
DG SANCO commissioned the present study to examine existing GM(O)-free labelling
schemes in the EU and identify and analyse elements to be considered in the context of a
possible EU harmonised approach to such labelling. The contractor was required to:
■

Establish the baseline: examine the extent to which ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes are used in
different Member States and consider their specifications, interactions and impacts;

■

Option development: examine possible elements and combinations for a potential EU
harmonised approach to ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling; and

■

Assess implications: analyse the different scenarios against the baseline situation.

The study covered both schemes defined in legislation and guidelines (i.e. public standards)
and those defined in private standards. Private schemes include both explicit GM(O)-free
labelling as well as private standards that specify a GM(O)-free supply chain but do not
specifically label products as ‘GM(O)-free’.
Information was gathered on schemes operating in all EU Member States and Switzerland.
In-depth case studies of schemes have also been conducted for seven Member States
(Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden).
These seven countries represent the spectrum of possibilities for GM(O)-free schemes
currently operating in the EU:
■

Austria, Germany and France and the Netherlands have legislation or guidelines to
facilitate ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling;

■

Sweden, conversely, has legislation expressly prohibiting such labelling;

■

In the United Kingdom there is a large number of private operator-led non-GM supply
chains, but no formal government position on this issue; and

■

Italy has regional government initiatives as well as a variety of explicit and implicit
GM(O)-free schemes led by private operators.

Additional information was also obtained on schemes operating in Belgium, Finland,
Slovenia, and Switzerland3 through a second round of consultation with stakeholders, but
these were not developed as stand-alone case studies. Evidence was gathered on GM(O)free schemes in a selection of third countries: Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, New
Zealand, and the United States.

2.4

Method
The project workflow is illustrated in Figure 2.2. This subsection focuses on the evidence
gathering phase of the study (Task 2). The work undertaken in Task 2 informed the definition
of the reference (baseline) scenario, the specification of elements and approaches to
harmonisation and assessment of the potential outcomes from EU harmonisation.

3

Switzerland is included with EU countries because it is a member of the European Free Trade Association
(EFTA), which establishes a free trade zone for the movement of goods with all of its European members.

4

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 2.2 Project workflow

5

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

The evidence gathering task had five components:
■

A Market scan to identify GM(O)-free schemes across the EU-28 Member States and
third countries, including government-led and private initiatives. This includes information
on the extent of Type I (explicit, stand-alone labels), Type II (explicit labels that combine
GM(O)-free and other qualitative attributes in a label), and Type III (implicit, supply-chain
assured non-GM products) schemes.

■

Case studies of existing approaches in seven Member States: Austria, France,
Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Case studies
covered:
–

Type (e.g. public / private, explicit / implicit), history and motivations for the scheme;

–

Legislative framework and basis (if applicable);

–

Scope and specification of the scheme;

–

Operation, administration and verification;

–

Type of labels used (if applicable) and their implementation;

–

Evidence on consumer impacts;

–

Extent of intra-EU trade in these products; and

–

Trends and future plans.

■

Definition of the GM(O)-free labelling landscape: specification and market share of
current GM(O)-free labelling schemes;

■

Collection of information on policy perspectives regarding GM(O)-free labelling in
Member States and at EU level:

■

–

Perspectives on the case for GM(O)-free labelling;

–

Motivations and objectives of legislation and policy in those countries where action
has been taken to facilitate or support GM(O)-free labelling; and

–

Defining the context within which dedicated GM(O)-free labels would operate and
identify any interface, harmonisation and/or consistency issues relevant to the
definition of ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes.
Examination of labelling implications, including an assessment of the accuracy,
reliability, feasibility, efficiency, related costs and perceptions of the labels and covering
the social, economic and environmental implications of potential GM(O)-free labelling
harmonised at EU level.

A combination of literature review / desk research and consultation with Member State
representatives and stakeholders was used. The following sections describe each of these
approaches and the overall result/response.

2.4.2

Literature review and web-based desk research
A literature review and web-based desk research were conducted. These covered:
■

The academic literature;

■

The grey literature (e.g. government research and evaluation reports); and

■

Outputs from consultative and engagement processes, such as the High Level Forum for
a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain.

The literature review was carried out in English, German, French, Spanish and Italian in
order to reduce the chances of English language bias in the results. All reporting is provided
in English. A summary of the literature review meta-analysis is provided in Annex 8. A list of
the documents consulted is provided in Annex 9.
The project team scanned and assessed information on the impacts identified in all the
publications and studies that have addressed the accuracy, feasibility, reliability, efficiency,
6

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

related costs and consumer perceptions and understanding of these labels. The economic,
social and environmental implications were also assessed. Information was also collected on
other types of food label in order to identify effects and dynamics that could inform an
assessment of the implications of policy options relating to GM(O)-free labelling.

2.4.3

Consultations
Use of GM(O)-free labelling in the EU is not well documented. The primary tool for gathering
information to inform the baseline situation on GM(O)-free schemes was direct consultation
with governments and stakeholder representatives throughout the supply chain.
Consultations were used to gather information on policy approaches, market share of
GM(O)-free products, benefits and drawbacks of the current situation in the EU and
expectations for a harmonised approach.
A website was developed to provide information on the study and an opportunity for
stakeholders that were not directly contacted by the study team to register their interest in
the study and complete a questionnaire and/or participate in an interview. In both the
interviews and questionnaires, consultees were asked to:
■

Provide information about current schemes in EU MS (public / private); and

■

Explain their views on the benefits and drawbacks of existing GM(O)-free schemes
and potential implications of harmonisation.

A questionnaire was devised to capture baseline information and views about GM(O)-free
schemes across the EU-28 Member States. Two questionnaire versions were developed and
circulated to:
■

National stakeholders across the food chain, and other interested organisations (e.g.
NGOs); and

■

Member State representatives across the EU-28, including the Competent Authority
and representatives of the EU Standing Committee on the food chain and animal health
(SCFCAH).

The questionnaires were provided in English, French, German and Italian. The response rate
is provided in Table 2.1. A copy of the English language version of the national stakeholder
and Member State representative questionnaires is provided in Annex 1.
Table 2.1 Questionnaire response rate
Respondent
type

Number of
submitted
questionnaires

Notes

Government
representatives

29 questionnaires
from 24 countries
–

Estonia did not submit a questionnaire, but indicated that
GM(O)-free schemes are not operating in that country

26 out of 28 MS
responded

The response for Germany was provided through VLOG, the
organisation responsible for GM(O)-free labelling in that
country
No response was received from Luxembourg or Bulgaria

National
stakeholders

52

Including 3 companies with multi-country coverage
Representatives responded from 20 countries, including
Switzerland
MS that are not represented by national stakeholder surveys
include: BG, DK, LU, LT, LV, SK
Responses were received from national stakeholders
covering producers, importers and exporters, manufacturers,
retailers, consumers and NGOs. This includes dairy, meat
and livestock, organic foods, oil producers and processors,

7

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Respondent
type

Number of
submitted
questionnaires

Notes

soya producers and processors, the seed industry (including
potatoes), producers of crops other than soya, compound
feed processors, and bakery representatives
EU
stakeholders

10

The questionnaire was not directed at EU industry
associations but some preferred to submit a questionnaire
instead of, or in addition to, an interview
Responses were received from the following industry
representative associations: biotechnology, producers,
processors and traders of cereals, food enzymes, starches
and vegetables, retail and manufacturing, consumers
[Interviews also covered the dairy trade, organic foods, an
environmental NGO, and the compound feed sector]

The consultation included interviews with:
■

National stakeholders in the case study countries and EU-level stakeholders across the
supply chain (including individual companies and industry associations operating at
national and EU level);

■

Member State representatives in the case study countries; and

■

Representatives from selected Directorates General of the European Commission (DG
Health and Consumers (SANCO) and DG Agriculture (AGRI)).

Details of the interviews completed are provided in Annex 3.
Table 2.2 Case study interviews conducted
AT

DE

IT

NL

FR

UK

SE

Total

Government representatives

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

10

National stakeholders

13

8

7

7

7

4

3

49

Total 15

9

8

9

9

5

4

59

Following receipt of the questionnaire responses and assessment of the information
provided, the study team contacted a sub-set of respondents where additional context or
clarification was required. In some cases the team also requested information from contacts
named in the survey responses by the original respondent. In total, 33 different public and
private entities were contacted to obtain additional information and 23 responses were
received by the study team. Responses were provided both by email and through short
telephone interviews.
The study team contacted or was contacted by 31 EU level organisations regarding their
participation in the stakeholder consultation. All of the organisations were invited to
participate in an interview and 11 indicated that they wished to participate. Ten interviews
were completed; one organisation did not respond to requests by the study team to schedule
the requested interview.
Some EU level associations preferred to complete the questionnaire on behalf of or in
addition to responses from their members. The study team received ten questionnaires from
EU level associations. Four organisations submitted a questionnaire and participated in an
interview. The questions that were covered in the interview were also covered in the
questionnaire to ensure that all EU level responses could be compared. In addition:
■

Eight organisations did not respond to our request;

8

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Two organisations responded to indicate that their organisation is not discussing the
issue at this time;

■

One organisation referred us to their members; all members were contacted by the study
team and their replies or lack thereof are included in this overview and in Table A4.1,
Annex 4;

■

One organisation responded to indicate that they would like to participate, but despite
engagement, no further response was provided; and

■

One organisation did not respond to our invitation directly, but participated in a JRC
workshop on the topic of non-GM supply chains, in which a member of the study team
was also a participant. An indication of their views was presented at this workshop and
has been incorporated into the results for this study.

Table A4.1 in Annex 4 provides details of the organisation names and their response to our
invitation.

9

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3

GM(O)-free labelling ‘landscape’ in the EU and Switzerland
This chapter provides a summary of the current use of GM(O)-free labelling schemes in the
EU based on information gathered through an EU-wide stakeholder consultation, seven
country case studies, international experiences with GM(O)-free labels, and a literature
review on consumer attitudes and behaviours towards GM(O)-free and other relevant
labelling schemes.
This section identifies the different labelling schemes in operation across EU Member States
and Switzerland, which is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA),
covering:

3.1

■

Scheme type (e.g. public / private, explicit / implicit), history and motivations for the
scheme;

■

Legislative framework and basis (if applicable);

■

Product scope and specifications of the scheme, including threshold levels for
adventitious or technically avoidable presence and rules regarding the use of certain GM
inputs and any exceptions;

■

Operation, administration and verification procedures; and

■

Types of labels used (if applicable).

Government-led Type I schemes: explicit GM(O)-free labelling rules and
guidelines
Three different approaches to government-led GM(O)-free labelling rules have been
identified in ten Member States and Switzerland.4 The remaining 18 Member States have not
become directly involved in GM(O)-free schemes.
■

Legislation that facilitates GM(O)-free labelling has been identified in two Member
States: Germany and France. Austria has developed guidelines to facilitate GM(O)-free
labelling as well.

■

Croatia, Greece and Luxembourg are currently developing facilitative legislation, though
no rules are yet in place.

■

Legislation that allows GM(O)-free labelling under highly restrictive circumstances has
been identified in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finland has developed guidelines to
assist the supply chain with GM(O)-free labelling, but under similarly restrictive
circumstances to those set out in the legislation adopted by the Netherlands and
Switzerland.

■

Two countries, Belgium and Sweden, have labelling legislation in place that prohibits
GM(O)-free labelling. In both cases, the legislation itself does not refer specifically to
GM(O)-free labels, but guidelines for implementing the legislation explain how the
general rules apply in the specific case of GM(O)-free labels.

Table 3.1 provides an overview of the type of government-led policy and the title of the
applicable legislation or guidelines. Complete copies of the legislation are provided in the
Annexes to this report in their original language.

4

Switzerland is included here as it is a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country.

10

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.1 Type I schemes: government-led explicit GM(O)-free label
AT

BE

CH

DE

FI

EL

HR

LU

NL

9

9*

9*

9*

9

SE

9*

Facilitative
Legislation
Guidelines

FR

9

9
9

Prohibitive

9

* Facilitative GM(O)-free legislation in preparation

A variety of motivations have led to national government positions, and in some cases,
regulation, of GM(O)-free labels. These include:

3.1.2

■

Ensuring consumer provision of information and consumer choice: this is a primary
motivation in the policy position of Austria, Germany, and France.

■

Allowing GM(O)-free labelling on animal products where positive labelling is
currently not required under EU law: this is an important motivation in the policy
position of Austria and Germany, for example.

■

Allow producers of ‘GM(O)-free’ products to compete in the marketplace: this is
another important motivation in the policy position of Austria and Germany.

■

Information should not be misleading: This is a primary motivation in the policy
position of the Netherlands and Sweden.

■

Harmonisation at EU level is desired, but without harmonisation, national regulation
can be used: this is an important motivation for the Dutch regulation.

■

Avoid consumer confusion: This is a primary motivation for the UK position that if
harmonised EU labelling were to be introduced, it should not provide for allowances or
threshold levels for GM ingredients or processes.

Facilitative regulation and guidelines
This section summarises the basis, rationale and historical context, where available, for the
development of GM(O)-free legislation and guidelines in each of the countries where such
rules are present. Table 3.2 shows the title of the relevant legislation or guidelines in each
country and the year(s) when it was developed and amended.
Table 3.2 Legislation / guidelines - overview
Country

Legislation or
Most recent
guidelines (year) revision (year)

Title

AU

2007
(guidelines
since 1998)

2012

‘Austrian Food Book’ – Codex Alimentarius Austriacus
Vierte Auflage.

DE

2004

2008

EC GMO Implementation Act
[EG-Gentechnik-Durchführungsgesetz
(EGGenTDurchfG): geregelt wird die Angabe ‘ohne
Gentechnik’]

FI

2010

N/A

Evira Vapaaehtoisen ”tuotettu ilman geenitekniikkaa” –
merkinnän käyttö elintarvikkeissa ja rehuissa (Voluntary
labelling for food and feed products ‘produced without
genetic engineering’).

FR

2012

N/A

Decree number 2012-128 (30 January 2012) relative to
the labelling of foods qualified as being derived ‘without
GMOs’
[Relative à l'étiquetage des denrées alimentaires issues
de filières qualifiées ‘sans organismes génétiquement’
modifies]

11

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.1.2.2

Country

Legislation or
Most recent
guidelines (year) revision (year)

Title

NL

1999

1997

Decree on novel foods (29 October 1999) – Houdende
Wijziging Van Het Warenwetbesluit Nieuwe
Voedingsmiddelen (WNV)

CH

2005

2011

Ordinance of 23 November 2005 on genetically modified
food
[IT: Ordinanza concernente le derrate alimentari
geneticamente modificate; FR: Ordonnance sur les
denrées alimentaires génétiquement modifiées; DE:
Verordnung über gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel]

EL

In preparation

N/A

AGRO 2 and AGRO 7

LU

In preparation

N/A

[unknown]

HR

In preparation

N/A

[unknown]

Austria
GM(O)-free labelling in Austria is based on the ‘Guideline on GMO-free production and food
labelling’ as part of the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. The guideline was developed in 1997
by the ‘ARGE Gentechnik-frei’ - a forum for different stakeholders from food production as
well as environmental and other organisations. It was introduced in 1998 as a first edition of
the Codex-guideline ‘Gentechnikfrei’. The guideline was republished on 6 December 20075
and last amended on 21 December 2012.6
The rationale for the Austrian guideline is to allow producers of GM(O)-free products to
compete in the marketplace and to recognise consumers’ interests by allowing them to make
an informed choice. The guideline was developed in order to enable producers to indicate
when they exclude GM feed and food ingredients in their animal products. The stated
objective of the guideline is to provide a basis for the production of GM(O)-free food by
providing operators with the opportunity to declare food as GM(O)-free and by setting the
rules for GM(O)-free production along the supply chain.

3.1.2.3

Germany
GM(O)-free labelling in Germany is based on the 2004 ‘EC-GMO Implementation Act’.7 On 1
April 2008 the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) amended the Implementation Act8
so that the labelling of GM(O)-free food products is better regulated than previously and
more applicable for producers. Controls are the responsibility of the Länder (state) authority.
The Bundesland (federated state) has authority to survey food, feed and agricultural
production on their territory.
The rationale for the German law is to enable consumers to make an informed choice. As in
Austria, the legislation was developed in order to enable producers to indicate when they
exclude GM feed ingredients in animal products. The label (‘ohne Gentechnik’ – i.e. ‘without
genetic engineering’) is designed to meet the consumer demand for GM(O)-free food. Some
parties (e.g. the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green Party) have called for European
harmonisation of the GM(O)-free label.9

5

BMGF-75210/0014-IV/B/7/2007
BMG-75210/0020-II/B/13/2012
7
EG-Gentechnik-Durchführungsgesetz – EGGenTDurchfG
8
Gesetz zur Änderung des Gentechnikgesetzes, zur Änderung des EG-Gentechnik-Durchführungsgesetzes und
zur Änderung der Neuartige Lebensmittel- und Lebensmittelzutaten-Verordnung (EC-GMO Implementation Act
and to amend the Novel Foods and Food Ingredients Ordinance)
9
http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/archiv/2008/januar/kennzeichnung-ohne-gentechnik-ist-wichtig.html;
http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/017/1701790.pdf
6

12

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.1.2.4

France
The labelling of GM(O)-free food products in France is legislated under Decret no 2012-128
which was published in the French Official Journal on 31st January 2012 and came into
force on 1 July 2012.10 The decree describes the requirements for ‘GMO-free’ labelling for
products produced in France, but does not apply to imported products from the European
Union or from the European Economic Area. This means that non-GM foods legally
produced in other countries within these areas with a ‘non-GM’ label different to the French
labels may be sold in France. There is no mention of food products from countries outside
these areas.
France has a national policy position and there has also been activity at regional level. The
rationale for each of these is described below.

3.1.2.4.1 National policy position
The French policy on GM(O)-free labelling, transcribed into law by Decree no 2012-128 is
that consumers should be free to choose whether or not to buy and consume products which
contain or are produced from GMOs. Though this rationale is not stated as such, the decree
refers to specific articles in the French GMO law of 2008 and the consumer code which
relate to freedom to consume GM and non-GM products, as well as the principles of
information provision, transparency and traceability.
The French government worked for several years on national rules for non-GM labelling as
part of the implementation of the national GMO law of 2008 (La loi du 25 juin 2008 sur les
OGM). The 2008 law modified the Environment Code to add an article on the freedom to
consume and produce with or without GMOs, and this freedom to be guaranteed with
respect to the principles of information provision, amongst others.
France has had a legal definition of GM(O)-free labelling since 2004 concerning the absence
of GM.11 This was considered restrictive at the time as it did not allow for the presence of
GMOs above the threshold level of <0.1% or the use of biotechnology in additives.
3.1.2.4.2 Regional policy position
Several French regions and departments have signed up to the Florence Charter, a group of
approximately 55 regions in the EU that wish to be GM(O)-free zones. The aim is to
discourage GM agriculture and use of GM feed for local animal products, and to promote
non-GM food production.
In many regions such as Brittany, non-GM food products are actively promoted by providing
a list of labels which can be said to be GM(O)-free. These include many organic products,
Label Rouge products and supermarket own labelled food products (described in greater
detail in section 3.3). In the Poitou Charentes region, farmers have set up a ‘Signé PoitouCharentes’ label, a voluntary label for food products meeting specific requirements including
that the product must contain <0.9% GM in the product or feed. In Normandy, products with
the Défis Ruraux label are GM(O)-free (with a tolerance level of <0.9%). All regional
initiatives are voluntary.
3.1.2.5

Netherlands
The Dutch Decision of 29 October 1999 amending the national Novel Food law regulates the
use of a ‘prepared without gene technology’ label (Staatsblad, 1999). The Decision sets out
very strict requirements (described in sections 3.5.1, 3.6, 3.7.1, and 3.8.1) so that the
‘prepared without gene technology’ indication may only be used under very limited conditions
(listed in article 1, sub 2 of Regulation 258/97).

10

Décret no 2012-128 relatif à l'étiquetage des denrées alimentaires issues de filières qualifiées ‘sans organismes
génétiquement’ modifiés
11
Note d'information n°2004-113-DGCCRF-16.08.20047

13

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Following the implementation of the EU Novel Food Regulation (258/97), pressure on the
authorities in the Netherlands to take additional steps regarding GMOs increased. In
February 1997, the Dutch Parliament adopted a proposal calling on the government to
facilitate the supply of ‘GM(O)-free’ products to consumers (Tweede Kamer 1997). In March
1998, the Dutch Retailers Association, several NGOs and ‘Platform Biologica’ (organic
sector association) sent a letter to the relevant authorities, asking for measures to safeguard
a ‘GM(O)-free’ supply chain by introducing a compulsory registration system for GMOs,
coexistence regulation, and legal threshold levels for GM(O)-free feedstock (Consument en
Biotechnologie, 1999).
In March 1999 Greenpeace Netherlands and the Dutch Consumers Association wrote a
letter to Dutch supermarkets referring to an initiative by Sainsbury’s in the UK to form an
alliance for ‘GM(O)-free’ domestic brands and urging Dutch supermarkets to guarantee the
same for their domestic brands (Consumentenbond, 1999). In their view, the EU Regulation
did not cover a large enough number of products through positive GM labelling and
consumers were not offered a fair choice as a result.
In 1999 organisations representing industry, retail, organic producers and consumers
established a working group which developed a proposal based on the following principles:
■

Facilitating consumer choice, especially for consumers with strong objections to the use
of genetic modification in food production. For this group of consumers the regulatory
requirements for positive labelling of GMOs were considered insufficient because they
excluded from compulsory labelling products from animals fed with GM feed and the use
of GM processing aids. Therefore, an approach with very strict conditions quite similar to
the (first) German approach (1998) was proposed.

■

Information should not be misleading. Therefore, the wording was important: ‘GM-free’
suggests total absence of GMOs, which cannot be guaranteed. ‘Prepared without gene
technology’ reflects what can be guaranteed and what was thought to motivate
consumer choice.

A pragmatic consideration was that consumers preferring products ‘prepared without gene
technology’ belonged to the same category as consumers with a preference for organic
products, and the major stakeholders preferred not to have an additional label that might
confuse consumers. Organic products were therefore considered ‘the real alternative choice’
to GM products. It was also assumed that the incentive for non-organic food producers to
use a separate label would be small.
3.1.2.6

Italy – regional policy position, South Tyrol
The South Tyrol government issued a notification to the European Commission regarding a
draft amendment to existing legislation (Provincial Law, 22 January 2001) on labelling
GM(O)-free products. Food and feed may be labelled as ‘ohne Gentechnik’ if they are
‘without GMO characteristics’.12 The requirements are very strict as in the Dutch regulation,
without any exceptions for the use of GM feed, additives/enzymes, or veterinary
pharmaceuticals.

3.1.2.7

Finland
Finland's approach to GM(O)-free labelling was, until recently, similar to that of Sweden
(where GM(O)-free labelling is prohibited – see section 3.1.3.2 below). In 2010, the Finnish
Food and Safety Authority, Evira, published guidelines for a voluntary approach to labelling
products as ‘produced without genetic engineering’ for food and feed.13 Retailers and
producers now have the opportunity to include ‘GM(O)-free’ in their labels.

12

See Umweltbundesamt GmbH et al (2012)
Evira (2010) Vapaaehtoisen ”tuotettu ilman geenitekniikkaa” – merkinnän käyttö elintarvikkeissa ja rehuissa
(Voluntary labelling for food and feed products ‘produced without genetic engineering’).

13

14

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

‘GM(O)-free’ labelling may be used only if the product does not contain any genetically
modified material. Foodstuffs of animal origin may include a label indicating that they were
‘produced without genetic engineering’ or are ‘GM-free’ so long as the animal has not
consumed genetically modified feed at any stage in its life cycle.
The Evira guidelines on ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling indicate that they were developed because
mandatory labelling does not fully reflect consumers’ information needs and expectations. In
particular, EU rules do not specifically prohibit nor provide common criteria for voluntary
‘GM(O)-free labelling. In the absence of EU level rules and due to actions taken at Member
State level in this regard, Evira determined that it was necessary to provide its own
guidelines for domestic operators.
3.1.2.8

Switzerland
GM(O)-free labelling in Switzerland is based on the ‘Ordinance of 23 November 2005 on
genetically modified food’. Negative labelling is voluntary in Switzerland, but like in the
Netherlands it is subject to very strict rules. This labelling is not related only to the organisms
from which the product is derived, but also refers to the entire manufacturing process.
Products may not be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ if they are manufactured either ‘from’ GMOs or
‘with’ GMOs. Thus, in addition to excluding ingredients obtained from GMOs, operators must
not use any GM ‘auxiliary’ substances (e.g. enzymes or other additives) for food
manufacture or agricultural production. As in the Netherlands, an exception is allowed for the
use of veterinary medicines produced from modern biotechnology when a non-GM
alternative is unavailable.

3.1.2.9

Legislation under development - Greece, Luxembourg and Croatia
The questionnaire responses for this study indicate that facilitative GM(O)-free legislation is
in preparation in Greece (Agro 7), Luxembourg and Croatia. In Greece, the AGRO 7
standard will set specifications for food production from animals and refers specifically to
milk, meat, eggs and aquaculture, but not to processed materials from animals or food (such
as cold cuts). According to AGROCERT, the AGRO7 logo may be used on these products,
followed by the words: ‘without GM feed’. Additional information on the potential specification
of the legislation in Luxembourg and Croatia is not available.

3.1.3

Prohibitive rules: Belgium and Sweden
This section summarises the legislative basis, rationale and historical context for prohibitive
rules on the use of GM(O)-free labelling in EU Member States. Such rules are in place in
Belgium and Sweden. Table 3.3 shows the title of the relevant legislation in each country
and the year(s) when it was developed and amended.
Table 3.3 Prohibitive rules - overview

3.1.3.2

Country

Rules (year)

Title

BE

(guidelines 2004,
revised 2010)

‘Guide to the application of the regulation on GMOs’ [Guide
d’application de la réglementation relative aux OGM]

SE

2004
(guidelines 2004)

National Food Agency regulation on labelling and
presentation of food (LIVSFS 2004:27), Article 5a

Sweden
Sweden has strict rules prohibiting the use of GM(O)-free labelling and marketing. The
background for this ruling is that the labelling should include only the minimum information
necessary to allow consumers to make an informed decision. An indication of ‘free’ can only
be attributed to nutritional and allergenic ingredients (such as gluten or nuts). If all similar
products have the same characteristics it is considered misleading to claim that a product is
‘free from…’ or ‘without…’.

15

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

The Swedish legislative system is built on the subsidiarity principle such that the Swedish
food regulation complements EU regulations (SFS 2006:804). The regulation establishes
areas of responsibility for different authorities and gives the National Food Authority the right
to publish regulations. The relevant regulation for GM(O)-free labelling is the National Food
Agency regulation on labelling and presentation of food (LIVSFS 2004:27). Article 5a in the
regulation specifies that:
‘Labelling cannot mislead the customer in a significant way, especially regarding the origin,
processing or production methods used or by claiming a product to have special
characteristics while it has the same characteristics as similar products’ (unofficial
translation).14
While the regulation itself does not refer to GM(O)-free labelling, guidelines for the regulation
produced by the competent authority mention cooking oil as a specific example of misleading
‘free-from’ labelling since any ‘deliberate contamination by GMOs’ must be labelled in
accordance with the EU regulation.15 All other products are by definition similar and may not
carry a label suggesting a difference.
Labelling is considered important for engendering consumer trust regarding food products in
Sweden. The objective of the Swedish regulation is to standardise the labelling of food
belonging to the same product category. The labelling aim is primarily to provide the
consumer with necessary information about the food so that the consumer can make an
informed decision at the time of the purchase.
3.1.3.3

Belgium
Belgium has set out guidelines prohibiting labels for GM(O)-free products that are similar to
those in place in Sweden. The use of negative labelling, including terms such as ‘non-GMO’,
‘GMO-free’ or ‘GMO controlled’ is not allowed because they would be considered misleading
under Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 17 April 1980 on food advertising. In effect, negative
labeling statements of this type mislead the consumer because they imply that the product
has special features that similar food whose label contains no mention of GMOs does not. It
is also considered both technically (via detection methods) and practically impossible to
claim that a product does not contain GMOs since it would mean that each foodstuff was
controlled for the presence of all existing GMOs (both authorized and non-authorized).

3.1.4

No action by government
Eighteen Member States have not become directly involved in GM(O)-free labelling
schemes. The official position and rationale for this approach is outlined below for two case
study countries, Italy and the United Kingdom:
■

Italy: The Italian government does not have an official position on GM(O)-free labelling,
leaving Italian regions free to develop their own positions. The Italian Corte di
Cassazione (Court of Cassation) has argued that European law already addresses the
necessary issues, including positive labelling of GM products and organic production and
labelling, which includes prohibitions on the use of GMOs. In this context, the regions,
provinces and municipalities adhering to the Conference of Italian Regions and
Autonomous Provinces have declared themselves ‘GM(O)-free’ for many years.

■

United Kingdom: One of the main goals of the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is to
ensure consumer choice. In this context, the FSA argues that introducing a GM(O)-free

14

LIVSFS 2004:27 Article 5a. Original text: ”Märkning får inte vara sådan att den på ett avgörande sätt
skulle kunna vilseleda köparna, särskilt med avseende på livsmedlets ursprung,
tillverknings- eller produktionsmetod eller genom att antyda att ett livsmedel har
speciella egenskaper då i själva verket alla liknande livsmedel har sådana egenskaper”
15
Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) (2008) ‘Guidance to the NFA provisions (LIVSFS 2004: 27)
on food labelling and marketing’ [Vägledning till Livsmedelsverkets föreskrifter (LIVSFS 2004:27) om märkning
och presentation av livsmedel],
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/livsmedelsforetag/vagledningar/vagledning_markning.pdf.

16

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

label may cause confusion where positively labelled products, negatively labelled
products and unlabelled products are all available. If a harmonised GM(O)-free scheme
was to be introduced, the policy position in the UK is that it should represent products
that are completely GM(O)-free, with no GM allowances or threshold levels for GM
ingredients.16
Both explicit labels and non-GM supply chain requirements without labels are in use in both
countries. They are described in greater detail in the following sections.

3.2

Private operator-led Type I schemes: explicit GM(O)-free labelling rules and
guidelines
This section summarises the rationale and historical context, where available, for the
development of GM(O)-free labelling schemes by private operators. Five of the most widely
used such labels are discussed in Table 3.4. As with national government positions on
GM(O)-free labels, a variety or motivations have led private operators to develop such labels
for their products (Personal communication with representatives from Carrefour, Auchan
COOP Italia, Loué and IKC UM):
■

Providing consumers with informed choice by introducing a GM(O)-free label for
animal products because positive labelling is currently not required under EU law for
these products; this is similar to one of the motivations behind regulation in Austria and
Germany.

■

Recognising consumer’s negative views on the use of biotechnology in food
products.

■

A belief that the use of GM feed is incompatible with high quality animal products.

■

Because the national government did not take action on this issue and there was
felt to be both consumer demand and producer and supplier interest in having such
labelling.

Evidence collected in this study shows that GM(O)-free indications are present on a variety
of products in Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden and the United
Kingdom (Table 3.4). These schemes are run by producers, manufacturers and retailers.
Information on these other labels is provided in the sections that follow.

16

Per comms. UK Government Agency

17

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.4 Private operator-led Type I schemes: context and rationale for scheme development
Operator

Context and rationale for GM(O)-free label development

Carrefour (France)

Carrefour is one of the largest food retailers in France and in October 2010 launched a ‘non-GM’ label: ‘Nourri sans OGM guaranti à 99,1%’
(‘Fed with non-GM feed, guaranteed at 99,1%’) that was restricted to Carrefour’s own-branded products. The label was introduced ten
years after a traceable ‘non-GM’ feed supply chain was established by the retailer (specifically for non-GM soy meal). The stated rationale
for setting up a non-GM supply chain and GM(O)-free label was the firm’s belief in consumer choice and a desire to increase customers’
understanding of the products they consume and thus increase their confidence in those products, particularly for food products from
animals fed on non-GM feed. Explicit labelling of food products that allows customers to distinguish GM from non-GM products easily, and
immediately, has been a long-term goal of the retailer.

COOP Italia (Italy)

The COOP Italia scheme for labelling GM(O)-free animal products was prompted by consumers’ negative attitudes towards the use of
biotechnologies in food products. A COOP Italia survey showed that consumers are more aware of the presence of GMOs in food products
directly related to raw materials, as in the case of animal products.

Heumilch
(‘hay milk’) (Austria)

‘Heumilch’ milk products are produced by cows fed on grass, hay and some cereals in winter. Neither soya nor silage nor any additives are
used as feed ingredients. All members of the ARGE Heumilch (the association of farmers producing hay milk) are also members of the
ARGE Gentechnik-frei. The GM(O)-free label is not used on the packaging of all hay milk products, although most include at least some
indication that the product is GM(O)-free.

IKC UM (Slovenia)

A private GM(O)-free quality scheme has been developed in Slovenia by the Institute for Inspection and Certification, University of Maribor
(IKC UM), which is the accredited certification body for organic, integrated and other quality production schemes. The Slovenian Ministry for
Agriculture is responsible for recognising the standard and ensuring that there is no conflict with EU law. The certification body for GM(O)free labelling in Austria assisted IKC UM in preparing the standard and providing training and other expertise. The scheme has been in
operation since September 2011. The rationale for its development by IKC UM was the national government’s lack of interest in creating
such a scheme, consumer demand for GM(O)-free certification from Slovenian producers and suppliers, and expressions of interest in
17
GM(O)-free certification from large Slovenian dairy producers.

Loué Poultry
(France)

The Loué Poultry brand was established around 50 years ago and in 1996 was given the provenance label Indication Géographique
Protégée (IGP). It also carries a Label Rouge (see section 3.10.3.3). In 1999 Loué decided that GM feed was incompatible with high quality
poultry produce and put in place a supply chain allowing complete traceability and control over non-GM feed. This was coupled with an
understanding that consumers did not want to buy food products produced with the use of GMOs. In June 2009 Loué launched a label after
the National Consumer Council released rules for voluntary labelling of non-GM fed animals.

UNI18 working group
(Italy)

Several Italian organisations, including the farmers’ organization ‘Coldiretti’, participate in a UNI working group, whose task is to study,
develop, approve and publish voluntary standards for the definition of minimum requirements for a ‘GM(O)-free’ declaration.

17

Information on the GM(O)-free labelling scheme was provided by a representative of IKC UM (personal email correspondence, ICF GHK and IKC UM, various dates, October
and November 2012).
18
Italian National Unification Body (Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione)

18

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.3

Type II schemes: ‘GM(O)-free’ is one attribute of a quality label
Quality schemes that include a ‘GM(O)-free’ requirement alongside one or more other
product attributes operate in many European countries. The organic label applies across the
EU and the organic rules prohibit products from carrying an organic label if GMOs have been
used in their production (detailed below). In France, the production rules for some
Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) cheeses include a GM(O)-free requirement. Regional
quality schemes in France, Germany, and Italy,19 eco-labels in Sweden, and the ProTerra
label in Switzerland also include this requirement.

3.3.1

Organic labels
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products
prohibits the use of GMOs in organic production amongst other production requirements.
The primary requirements for excluding GMOs in organic production are outlined in the box
below.

EU organic requirements
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products requires that:
■

Organic production shall be based on methods that exclude the use of GMOs and products
produced from or by GMOs with the exception of veterinary medicinal products (Article 4
(a)(iii)).

■

As a general principle, in organic production processing aids should be used to a minimum
extent and only in case of essential technological need or for particular nutritional purposes
(Article 6 (b)).

■

GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs shall not be used as food, feed, processing
aids, plant protection products, fertilisers, soil conditioners, seeds, vegetative propagating
material, micro-organisms or animals (Article 9.1).

All organic products in the EU are therefore ‘GM(O)-free’. Consultations undertaken for this
study suggest that where ‘GM(O)-free’ appears on organic products, the EU rules for
adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence and other rules for excluding GMOs
are applied– that is, national schemes do not generally apply rules stricter than those set
down in EU law. Nonetheless, the following two examples demonstrate how organic labelling
schemes may apply stricter rules:
■

The Bio (Organic) scheme developed by the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
Consumer Protection (‘Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und
Verbraucherschutz’, BMELV) signals stricter standards of environmental protection,
improved husbandry standards and the fact that a product is GM(O)-free. The GM(O)free standards/specifications built into the scheme match those specified in the German
legislation (EgGentechDurchfGesetz) for the national GM(O)-free scheme, except for the
threshold level for adventitious presence, which is higher under the national scheme
(<0.1% under the national GM(O)-free scheme, compared to <0.9% under EU organic
rules).

■

The Bio Cohérence scheme in France is a label for organic products whose
requirements are more specific and stringent than those applied under ‘regular’ organic
production. Additional details on this scheme could not be obtained.

■

In Wallonia, Belgium, ‘Bio’ labels can be found on pork, beef and chicken. The non-GM
specifications applied by retailers and producers vary; some may be stricter than the EU
organic rules.

19

Type II schemes were identified for products protected by geographic indications and designations of origin in
Latvia, although no further information was collected on their specification.

19

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.3.2

Designation of origin and geographic indications
The EU legislation governing the award of protected food names sets no GM(O)-free
requirements.20 Rather, the law serves as a guide for applicants to determine the eligibility of
their products for an indication, emphasising the proof required to claim a specific unique
quality or qualities intrinsic in the product or the traditional methodology in producing the
product. This does not prohibit an applicant from stating that their animal feed is GM(O)-free
nor prevent any applicant from aligning their methods with GM(O)-free principles.
Accordingly:

3.3.3

■

In France some cheeses that are labelled Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) are
required to have been made with milk from animals fed on non-GM feed (<0.9%) and
with the use of non-GM microorganisms for fermentation.

■

In Sweden all Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) schemes are considered to be
‘GM(O)-free; national guidelines are in place to facilitate GM(O)-free supply chains (see
section 3.10.4.1).

Regional labels
Some regional quality labelling schemes also include or are planning to include ‘GM(O)-free’
criteria for their application:

3.3.4

■

In Germany, some regional quality schemes are considering use of the GM(O)-free
criterion for their products. The quality label scheme of the federal state of Hesse –
‘Geprüfte Qualität – HESSEN’ has special criteria for the claim GM(O)-free which are
stricter than the national rules. For example, feed must be GM(O)-free for the entire life
of the animal for some products, including for poultry, eggs and pork products. The
‘Gesicherte Qualität – Baden-Württemberg’ criteria have been revised and from 1
January 2015 all food under this scheme must meet the GM(O)-free requirements of
the official national scheme, although GM(O)-free labelling will remain voluntary. In 2012
the Bavarian parliament rejected a proposal to extend the criteria of the regional quality
label (‘Geprüfte Qualität – Bayern’) to exclude the use of GMOs (Bayerischer Landtag
2012).

■

In the Poitou Charentes region of France, farmers and collectives have set up a ‘Signé
Poitou-Charentes’ label21 – a voluntary label for food products that meet specific
requirements. Défis Ruraux is an association of food producers in Normandy engaged in
more sustainable agriculture. Amongst other things, the association helps farmers to
procure non-GM feed.

■

Some Italian regions have quality labelling schemes that include GM(O)-free criteria (e.g.
the Qualita’ delle Marche (QM) label). These apply to both raw and processed foods.

Eco-labels
In Sweden, all ‘eco-label’ schemes have GM(O)-free policies, including:
■

Svensk Sigil (Swedish Label) which certifies vegetables and animal products; the
certification includes third party monitoring and verification.

■

KRAV, which is the best-known eco-label, is applied to more than >5500 products and
used by 3000 farmers and 450 processors and traders.

In Switzerland, the ProTerra labelling scheme has GM(O)-free requirements, and the words
‘non GMO’ appear alongside ‘sustainability’ on the logo.

20
21

Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006
Signe Poitou-Charentes les guaranties, 23 novembre 2011, IRQUA

20

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.3.5

Other quality labels
GM(O)-free is one attribute of a number of quality labelling schemes in Austria, one of which
is the AMA scheme. The Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing (AMA) guidelines were developed in
collaboration with representatives of agriculture and business. The AMA, one of the main
agricultural institutions in Austria, is responsible for the licensing system. The AMA Seal of
Approval is an indication of quality and the country of origin; the consumer can be assured
that AMA products are high quality goods, with a country of origin which is easily traceable.
At producer level, there are GM(O)-free guidelines for rearing cows for milk and meat
production and for sheep and goats, laying hens and for the production of fruits, vegetables
and potatoes. The guidelines refer to the Austrian Codex guidelines and recommend the use
of the ARGE label. Discussions are on-going as to whether GM(O)-free production should be
a requirement for all products that are labelled with the AMA label rather than being a
voluntary element of the scheme.22
In Germany, the Pro Planet scheme is based on the national legislation and rules set by the
REWE Group, which comprises retailers like REWE, Penny-Markt, toom and others. The
words ‘ohne Gentechnik’ are depicted below the logo where REWE wants to communicate
the GM(O)-free status of a product. The motivation to introduce the label arose from the
desire to supply ‘sustainable food at fair prices’ to consumers. The standards are the same
as those of the national GMO-free label.
Additionally:

3.4

■

In Switzerland, avoidance of GMOs is one of the criteria in ‘Suisse Garantie’ labelling.

■

In France, the Label Rouge indicates that products have certain organoleptic properties
(i.e. qualities that stimulate the sense organs) which give them a superior taste. The
GM(O)-free requirement is found in the specification for many Label Rouge products, but
is not compulsory and depends on the individual product.

Type III schemes: ‘GM(O)-free’ is a supply chain requirement, but no labels
appear on product packages
Table 3.5 provides information on the non-GM supply chain requirements identified in
different Member States. Type III approaches to non-GM supply chains are particularly
prevalent in the United Kingdom. Details of the UK situation are provided in the box below.

Type III approaches to non-GM supply chains in the United Kingdom
The British Retail Consortium and Food and Drink Federation issued a joint identity-preservation
standard for sourcing non-GM soya and maize which does not support ‘GM(O)-free’ claims, but is a
basis for ‘best practice’ (<0.9%). The British Poultry Council (BPC) also informed major retailers of its
position that it would use non-GM feed in poultry and egg production. This position was not stipulated
on any label, nor advertised to consumers.
UK supermarkets eliminated GM ingredients (as far as possible) in their own branded products in the
1990s. This included the use of non-GM feed for animals used in meat production. Retailers did not
actively communicate this position to customers (although their positions could be found by
searching company websites). Retailers consulted for this study indicated that this approach was
taken to avoid providing consumers with an absolute guarantee that products are ‘GM(O)-free’.
Supplies of GM(O)-free soya have become harder to guarantee and the sector has attempted to
retract their non-GM policy with British retailers. British supermarket chain Asda stated in 2010 that
they would allow their poultry producers to source GM feed. Morrisons announced a similar change
in the spring of 2012. Sainsbury’s, Tesco, The Cooperative and Marks and Spencer also changed
their policy in April 2013, leaving Waitrose as the only major supermarket to maintain a non-GM
poultry meat and egg production policy.

22

Association of Dairy Industry, Helmut Petschar, Telephone Interview (08/10/2012)

21

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.5 Type III non-GM supply chains: context and rationale for scheme development
Country

Scheme Name

Description

DE

Lidl

GM-free is one element of a ‘package’ of purchasing practices that forms part of the ‘commitment’ or ‘offer’ to the consumer. In some
regions of Germany, Lidl provides GMO-free milk without declaring it (personal communication, Lidl representative). A regional label is
used in some cases, for example in Bavaria, but not in every case. Baby food is also typically made from non-GM inputs but this is not
explicitly mentioned on the package. Lidl’s GM(O)-free commitment is not communicated to consumers because Lidl does not want
consumers to avoid its other products under the assumption that they are not GMO-free (personal communication Lidl representative).

IT

COOP Italia
(all products)

COOP Italia has declared itself GM(O)-free since 1997. Today all products are ‘GM(O)-free’ by corporate policy. There are no labels,
but the products are marketed as ‘GM(O)-free’ (personal communication, COOP representative).

Coldiretti

All ‘Coldiretti’ products (farmers’ markets and retail products) are promoted under the name of ‘Campagna Amica’ as ‘GMO-free’, but
do not have a label.

Amadori Fileni

Private voluntary standards are used for these poultry products for non-GM maize and soy.

Latte Milano &
Trentingrana

These milk (Latte Milano) and cheese (Trentingrana) producers feed their animals using non-GM maize.

Some Dutch
producers

Although they do not use the ‘bereid onder gentechniek’ label, several producers claim to be ‘gentechvrij’ (‘GMO-free’) in their general
communication.

Rondeel

Restaurants can indicate that they do not serve food produced with or from GMOs. Rondeel, an egg producer operating to high animal
welfare standards, claims the use of non-GM Pro Terra soya feed (Rondeel, 2013).

LRF

The Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) strongly opposes GMOs on the basis of the precautionary principle. Almost 100% of
imported feed used by LRF farmers is non-GM.

Scan

Scan is Sweden’s largest meat producer. Historically, Scan did not accept any pork products produced from pigs that had been fed
with GM feed. In 2006, Scan changed its policy following complaints from suppliers that non-GM feed was more expensive. In 2011,
Scan renewed its non-GM feed policy following consumer criticism and requests for GM(O)-free ham for Christmas.

Arla

Arla is a producer and distributer of dairy products that has adopted a GM(O)-free policy for its products

Svenk Mjölk

Svenk Mjölk (Swedish Dairy Association) has adopted a non-GM policy for its products

Large
supermarkets/
manufacturers

Large supermarkets and manufacturers’ own brand products (including meat, fish, chicken, eggs and milk) have maintained non-GM
supply chains since 1999. This has been true of Marks & Spencer, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Iceland, Morrison’s, Waitrose and Asda but all
of these except Waitrose decided to allow GM feed for poultry products in 2012 and 2013.

NL

SE

UK

22

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.5

Labelling rules

3.5.1

Public, Type I labelling approaches
A wide range of labelling approaches has been taken at Member State level and by private
operators:
■

In France and the Netherlands, national legislation specifies the particular words that
may be used to identify a product as ‘GM(O)-free’, but does not specify a logo;

■

In Austria and Germany, national legislation sets out both the words that may be used
and provides for a non-prescriptive logo or logos; and

■

In all four countries, private operators may use their own logo, if they adhere to the
national rules.

Table 3.7 provides the wording that may be used according to MS legislation and an image
of the harmonised, voluntary logo where one is provided as well as commentary on their use.
The French labelling decree makes a number of distinctions in the wording that may be used
on product packages. The box below describes the approach taken in France.

GM(O)-free labelling distinctions in France
The French GM(O)-free labelling decree makes a number of distinctions related to the wording that
may be applied to such products. Permitted labels consist of the wording highlighted in the first
column of Table 3.6 below, which is to be included as part of the ingredients list or as a footnote.
The specific packaging requirements are as follows:
■

For pre-packed food products: relevant wording should be included within the ingredients list
immediately after the relevant ingredient or as a footnote at the end of the list. Wording must be
in the same font, font size and colour as the other ingredients on the list.

■

For non-pre-packed foods: relevant wording should be placed in an obvious place using
permanent markings after the mention of the relevant ingredient, on a label placed on each food
product or product lot, provided the lot contains products with the same labelling requirements.

Table 3.6 Food product labelling distinctions in France under Decret no 2012-128
Label

Description

Product type covered

GMO-free

Plants and ingredients of plant origin made from raw
material containing less than 0.1 per cent GMO*

Vegetable origin

Fed on non-GMO feed
(<0.1 per cent)

Unprocessed ingredients of animal origin obtained
from animals fed on GMO-free feed*

Animal origin

Produced from animals
fed on non-GMO feed
(<0.1 per cent)

Processed ingredients of animal origin, including
eggs and milk, obtained from animals fed on GMOfree feed*

Animal origin

Fed on non-GMO feed
(<0.9 per cent)

Unprocessed ingredients of animal origin obtained
from animals fed on feed not subject to [EU] labelling
requirements

Animal origin

Produced from animals
fed on non-GMO feed
(<0.9 per cent)

Processed ingredients of animal origin, including
eggs and milk, obtained from animals fed on feed
not subject to [EU] labelling requirements

Animal origin

GMO-free within a
radius of 3km

Honey and other products relating to apiculture

Bee-derived

* On condition that this presence is fortuitous and technically unavoidable.

23

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.7 Wording and logos to identify a product as 'GM(O)-free' specified in national legislation
MS

Wording allowed

Logos

Commentary

AT

Ohne Gentechnik Hergestellt
Gentechnikfrei Erzeugt
Gentechnikfrei
GVO-frei
Ohne Gentechnik
Ohne Verwendung von Gentechnik
Geeignet zur Herstellung gentechnik freier Lebensmittel

Operators may use different wording formulations,
but in practice ‘ohne gentechnik hergestellt’ and
‘gentechnikfrei erzeugt’ and the corresponding
voluntary logos are used. For feed, only one claim is
admitted: ‘geeignet zur Herstellung gentechnik freier
Lebensmittel’ (‘applicable to the production of GMOfree food’).

DE

Ohne Gentechnik – ‘without genetic engineering’

There are 15 logos in use alongside the official logo.
Examples of these are set out in Table 3.8.

FR

sans OGM
nourri sans OGM (<0,1%)
issu d'animaux nourris sans OGM (<0,1%)
nourri sans OGM (<0,9 %)
issu d'animaux nourri sans OGM (<0,9 %)

No logo specified

The decree makes several distinctions concerning
the labelling of food products that are ‘free from
genetically modified organisms’. These are
highlighted in Table 3.6 below.

No logo specified

The decree makes several distinctions concerning
the labelling of food products that are ‘free from
genetically modified organisms’. These are
highlighted in Table 3.6 below.

sans OGM dans un rayon de 3 km
FR

Fed on non-GMO feed (<0.9 per cent) in conformity with the
regulation on organic production (‘nourri sans OGM (<0,9 %)
conformément à la réglementation relative à la production
biologique’)
Produced from animals fed on non-GMO feed (<0.9 per cent) in
conformity with the regulation on organic production (‘issu
d'animaux nourris sans OGM (<0,9 %) conformément à la
réglementation relative à la production biologique’)

NL

bereid zonder gentechniek – ‘prepared without gene technology’

No logo specified

There is only one product carrying the bereid zonder
gentechniek label; no logo is used on the product.

CH

‘ottenuto senza ricorso alla tecnologia genetica’ / ‘ohne
Gentechnik hergestellt’ / ‘produit sans recours au génie génétique’
[‘Obtained without the use of gene technology/genetic
engineering’]

No logo specified

Products characterized as 'organic' may not display
the label 'obtained without the use of genetic
engineering’. It is possible to provide a reference on
the label to the legal provisions in force.

24

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.5.2

Private, Type I labelling approaches
A range of labelling approaches has also been taken by private operators. The wording and
logos currently in use by these operators are provided in Table 3.8. In summary:
■

In Germany, 15 operator-designated (own design) logos are currently used alongside the
VLOG logo, but the products must comply with national requirements in order to use the
‘ohne Gentechnik’ indication.

■

In Italy, no logos are used to designate GM(O)-free products, but a range of different
wording is used.

■

In Slovenia, the Institute for Inspection and Certification, University of Maribor (IKC UM)
has developed wording and a designated logo for GM(O)-free products;

■

In the UK, a number of products carry wording that indicates they are ‘GM(O)-free’. For
example, the words ‘GM free’ appear on a number of different organic products; and

■

Although GM(O)-free labelling is illegal in Sweden, this type of labelling has been found
on some products. A study conducted in 2009 found that out of 76 companies, 20 were
using the words ‘free from GMO’. GM(O)-free statements were often used in combination
with labels declaring organic production and mainly used for soya milk and canned corn.

In France, two logos have been historically used by private operators (Carrefour and Loué).
Both were in use before the French legislation came into effect. All Loué products are GMOfree and labelled as such, including their organic range. Both Carrefour and Loué originally
chose wording that would represent a ‘positive’ image to consumers (Nourri sans OGM,
garanti à 99.1%), rather than what they consider to be a label highlighting contamination
levels. They have since changed their labels to conform to the new legislation. For example,
Carrefour has adapted its logo to conform to the new legislation (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 The Carrefour ‘Nourri sans OGM’ logo - prior to (left-hand logo) and from October 2012
(right-hand logo)

Sweet corn and beansprouts produced for human consumption, rather than as animal feed,
also use a GM(O)-free indication on their packaging in France, despite the fact that they are
unrelated to the GM varieties that are used as animal feed. A specific approach has been
taken for these products as detailed in the box below.

25

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

GM(O)-free labelling for sweet corn and beansprouts
Genetically modified varieties of maize (maïs) and soy (soja) are used as animal feed in France.
Although these two crop varieties are unrelated to the sweet corn and beansprouts (called pousses
de soja in French) produced for human consumption, the nomenclature used was confusing for
consumers. Sweet corn and beansprout producers and distributors claimed declining sales as a
result. In 2004 the following labels were permitted for use on these two products respectively23:
■

‘le maïs doux est sans OGM, conformément à la réglementation’ (i.e. ‘sweet corn is non-GM in
conformity with legislation’), and

■

‘les pousses de haricot Mungo (pousses de soja) sont sans OGM conformément à la
réglementation’ (i.e. ‘mungo beansprouts are non-GM in conformity with legislation’).

The labelling was authorised despite the fact that no GM alternatives exist for these plant products.

In the UK, a number of products have been identified which have a ‘GM(O)-free’ indication
on the package. For example, Marigold products include the label wording ‘contains no
genetically modified material’. Recently, GM(O)-free certification has been introduced in the
UK for food products that may carry the German ‘Ohne Gentechnik’ mark. The mark may be
used both for export to Germany and for domestic products (FarmingUK, 2013).

23

DGCCRF, (2004) ‘Les OGM et leurs produits dérivés doivent-ils être étiquetés?’

26

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.8 Wording and logos to identify products as 'GM(O)-free' used by private operators
MS

Wording

Logos

DE

[Same as set out in national legislation]

15 other logos in use by private operators in addition to the national logo, for example:

FR

[Same as set out in national legislation]

Carrefour
SI

Institute for Inspection and Certification, University
of Maribor (IKC UM): Brez GSO (‘Non-GMO’);
Produced without GMOs

IT

In general: non OGM, alimentazione NO OGM,
prodotto con latte ottenuto da alimentazione NON OGM,
OGM free

[No logos known to be used]

UNI Working Group: Food products: non-OGM; Animal
products: alimentazione non OGM (‘GMO-free feeding’);
Feed: conforme alla norma UNI… (‘in conformity with
UNI standard’)
COOP Italia: non-OGM (animal products)

27

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.5.3

Public, Type II labelling approaches
Harmonised EU labelling rules and a logo have been established for organic products.
National organic logos can still be displayed alongside the EU logo. According to the general
principles of the EU Regulation on organic production, the use of GMOs is incompatible with
organic production, and products that must include positive GM labelling cannot carry the EU
organic logo. But EU organic labelling rules do not foresee the explicit indication that the
product is ‘GM(O)-free’ (or its prohibition). In the UK, for example, some organic products
also include the wording ‘GM free’, such as Riverford Farm milk and Jordan’s cereals.

3.5.4

Private, Type II labelling approaches
Type II labels refer to a range of quality attributes. The logos used on Type II products
identified in this study are illustrated in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Logos used by private operators to identify quality products where ‘GM(O)-free’ is a
requirement for its use
MS

Private operator

DE

Pro Planet

DE

Bio (Organic)

AT

AMA-label

FR

Signé Poitou-Charentes

FR

Défis Ruraux (Haute
Normandie) logo (which
includes the Porc des
Chaumières logo)

Logos

28

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.5.5

MS

Private operator

FR

Label Rouge

FR

Appellation d'origine contrôlée
(AOC)

FR

Bio Cohérence

Logos

Private, Type III non-GM supply chain requirements
While Type III schemes do not include labels, marketing materials may contain reference to
the ‘GM(O)-free’ status of the supply chain or products. For example, in the Netherlands,
several producers claim to be ‘gentechvrij’ (i.e. ‘GMO-free’) in their general communications.
Bionext, the Dutch organisation for sustainable organic agriculture and food, has some
information available in a leaflet that states, ‘[o]rganic food is naturally ‘GMO-free’ and
encourages people to create ‘GMO-free zones’. Figure 3.2 illustrates how some Dutch
operators market ‘gentechvrij’ products.
Figure 3.2 Organic producers’ marketing material in the Netherlands – ‘gentechvrij’ (‘GMO-free’)

In other Member States, such as the UK and Sweden, manufacturers and retailers maintain
non-GM supply chains for their products, as discussed in section 3.4. Where product labels
themselves do not make ‘GM(O)-free’ claims, websites may provide information on the
policy.
29

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

In Sweden, national guidelines have been established to facilitate non-GM supply chains,
including the type of controls and documentation that would be considered acceptable for
companies which, according to their GM policy, claim not to sell products produced or
processed with GMOs (see section 3.10.4.1).

3.6

Product scope

3.6.1

Public, Type I product scope
National legislation in Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands allows for any eligible
product to be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ so long as it meets the national rules. Table 3.10
summarises the product categories allowed in these four Member States.
Table 3.10

Product scope

Product category

Applicability
AT

DE

FR

NL

Vegetables

9

9

9

9

Oils / fats

9

9

9

9

Meat

9

9

9

9

Processed meat products

9

9

9

9

Eggs

9

9

9

9

Milk

9

9

9

9

Other dairy products

9

9

9

9

Other animal products

9

9

9

9

* Products from hunting and fishing of wild animals are not included in the scope.
Nonetheless, the scope for processed products to carry a GM(O)-free label may depend on
the proportion of a particular ingredient in the processed product. For example, in France,
GM(O)-free labelling can only be used for food products made up of several ingredients
where the non-GM ingredient makes up at least 95 per cent of the total weight of the product
and where the other ingredients are not subject to these labelling requirements (salt and
water are not included in the product weight).
Agreement on this figure was reached after considerable discussion amongst stakeholders
during the consultative process prior to the publication of the decree.24 Many retailers favour
reducing the threshold level above which an ingredient may be labelled so that a greater
percentage of products which contain non-GM ingredients may be eligible for GM(O)-free
labelling. The case has been put forward to allow certain ingredients to be labelled even if
they are not a major constituent of the product because they have a GM alternative (such as
soy), so that the consumer may have more information about the food product.
On the other hand some stakeholders from the food industry in France would prefer that
ingredients in ‘transformed’ food products, or products containing several ingredients are not
permitted to be labelled as GM(O)-free. The government position is that a lower threshold
level might lead to consumers being misled if a label referring to a minor ingredient is
highlighted on the packaging.
In Austria, there have also been discussions about whether it should be possible to label
more processed products as GM(O)-free so long as it can be guaranteed that the main part
of the product is GM(O)-free. For instance, in the case of marinated barbecue meat, a
guarantee that the meat itself has been produced without GMOs is relatively straightforward.
But the marinade itself is normally composed of many different ingredients for which it is
24

Communication with DGCCRF, 24 September 2012

30

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

more difficult to provide a ‘GM(O)-free’ guarantee. Nonetheless, having the possibility to use
a GM(O)-free label that only refers to a certain component of processed product could be
valuable to consumers (personal communication, representatives from Faber, ARGE).

3.6.2

Private, Type I, II and III product scope
Private operators may also allow any product to be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ where it
complies with EU and national labelling rules, but in practice some operators restrict GM(O)free labelling to products from a particular animal species or of a particular type or extent of
processing. Table 3.11 shows the product scope for private operator schemes covered by
this study. For example:
■

The Brez GSO label in Slovenia covers plant and animal products (meat, milk and eggs),
aquaculture and apiculture.

■

The COOP Italia scheme covers a wide and heterogeneous range of processed
products, including those that are free from both GM soybean and maize ingredients. It
also covers animal products including poultry, pork, beef, farmed fish, eggs, milk, and
some cold cuts and cheeses. Although many products belong to this scheme, many
other goods prepared with animal products do not. Ingredients like meat stuffing are
considered to be too difficult to segregate as GM(O)-free.

■

The UNI working group norm applies to food and feed products and covers animal
products fed on non-GM feed.

■

Carrefour’s scheme covers only food products from animals including meat (veal, pork,
and poultry), eggs and farmed fish. It does not cover milk or dairy products because
Carrefour views the milk supply chain as complex and difficult to trace.

■

The Loué scheme covers poultry meat and eggs.

■

All sweet corn produced in France carries a GM(O)-free label.

31

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.11

Product scope – Type I, II and III private operator-led schemes

Product
category

Applicability by operator/organisation
Carrefour*

Loué

Auchan

Bio
cohérence

Some FR
AOC
cheeses

Some
Label
Rouge

Signé
Poitou
Charentes

Défis
Ruraux

UNI
working
group

COOP
Italia

Hesse

Pro
planet

Heumilch

Sainsbury’s Waitrose *

Most major Uk
supermarkets *

Vegetables

8

8

8

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

Oils / fats

8

8

8

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

Meat

9

9
(poultry)

9
(poultry,
pork)

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

9
(beef &
pork)

9

9
(except poultry)

9
(ham)

8

8

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

?

9

9

Eggs

9

9

9

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

9

8

Milk

8

8

8

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

9

9

Other dairy
products

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

9

9

Other
animal
products

9
(farmed
fish)

8

9
(fish)

9

8

9

9
(prawns)

9

9

9
(farmed
fish)

8

8

8

8

9

9

Processed
meat
products

*Own-branded products only

32

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.7

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence
As the baseline evidence demonstrates, the threshold levels for GM presence used in the
EU vary across two dimensions: the product scope and the threshold level used. There are
three threshold limits set: <0.9%, <0.1% and <0.01% and three general categories of
products to which the limits are applied: food, feed and seed.
Two uses of the <0.01% threshold level have been identified for seed. For the other two
categories there is a mix of uses, such that <0.9% may be set for feed and/or food and
<0.1% may be set for feed and/or food. There is variance in this practice across Member
State and private operator schemes.
In very restrictive schemes, such as that in use in the Netherlands, ‘zero’ is the target but the
threshold level is set at <0.1% due to analytical constraints. Nevertheless, the Dutch
authorities do not use analytical methods in practice because there is only one ‘GM(O)-free’
product on the market which is verified through certification documents.
Additionally, in cases where prohibitive rules may be sought at EU level, ‘zero’ tolerance may
be indicated in order to limit the use of ‘GM(O)-free’ labels as far as possible. Such an
approach could not rely on analytic methods, but would require certification through supply
chain documentation – a ‘process’ rather than a ‘product’ based approach to verification of
conformity with the rules.
The rationale for setting these different threshold limits varies by scheme, including:
■

Operators’ abilities to comply with the limits (co-existence issues);

■

Operators’ costs to meet the requirements; and

■

Operators’ and/or Member State authorities’ expectations and perceptions of consumer
demand for restrictive requirements.

These rationales are bounded by analytic limits at one end (moving towards a ‘0.0%’ limit)
and EU law at the other (GM presence above 0.9% must carry a positive label).

3.7.1

Public, Type I threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM
presence
Member States have developed legislation and guidelines for ‘GM(O)-free’ production where
adventitious or technically unavoidable authorised GM presence is below 0.9%. Table 3.12
illustrates the threshold levels set through Member State legislation, at either <0.1% or
<0.9% for food and/or feed.
Table 3.12

Threshold levels set by MS for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence

Parameter

AT

CH

DE

FI

FR

NL

Food

<0.9%*

<0.9%

<0.1%

0.0%**

<0.1%

<0.1%***

Feed

<0.9%*

<0.9%

<0.9%

0.0%**

<0.1% and
<0.9%

<0.1%***

* In practice, operators voluntarily adhere to a <0.1% threshold. Additional controls are carried out if
there is GM contamination greater than 0.1%.
** The guidelines indicate that the GM material limit for adventitious or technically unavoidable
presence is 0% (or the threshold limit).
***This is the assumed threshold level although in practice the Dutch government does not use
analytical methods because there are virtually no products carrying the label in the Netherlands.
In Austria and Germany, the thresholds for feed (DE) and food and feed (AT) are defined according to
regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003 at 0.9 per cent with the provision that exceptions are
permitted up to 0.9 per cent provided the exceptional presence is adventitious or/or technically
unavoidable.

33

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.7.2

Private operator threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM
presence
Private operators have developed their own standards for ‘GM(O)-free’ production where
adventitious or technically unavoidable authorised GM presence is below 0.9%. Table 3.13
illustrates the levels set by private operators for Type I schemes where these are known, at
either <0.1% or <0.9%. In Italy, Accredia, the national accreditation organisation, has set a
limit of <0.01% for seeds (maize and soy only). In France, the organic scheme Bio
Coherence has also set a <0.01% threshold for raw materials. Schemes discussed
elsewhere but not listed here meet the national rules for adventitious or technically
unavoidable presence set out in the country in which they operate.
Table 3.13

Type I – threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence set
by private operators

Parameter

COOP Italia*

IKC UM

UNI working group (e.g. Colderetti)

Food

<0.1%

<0.9%

<0.1%

Feed

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.9%

*Own-branded products only

Thresholds set under Type II schemes are described in Table 3.14, where these are known.
Table 3.14

Type II – threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence set
by private operators

Parameter

Bio
coherence*

Some FR
Some Label
AOC cheeses Rouge

Signé Poitou
Charentes

Défis
Ruraux**

UK Soil
Association***

Food

<0.1%

N/A

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.1%

Feed

<0.1%

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.9%

<0.1%

* <0.01% for raw materials
** The on-going objective is towards achieving a <0.1% threshold level
*** The UK Soil Association has an identity preserved system for checking products at all stages of the
supply chain. Where products are not tested throughout the supply chain, they are tested at the <0.1%
threshold level. If GM ingredients are found in products, producers risk having organic status
rescinded.

In the UK, operators maintaining Type III schemes (non-GM supply chains) adhere to a
<0.1% threshold where these are known. Most UK retailers require suppliers of own branded
meat products to feed animals entirely on non-GM maize and soya (or other comparable
non-GM feed) validated by the Exova system, which is the dominant verification systems for
non-GM ingredients. With this system, non-GM maize and soya is guaranteed to a <0.1%
threshold. This threshold level is also applied by Marks & Spencer’s in-house verification
system. Additional details on the UK verification systems for Type III schemes are provided
in section 3.10.4.2.

3.8

Input specifications and exemptions
In Member States that wish to provide more opportunities to label products as ‘GM(O)-free’,
exceptions are provided since operators would find it very difficult to ensure a supply chain
that did not rely on one or more GM input. In the Netherlands, where a very strict approach is
used, only one product is available on the market carrying the ‘GM(O)-free’ label.

34

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.8.1

Public, Type I input specifications and exemptions
The four national schemes that provide for facilitative ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling specifically
exclude the use of all or most of these inputs. Table 3.15 illustrates the rules regarding
inputs specified in the four national schemes in place in the EU, as well as the guidelines in
Finland and the scheme operating in Switzerland.
Table 3.15

Input specifications

Parameter

AT

CH

DE

FI

FR

NL

Allows preparation aided by compounds
or processing aids that contain or are
derived from GMOs

8

8

8

8

8

8

Allows production* from animals that
have been fed on GM feed

8

8

8

8

8

8

Allows production* from animals that
have been fed on conventional feed that
contains GM additives

8

8

8

8

8

8

Allows production* from animals that
have been fed on GM feed that contains
GM additives

8

8

8

8

8

8

Allows production* from animals treated
with veterinary products produced with
modern biotechnology

8

8

8

8

Does not
specify

8

* including meat, dairy, eggs, etc.

Finland and Switzerland do not allow any exceptions to these restrictions. The Netherlands
allows for an exception where a non-GM veterinary product is unavailable. Austria, France
and Germany provide exceptions in two further cases:
■

First, where a non-GM alternative is not available for the use of compounds, processing
aids, or feed additives; and

■

Second, specifying minimum feeding times for animals fed on non-GM feed.

Table 3.16 illustrates the exceptions provided for each of these inputs.
Table 3.16

Exceptions

Exception

AT

CH

DE

FI

FR

NL

Use of GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals where a non-GM
alternative is not available

9

9

9**

8

Does
not
specify

9

Use of certain additives or enzymes
where a non-GM alternative is not
available

9

8

9

8

9

8

Use of feed additives where a nonGM alternative is not available

8

8

9**

8

9

8

Allows a minimum time period
during which animals are fed ‘GMfree’ feed before
slaughter/production

9

8

9

8

9

8

** In Germany, GM feed additives are only allowed if they are produced by GMOs and do not require
labelling under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003. Similarly, veterinary pharmaceuticals
are not covered by the ‘Ohne Gentechnik’ legislation as long as they do not need to be labelled under
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and 1830/2003. The need to prove the unavailability of alternatives for
additives and veterinary pharmaceuticals was part of the legislation until 2008 but is no longer a
requirement.

35

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.8.2

Private, Type I input specifications and exemptions
The study team has obtained little information regarding the rules for use of these inputs or
any exceptions by private operators. Interviews for this study found that:

3.9

■

In Slovenia, exceptions are provided for the use of veterinary pharmaceuticals and
vitamins in animal feed where a non-GM alternative is unavailable. Rules regarding the
use of GM enzymes and other GM additives are applied according to the EU organic
farming regulation (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007).

■

For Loué products, non-GM additives and veterinary products are used to the extent
possible, however Loué accepts certain genetically modified synthesised amino-acids
which do not have a non-GM alternative.

■

For Carrefour products, non-GM additives, enzymes and veterinary products are also
used wherever possible, but some synthetic (GM) amino acids do not have substitutes
and are allowed.

Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals
The baseline data demonstrate that where Member States have legislation, minimum nonGM feeding times for animals vary along three dimensions:

3.9.1

■

The amount of time that animals must be fed on non-GM feed;

■

The type of product/animal species covered; and

■

The way in which the feeding time is framed (i.e. as the time from birth, the time from
production/slaughter, or the total period of fattening during which non-GM feed must be
used).

Public, Type I minimum non-GM feeding times
Member States have developed legislation and guidelines for non-GM feeding time
requirements. The greatest variation in such requirements occurs in Member State
legislation (Table 3.17), particularly for dairy animals:
■

In Finland, the Netherlands and Switzerland, all animals must be fed on non-GM feed
from birth.

■

In Austria, the minimum non-GM feeding time for dairy animals before milk production is
two weeks, while Germany requires three months, and France six months.

■

For poultry, both Austria and France require non-GM feed from three days from birth. In
Germany the requirement is non-GM feed 10 weeks before slaughter.

■

Pigs must be fed on non-GM feed for approximately 4.5 months before slaughter in
France (i.e. three quarters of their lifespan), four months before slaughter in Germany
and for the total period of fattening in Austria.

■

The requirements are more consistent for egg production. Austria, France and Germany
all require non-GM feed for six weeks before egg production.

■

Cattle must be fed non-GM feed for 12 months before slaughter in Austria, France and
Germany. Additional rules apply in these Member States for small ruminants, horses,
and fish.

In Austria, minimum feeding times are transitory provisions to 2017, after which all animals
must be fed non-GM feed from birth. In practice, operators currently try to feed animals nonGM feed from birth. Non-GM feed for breeding animals is also sought from 2013 onwards.

36

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.17

Minimum non-GM feeding times set by Member State legislation and guidelines

Product type

Description

AT*

DE

FR

CH, FI, NL

Dairy

Before milk
production

2 weeks

3 months

6 months

From birth

Poultry

Before slaughter

3 days from
birth

10 weeks

3 days from
birth

From birth

Eggs

Before egg
production

6 weeks

6 weeks

6 weeks

From birth

Pigs

Before slaughter

Total period
of fattening

4 months

Approx 4.5
months***

From birth

Small
ruminants

Before slaughter

Total period
of fattening

6 months

(see ‘other’)

From birth

Cattle

Before slaughter

12 months**

12 months**

12 months

From birth

Other

Before slaughter or
production

From birth

12 months**

From birth

Before harvest

From birth
(fish)

* Minimum feeding times are transitory provisions to 2017, after which all animals must be fed non-GM
feed from birth. In practice, operators currently try to feed animals non-GM feed from birth.
** or the equivalent of three quarters of their life if life span is less than one year; includes horses.
*** the equivalent of three quarters of their life if life span is less than one year. The average life span
of a pig for slaughter is six months; three-quarters of their life span would be approximately 4.5 months.

3.9.2

Private, Type I and II minimum non-GM feeding times for animals
Private operators have set their own non-GM feeding time requirements. The requirements
generally match the strict approach taken in Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland
where non-GM feed is required from birth for all animals before production or slaughter.
Table 3.18 shows the minimum feeding times set by private operators where these are
known.
Table 3.18

Minimum non-GM feeding times set by private operators

Product
type

Description

Carrefour

Loué

Bio
cohérence

Dairy

Before milk
production

N/A

N/A

Poultry

Before
slaughter

From
birth

Eggs

Before egg
production

Other

Before
slaughter

Some
AOC
cheeses
(FR)

Some
Label
Rouge

Signé
Poitou
Charentes

Défis
UNI
Ruraux working
group (e.g.
Colderetti)

COOP
Italia

From birth From
birth

From
birth

From birth From
birth

Unknown

From
birth

From
birth

From birth N/A

From
birth

From birth From
birth

Unknown

From
birth

From
birth

From
birth

From birth N/A

From
birth

From birth From
birth

Unknown

From
birth

From
birth

N/A

From birth N/A

From
birth

From birth From
birth

Unknown

From
birth

The only exception is the IKC UM scheme in Slovenia, where the following conversion
periods for the use of GM feed are applied:
■

Cattle and horses for meat production: 12 months or a minimum of two-thirds of its
lifespan;

■

Pigs: three months before slaughter;
37

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Sheep and goats: six months or a minimum of two-thirds of its lifespan;

■

Animals for milk production: two weeks before milk production;

■

Poultry for egg production: six weeks before egg production;

■

Poultry for meat production: entire breeding period; and

■

Aquaculture: entire breeding period.

A further basic rule is applied by the IKC UM, which is that all animals must be fed with
certified or similar non-GM feed from the day of birth or from the end of the suckling period.
Apiculture products can be labelled as GM(O)-free under the IKC UM scheme when there is
no GM crop production for a radius of three kilometres from the apiary. The rule applies
during the entire bee keeping season. There are no registered GM plants produced in
Slovenia at this time.

3.10

Certification, controls and monitoring requirements

3.10.1 Public, Type I certification, monitoring and enforcement requirements
Some of the schemes operating in EU Member States use certification bodies that meet the
national requirements to certify individual operators wishing to make ‘GM(O)-free’ claims or
operate a non-GM supply chain. For example, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economy,
Family and Youth introduced guidelines for risk-based controls, which includes guidelines for
self-control, external controls and oversight from an accredited independent body as well as
a compulsory monitoring system. Compliance must be checked at all productions steps. The
certifying authority must be displayed on the label. Control and certification rules for the
GM(O)-free criterion are based on EN 45011. Several independent external control
organisations in Austria are authorised to certify and control GM(O)-free food.
Other schemes do not require certification but provide guidance on this matter. For example,
the German legislation does not require certification but VLOG recommends that producers
of non-GM feed obtain certification to demonstrate that they are taking precautions to ensure
that any GM presence below the required limit is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
Verification of compliance with legal rules is the responsibility of the competent food control
authorities of the federal states. Where non-compliance is found, VLOG may withdraw the
operator’s right to use the ‘ohne gentechnik’ label.
National approaches to certification, monitoring and labelling requirements for Type I,
government-led schemes are summarised below.
3.10.1.1 Austria
The Austrian labelling scheme is process-based, with self-monitoring and third party
certification by an accredited body required at all stages of the supply chain. Monitoring is
based on checks and tests on inputs to the final product, rather than the end product itself.
Controls are standardised by the guideline of the Bundesministerium für Familie, Wirtschaft
und Jugend (BMWFJ). There are standardised rules for monitoring and control in the
‘Guideline for the risk-based control of the absence of genetic engineering’ (1998).25 All
control bodies are accredited according to EN 45011.
Institutions authorised by the ARGE conduct periodic controls along the entire production
chain to verify compliance with the requirements for the ARGE label. As with organic
production, there are controls over movement of goods as well as analysis of random
samples. The label must include the name of the certification body.

25

‘Leitline zur risikobasierten Kontrolle auf Gentechnikfreiheit’

38

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.10.1.2 Germany
The ‘ohne Gentechnik’ label is owned by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection (BMELV) but the scheme is operated by the Association for Food without Genetic
Engineering (VLOG),26 a governing body established in 2010. The VLOG is an industry
association representing sectors including retail, food production, and processing.
The German labelling scheme is process-based, as it relies on monitoring based on checks
and tests on the inputs to the final product, rather than the end product itself. The
manufacturing process must adhere to certain requirements and must be certified. VLOG is
responsible for the certification and management of the ‘ohne Gentechnik’ label and is
therefore authorised to license companies who wish to use the label on their products.
National legislation does not include any obligatory controls on GM(O)-free labelled food.
Producers are required to provide documentary evidence to the VLOG that ingredients come
from GM(O)-free sources/products when submitting an application to use the label. A control
framework is under discussion with the VLOG and its members and licensees.
3.10.1.3 France
The French labelling scheme is process-based for animal and animal-derived products. The
manufacturing process (e.g. use of non-GM feed) determines the eligibility of the product to
be labelled. Monitoring is based on checks and tests on the inputs to the final product, rather
than the end product itself. For plants and ingredients of plant origin the scheme is productbased, as products are tested for compliance with the labelling requirements.
There are no certification requirements that accompany the application of the French
legislation on GM(O)-free labelling (Decree no 2012-128). The DGCCRF27 is responsible for
monitoring operators to ensure that they are compliant with EU and National Legislation,
using the following complementary tools:
■

Traceability of GMOs from raw materials. This includes an audit trail (i.e. documentation)
identifying the origin and destination of the product for each commercial transaction.

■

Analytical laboratory tests to check the presence of DNA or proteins as a result of
genetic modification and to identify raw materials, ingredients or finished products.
These tests are required as part of the traceability and auto-control procedures.

Controls are undertaken in both manufacturing plants and depots. The DGCCRF carries out
investigations in the seed, food and feed production sectors. Control plans are established
for each stage of the production process. The frequency of control depends on the perceived
risk of the operator breaching the conditions of the decree. Where a breach has been
identified, the operator may be controlled several times a month until the authorities are
satisfied that the conditions have been met. In other cases, inspections may be conducted
on an annual basis, or less frequently than that.
Operators also carry out their own controls, including:
■

Self-controls which may include revising the product specification details as well as
sample analysis; and

■

Commissioning an independent and authorized third party certification body to carry out
controls of the production process (internal control).

The operator auto-controls and third party controls are checked by the DGCCRF as
explained above.

26
27

‘Verband Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik e.V’
Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes.

39

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

3.10.1.4 Netherlands
Administrative methods (i.e. identity preservation) for tracking GMOs are used in the
Netherlands. The trader of a product with a ‘prepared without gene technology’ label must be
able to provide documents to substantiate compliance with those conditions (process-based
requirements). Inspection is officially a task of the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product
Safety Authority (NVWA), which conducts occasional inspections based on the expected risk
of contamination (NVWA, 2008).
3.10.1.5 Switzerland
In Switzerland, the absence of GMOs must be demonstrated by comprehensive
documentation and the adoption of measures aimed at the prevention of GM contamination
(process-based requirements).

3.10.2 Private, Type I certification, monitoring and enforcement requirements
Some of the schemes run by private operators use certification bodies to certify individual
operators wishing to make ‘GM(O)-free’ claims or operate a non-GM supply chain.
3.10.2.1 Carrefour
The Carrefour labelling scheme is process-based. Carrefour has a policy of working closely
with farmers and feed producers to ensure control over the quality of its supply chain.
Carrefour’s control plan includes carrying out annual controls at the producer level to ensure
that the feed they receive meets Carrefour’s requirements, including lab analysis. Feed
manufacturing plants are certified as GM(O)-free by independent accreditation bodies.
An independent accreditation body has been commissioned by Carrefour to carry out annual
controls of its own processes concerning the procurement of animal feed. These controls
may include documentation (verification of supply documents and invoices to ensure
traceability) as well as samples taken for laboratory analysis.
3.10.2.2 UNI (Ente Nazionale Italiano di unificazione) working group
According to UNI control procedures, in order to use the label, organisations must:
■

Develop and formalize a risk analysis plan to identify the stages in the process in which
there may be a risk of GM contamination, which must at a minimum include: the
composition of the food and/or feed, sources of raw materials that make up the food
and/or feed, and the potential for cross-contamination at different stages of the process
(for example, coexistence within the same facilities of GM and non-GM materials).

■

Identify necessary measures to reduce risk (e.g. procedural, documentary, inspectionbased and/or analytical), to have these validated and to define the frequency with which
these measures must be implemented;

■

Identify the steps in the process during which analytical testing would be employed if
required by the risk assessment. Testing must be conducted in accordance with the ISO
standard ISO17025; and

■

Define the sampling criteria consistent with the analysis of risk, to ensure that the sample
is representative of the lot as a whole.

Moreover, organisations must:
■

Develop and formalize a traceability system; and

■

Ensure that any products which do not conform to the standard, or which are awaiting
the outcome of compliance are identified, segregated and controlled to prevent their
unintended use or delivery.

3.10.2.3 COOP Italia
The scheme is based on technical contracts with suppliers, formalized by COOP Italia
(process-based requirements). The scheme is monitored through a system of audits by FQC
40

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

(the external body which monitors COOP’s supply chain on behalf of COOP itself) and
COOP Italia’s third party certifiers for private labels (CSQA and Bureau Veritas).
3.10.2.4 Loué
The Loué scheme is process-based. Monitoring procedures are carried out at the animal
feed plant and controls are carried out at each stage of production including:
■

Auto-controls undertaken by Loué (analysis and testing of raw material if required);

■

Internal controls undertaken by an ODG (Organisme de Gestion) to ensure product
conformity and that the specifications have been met; and

■

External controls undertaken by an independent certification body accredited by the
Comité Francais d’Accréditation (COFRAC) and registered by the Institut National de
l'Origine et de la Qualité (INAO).

Controls are carried out at both conventional and organic feed production plants. The
DGCCRF also carries out checks on producers, the frequency of which depends on the
perceived risk of infringing EU and French labelling laws.
3.10.2.5 Auchan
Auchan also uses process-based requirements for its GM(O)-free scheme. The entire supply
chain is checked, from feed manufacturers to farms. An independent certification body
carries out the controls on behalf of Auchan, including analytical testing of the feed and audit
of the processes and documents of the feed manufacturers and farmers.

3.10.3 Private, Type II certification, monitoring and enforcement requirements
3.10.3.1 French AOC cheeses
These products must comply with a specific set of requirements at all stages of production
and preparation (process-based requirements). Producers are monitored several times a
year using chemical and microbiological tests carried out to demonstrate the gustative
quality of the product. In order to obtain Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée (AOC) certification, a
product must be controlled in three different ways:
■

Auto-controls: the producer or manufacturer registers all the information concerning their
products, its traceability and the ingredients used;

■

Internal controls: carried out by the Organisme de Gestion (ODG) which ensures product
conformity and that the specifications have been met; and

■

External controls: undertaken by an independent inspection body which reports back to
the national AOC body Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (INAO).

3.10.3.2 Bio Cohérence
Bio Cohérence specifications include measures that must be taken by operators to avoid GM
contamination such as thorough cleaning of shared machinery, systematic testing of feed
providers, and avoiding the use of soy feed (process-based requirements).
3.10.3.3 Label Rouge
The operators involved in producing a Label Rouge product have formed an association
called Organismes de Défense et de Gestion (ODGs). The ODG’s functions include drafting
the product specifications, managing the Label Rouge, carrying out internal product controls
and marketing and promotion. Many controls are undertaken at each stage of Label Rouge
production, and at different levels, including:
■

Internally by the businesses (auto-controls);

■

By the ODG (internal controls); and

■

By an independent certification body accredited by the Comité Français d’Acréditation
(COFRAC) and registered with the INAO (external controls). The INAO validates control
41

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

plans which define the distribution of internal and external controls and frequency of
controls at each stage of the production process.
3.10.3.4 Défis Ruraux
The farmers whose products carry the Défis Ruraux label must meet the following
requirements:
■

A technician goes on-site to evaluate the producer’s environmental, social and economic
practices;

■

A report is submitted to an ethics committee comprising consumer representatives,
producers and experts which evaluates whether the producer’s practices conform to the
Défis Ruraux specifications;

■

The producer signs a contract which states specific improvement objectives to be met
within the following two years; and

■

The producer is re-evaluated every two years, with new objectives established each
time.

3.10.3.5 Pro Planet
The Pro Planet label is awarded by the REWE group when suppliers meet the criteria
specified by REWE. The label is certified by an external audit firm (TÜV Rheinland). In order
to qualify, a supplier must undergo a process which is defined individually for each product
category, for example fruits and vegetables, dairy, bread and bakery, paper, textiles, etc.

3.10.4 Private, Type III certification, monitoring and enforcement requirements
3.10.4.1 Sweden
The National Food Agency has developed official guidance on GMOs to identify the control
activities and documentation that would be acceptable for companies to demonstrate that
they do not sell products produced by or with GMOs.28 A company claiming to sell non-GM
products must be able to provide proof to the competent authority (regional food control
department) that they have undertaken control measures to avoid GMOs, including collecting
relevant documentation such as:
■

Supplier commitments, including assurance that the product is ‘free from GMOs’. These
commitments are usually prepared by the client and signed by the raw material supplier
as an assurance that the supplier has read and accepts the terms. The supplier
commitment should conform to the following example: ‘Company X only accepts
products which have not been produced or processed with GMOs’.

■

Certification and raw material specifications: the supplier sends a certificate or
information about the presence of GMOs in the raw material specification such as: ‘We
guarantee that the product does not contain, is not made of, (or) is not processed from
GMOs’. Some declarations are not allowed as they are considered misleading such as:
‘The product can include GMOs under 0.9%’ and ‘Free from GMO’.

■

Laboratory analysis from the supplier or own laboratory tests.

Control responsibility is divided between the National Food Agency (for foodstuffs) and the
Swedish Board of Agriculture (for feed).29 The National Food Agency supports the municipal
authorities in their control of ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling (SLV 2011).30

28

Guidance document for Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, Commission
Regulation (EC) No 641/2004, and traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability
of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003
29
Vägledning Genetiskt modifierade livsmedel (GMO). URL:
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/livsmedelsforetag/vagledningar/V%C3%A4gledning%20GMO.pdf

42

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

There are no prescribed sanctions for companies labelling or marketing their products as
GM(O)-free. The Swedish Food Agency has, however, ordered the removal and amendment
of labelling and marketing messages. In 2009, the Swedish Food Agency found a number of
producers and distributors using the words ‘free from GMO’ on their products. These
companies were asked to remove the claims and an inspection was undertaken several
months later. Some producers also recalled their products from distributors.
A food retail chain (City Gross) launched a campaign in 2010 including the slogans ‘choose
GMO-free’ and ‘Guaranteed GMO-free - Always at City Gross’ to signal that they only sold
Swedish pork fed on non-GM feed. The Swedish Food Agency reported the marketing
campaign to the consumer Ombudsman who prohibited the retail chain from declaring the
meat ‘GM(O)-free’.31
3.10.4.2 UK supermarkets and manufacturers
Several UK supermarkets have taken the decision to eliminate (as far as possible) GM
ingredients in their own branded products. This includes the use of GM feed in the
production of meat products.
Suppliers are required to provide evidence that they comply with the GM(O)-free policy if
they want to supply a specific retailer. ‘Valid-IT’, operated by Exova, is the dominant
verification system in the UK. Exova maintains a database of non-GM soya and maize
suppliers. Valid-IT is currently used by four major retailers: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and
Asda. Any supplier who wishes to supply these major retailers with own branded products
must participate and demonstrate use of the Valid-IT system.
Previously the system was also used by Marks & Spencer, which has since adopted its own
scheme for guaranteeing the non-GM status of its supply chains. Exova does not guarantee
the status of products supplied by manufacturers, but simply provides assurance that
suppliers have been independently assessed by a third party. Exova conducts documentary
audits of a supplier’s traceability systems to ensure that the supplier can provide the required
level of assurance to retailers.

3.11

Market share
Though there are some ‘snapshots’ of the market situation, robust time series data on sales
of GM(O)-free labelled products are not readily available – neither in the public domain nor
via market research organisations. Direct contact with label operators has been undertaken
and some assessments are provided below. Complete information is unavailable for the
different schemes operating across the EU. In the cases where data on market share exist,
these schemes tend to cover niches – with the exception of the government-led Austrian
explicit GM(O)-free labelling scheme which has much broader coverage including 100 per
cent of eggs and dairy.
Table 3.19 provides information concerning the type of products using GM(O)-free labels
and their market share in the Member State in which they are used. Other relevant
information is also provided, including the number of products carrying the label, the number
of stores carrying the labelled products, production volume, and the number of operators
engaged in the scheme. Similar information is provided in Table 3.20 for Type II schemes
where this is available.
No information was collected on products labelled as GM(O)-free in Finland as the national
authority, Evira, does not collect information about these products and no other information
was available from stakeholders. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,

30

SLV (2011) National plan for food chain control 20122015. Part 2-Guidance and priorities. URL:
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/livsmedelsforetag/vagledningar/NKP%202012-2015%20%20Del%202%20Genomf%C3%B6rande%20mal%20och%20prioriteringar.pdf
31
Miljötidningen (2011) Livsmedelskedja fick GMO-fodret på fal. URL:
http://www.jordensvanner.se/2011/livsmedelskedja-fick-gmo-fodret-pa-fall

43

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

‘GM(O)-free’ labelling is not widely used in Finland and only a few such labelled products are
available on the market due to the novelty and the strictness of the guidelines.
No information was collected on GM(O)-free labelled products in Switzerland, either, but due
to the strictness of rules, which are similar to those applied in the Netherlands, it may be
assumed that few products carry the indication in this country.

44

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.19

Information concerning Type I product market share and other information on GM(O)-free labelling product coverage in EU MS

MS

Scheme name or
operator

AT32

ARGE

Products covered

Market
share in
MS

Milk and milk products, eggs, bread and bakery
products, soy products, oils, cereals, beverages

No of products

Production
volume

No of stores

1,000 pigs per
week (2012
pilot scheme)

1,000

No of
producers or
staff employed

1,65033

Dairy products 100%
Eggs 100%
Poultry meat 90%
Juices, organic products and other products 25%
Spar Austria
(ARGE label)

Organic brand, Spar Natur pur

Billa AG34

Pork products

Oberndorfer
Fleisch GmbH35

Pork products

DE

VLOG

FR

Carrefour37

600
4

100,000 pigs to
date since July
2011
12636

Dairy, eggs, meat, pasta and juices
Animal products (eggs, poultry, salmon, cooked
ham, pork, veal)
Pork products 11%

350
2.8 million pigs
per year (2011)

Veal 11%

1,870
producers
880 producers

32

Top Agrar Österreich vom 20.2.2012: „Österreichs Hühnerfleisch ab heute Gentechnik-frei“
Mostly dairy products, followed by eggs
34
BauernZeitung.at vom 22.3.2012 „Gentechnikfreiheit auch bei Schweinefleisch ein Thema“
35
Interview Franz Oberndorfer
36
Mostly dairy products, followed by eggs
37
Conseil général de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et des espaces ruraux,(2012) “Quel avenir pour la filière porcine française?”
33

45

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

MS

Scheme name or
operator
Loué

Products covered

Market
share in
MS

No of products

Sweet corn
producers

NL

‘bereid zonder
gentechniek’

SI

IKC UM

No of stores

No of
producers or
staff employed

Poultry meat
Eggs 0.2%

Auchan

Production
volume

Animal products (fish, poultry, pork, eggs)

28 million eggs
per year
70

Sweet corn 100%

Soya protein isolate
Milk and milk products 16%

270,000 tonnes
(tinned)
28,000 tonnes
(frozen)

6 companies +
9 factories –
2,000 staff
All sweet corn
producers

1
160

46

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 3.20

Information concerning Type I product market share and other information on GM(O)-free labelling product coverage in EU MS

MS

Scheme name or
operator

DE

Heumilch

FR

AOC cheeses38
Label Rouge

Products covered

Market
share in
MS

COOP Italia
Fileni

Production
volume

Milk
Cheeses 46%39
Meat and meat products, dairy, fish and seafood,
plant derived products

Signé PoitouCharentes
IT

No of products

No of
producers or
staff employed
8,000
producers

21 (2010 data)
500
30

Processed products

No of stores

1,500
operators40

495
31, 222 kg

38

Greenpeace, (April 2010), “Fromages AOC : des OGM sur un plateau?”
Market share of AOC cheeses in France only: There are 46 AOC cheeses; in 2010, 21 of these were GM(O)-free, with 10 more planning to set specifications to prohibit the
use of GMOs in their production (Greenpeace, 2010).
40
83% large or medium producers; 13% small independent farmers; 4% intermediaries
39

47

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

4

GM(O)-free labelling outlook in the EU
This chapter assesses the outlook for GM(O)-free labelling in the EU – that is, a projection of
the outcomes that may occur if no action is taken at EU level and operators and national
governments continue to develop their own GM(O)-free labelling schemes on a business-asusual basis. The outlook is based on information collected through desk research and
stakeholder consultation as described in Section 2.4.3. It provides a reference point to
assess the expected impacts of particular elements and element combinations that may be
included in harmonised EU-wide labelling. The analysis for this sub-task summarises how:
■

Consumers’ expectations are likely to change;

■

Supply chains are likely to have to respond; and thus,

■

Use of GM(O)-free labels is expected to develop in the EU in the next 10 years.

Uncertainties and their implications are highlighted.

4.1

EU consumers express a preference for GM(O)-free products, but attitudes
are changing towards GM
It is difficult to directly evaluate consumer demand for GM(O)-free labelling in the EU since
no such labelling scheme has been broadly implemented and EU-wide consumer surveys
have not been undertaken on this issue. Moreover, willingness-to-pay (WTP) studies have
observed variance between countries and regions, especially between US and EU
consumers, but also amongst EU countries on this issue.41

4.1.1

EU consumer attitudes towards GM products are generally negative, and
consumers express a willingness to pay for expressly GM(O)-free products
Consumer attitudes toward GMOs across Europe are particularly negative relative to
attitudes in other countries (e.g. Bredahl, 2001; Grunert et al., 2000). Some consumers
believe that GM products may have unknown and potentially long-term risks both to people’s
health and the environment, and consumers wish to be able to choose to buy products that
do not contain or are not produced from GMOs.
As a result, some consumers express willingness to pay a significant price premium for
GM(O)-free products, or expect a considerable discount on products which contain GMOs if
they are to consider buying those instead. One study found that changes in willingness to
pay observed when GM content was revealed were much greater than those observed when
brand names were revealed (Noussair et al., 2004).
Several studies have been conducted to assess consumers’ preference for GM(O)-free
products,42 although most of these have been conducted in the US, given the wider
availability of GM products. Across EU Member States, attitudes vary towards GM and
GM(O)-free products:
■

A 2002 study of Dutch consumers found that more than 80 per cent of survey
respondents said that the availability of GM(O)-free products is very important (LNV
Consumentenplatform, 2002). About 65 per cent of 5,000 respondents polled in the
Netherlands during the public debate ‘Food and Genes’ in 2002 agreed that labelling
regulation should ensure that consumers can be absolutely sure that products do not
contain GM ingredients. In the same survey, 18 per cent of respondents indicated that

41

For example, in the case of beef attributes, French and German consumers have a higher willingness to pay to
avoid genetically modified feed in the meat production process than British consumers, while German and British
consumers would pay more for growth hormone-free beef.
42
See, for example: McCluskey et al., 2003; Grannis and Thilmany, 2002; Misra, Grotegut, and Clem, 1997;
Misra, Huang, and Ott, 1991; Roosen, Lusk, and Fox, 2003; Burton et al., 2001; Lusk, Roosen, and Fox, 2003;
Roosen, 2003; Alfnes, 2004

48

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

foods produced with GM should be labelled, even if they do not contain GM ingredients
(e.g. animal products) (Terlouw, 2002).
■

In 1997, a referendum petition involving 1.2 million Austrians (21 per cent voter
participation) called for the exclusion of GMOs in agriculture and food production. This
petition forms the basis for GM(O)-free production and labelling policy in Austria
(Greenpeace, 2012). More recently (2010), a survey of 1,500 Austrians reported that 74
per cent of the Austrian population believe that being free of all GMOs is a very important
food quality criterion. Participants were also asked to rank the importance of different
aspects regarding food quality. Being free from GMOs was rated third most important
after freshness and taste (GfK Austria, 2010).

■

In France, a GM(O)-free guarantee increases the price premium for a product by eight
per cent, whilst knowing that a product contains GMOs reduces its price by 39 per cent.
The average price premium for a GM(O)-free product over an equivalent product
containing GMOs is 46.7 per cent (Noussair et al., 2004).

Conversely, studies assessing consumer preferences for GM products in Europe have
found, for instance that:
■

Thirty-five per cent of French consumers would refuse to purchase a product containing
GMOs. The remaining 65 per cent would be willing to purchase a GM product if it was
sufficiently inexpensive (Noussair et al., 2004);

■

In Norway, the mean WTP to avoid GM foods is 54 per cent, whilst consumers would
only be willing to buy bread produced from GM ingredients if it was discounted by 50 per
cent (Kaneko and Chern, 2003; Grimsrud et al., 2004); and

■

In Germany, consumers discount GM products by between 47 and 59 per cent (for
soybean oil and chocolate respectively) (Dannenberg et al., 2011).

Overseas experience demonstrates similar results:
■

In the United States, Roseboro (2012) shows that American consumers are willing to pay
15 per cent more for foods with GM(O)-free ingredients. The average WTP to avoid GM
foods is five per cent for GM vegetable oil (Chen and Chern, 2004);

■

Another study in the US found that consumers will only buy GM products if they cost 14
per cent less than conventional products (Huffman, 2004);

■

In Japan, the WTP to avoid noodles made with GM ingredients is 50 per cent
(McCluskey et al., 2003); and

■

In China, consumers are willing to pay 23 – 52 per cent more for non-GM soybean oil
and 41 – 74 per cent for non-GM rice (Lin et al., 2006).

Lusk et al. (2005) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of valuation studies related to
GM(O)-free products, the results of which are summarised in Annex 8. The study found that:

4.1.2

■

Consumers are often willing to pay a significant premium for GM(O)-free products when
all else is equal given that they generally value GM(O)-free products more than GM
products.

■

The average world-wide WTP for GM(O)-free products is 29 per cent.

There are some studies that indicate consumer aversion to GM is decreasing over
time; willingness to pay studies may overestimate consumer preferences
The conclusions from these studies should be treated with some caution, however. Several
studies have found that WTP studies over-estimate consumer preferences for a certain
attribute because they are typically based on hypothetical situations and therefore do not
accurately reflect real-world purchasing decisions (see section 4.1.3 below).
Moreover, some studies have also demonstrated that aversion to GM products is
decreasing. For example, a survey was undertaken in the UK by food and grocery research
organisation IGD in October 2008 (sample size = 5,697) which found that 53 per cent of
49

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

consumers did not think about GM food when making food purchasing decisions while 21
per cent checked food labels to ensure the food is non-GM. Furthermore, 52 per cent of
consumers neither supported nor opposed the presence of GM in food products (IGD 2010).
Another UK study found that other issues such as rising food prices are increasingly more
important than concerns over GMOs: only 22 per cent of respondents selected GM as a
food-related concern in 2012, compared to 40 per cent in 2001 (FSA, 2012). These results
suggest that the British public are not as opposed to GM foods as they have been
previously.
A study in Austria in 2012 (‘Happiness and freedom from GM-food’) drew on the views of
about 2,000 people from across Austria through a computer assisted web survey. When
respondents were asked which of the 11 aspects they thought were very important when
buying food, about 20 per cent selected being GM(O)-free, which was rated sixth most
important overall after regional origin and quality. The most important element was
freshness. The results also suggested that older interviewees (above the age of 40) rated
the GM(O)-free aspect as being more important than younger interviewees.
Several studies have found that the perceived lack of consumer benefit from GM products
raises consumers’ perception of risks (e.g. Saba et al. 2000). Where GM products deliver
consumer benefits beyond price reductions, willingness to pay for such products may
increase. Some recent WTP studies have considered situations where consumers may
derive non-price benefits (e.g. improved nutrition, better taste, increased shelf life).43 Some
studies have found that consumers are willing to buy GM foods where there is a clearly
defined consumer benefit (e.g., Boccaletti and Moro 2000; Verdurme, Gellynck, and Viaene
2001; Teisl et al. 2003). A study in Italy by Canavari and Nayga (2009) found that
acceptance of GM products increases when a nutritional benefit is introduced. Consumers
who reacted positively to such products indicated that they would purchase these products
even with a 10 per cent price increase.44

4.1.3

There is a gap between consumer attitudes and actions
Attitudes are notoriously poor predictors of behaviour; there is an evident lack of consistency
between people’s engagement in ethical issues and their food choices (Michelle, 2012).
Individuals’ decisions can therefore differ drastically between when they are hypothetical, as
in a contingent valuation study or other survey, and when they involve an actual commitment
to make a purchase,45 especially where the survey does not enquire about purchasing
decisions at specific price points (Ajzen et al. 1996).
There are particular issues where surveys ask respondents about preferences for public
goods such as ensuring GM(O)-free crop production. Respondents tend to answer such
questions from the perspective of their role as citizens, who make judgements from society’s
point of view, rather than their role as consumers, who make actual purchasing decisions
(Noussair et al., 2004).
Mather et al. (2011) suggest that the discrepancy between hypothetical and real life choices
arises because ‘social expectancy’ means consumers make different choices in a survey
situation than they do when they make real-life purchasing decisions. As a result, a
consumer may be more likely to choose a cheaper, GM product if they believe they are not
being judged, but in a survey situation, there is a greater desire to make a socially
acceptable choice.
Moreover, a recent study conducted by DG AGRI (2012) found that EU consumers look at,
on average, five aspects when buying fresh or processed meat products, including the price
per kilogram, the total price, the use by/best before date, country of origin and producer.

43

See, for instance, O’Connor et al. 2005; Onyango and Govindasamy 2005; Hossain and Onyango 2004; Knight,
2005, Loureiro and Bugbee, 2005; Noussair et al., 2002
44
Italy case study
45
See, for instance Neill et al., 1994; Cummings et al., 1995; Brookshire and Coursey, 1987; List and Shogren,
1998; List and Gallet, 2001

50

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Whether the animal was fed with GM feed ranked 10th for fresh meat products (15% of
consumers surveyed say they look for this aspect when buying meat) and 12th for processed
meat products (14% of consumers surveyed say they look for this aspect when buying
meat).
It is therefore possible that expressed negative consumer perceptions of GM products do not
translate directly into purchasing behaviours whereby consumers either avoid GM products
or favour GM(O)-free products. In particular, consumers who say they would not buy GM
foods when surveyed may in fact do so in real life. Some examples include:
■

Despite considerable antagonism towards GM foods in the UK, several million tins of
clearly labelled GM tomato paste were sold following its introduction in 1996 (this product
had a clear consumer benefit, in that it was cheaper than its non-GM competitors and
had a thicker consistency) (Halford and Shewry, 2000).

■

One study found surprising differences between consumer choices made in a
hypothetical situation (e.g. in a survey using pictures of the products) and actual
decisions made in a real world context (e.g. buying products presented at a food stall).
From the survey results, GM labelled products were discounted by 15 per cent whereas
GM labelled products were the most popular purchase in food stall sales (consumers
were told that the GM products produced their own natural insecticide and were
therefore “100% spray free”) (Mather et al., 2011).

■

Despite consumers expressing a willingness to pay of between 23 and 52 per cent for
GM(O)-free soybean oil, the product market share in the Nanjing area of China
decreased by only two per cent following mandatory labelling (Chang, 2007). In fact, one
study found no significant impact of positive GM labelling on consumers’ purchasing
behaviour. The import of GM soybean to China has almost doubled since mandatory
labelling was introduced in 2003 (Lin et al., 2008).

These examples are limited due to the lack studies that directly assess behavioural
responses to GM and GM(O)-free products. Nonetheless, examples from similar food policy
cases in the EU and third countries include:
■

Despite about 60 per cent of French consumers claiming a WTP of 10 per cent more for
fair trade labelled goods, sales of these products remain low (e.g. in 2006 only 42 per
cent of consumers bought fair trade products in that year) (Balineau and Dufeu, 2010).

■

Despite expressed consumer preferences for milk from non rBST-treated cows, milk
sales did not change significantly with the use of rBST in the US (Einsiedel, 2001).

■

Despite the fact that most consumers in the US (84 per cent) perceived a risk associated
with rBST treated milk, only a small percentage (14 per cent) acted on these perceptions
(Zepeda et al., 2003).

■

Another US study found that 62 per cent of consumers who originally stated they would
not purchase irradiated beef did in fact do so when the purchasing situation was
simulated (Wood and Bruhn, 2000).

The results of willingness-to-pay studies should therefore be treated with some caution. For
instance, one study found that worldwide, real, auction-elicited premiums were as much as
40 per cent lower than hypothetical ones (Gifford and Bernard, 2008). This discrepancy is
potentially due to consumer uncertainty in the products and their attributes, especially where
consumers are unable to directly observe the product quality (Balineau and Dufeu, 2010).

4.2

Market growth as an indication of consumer demand
Nonetheless, it is also clear that there is a market for GM(O)-free products in the EU. Market
demand can be considered an indirect indication of consumer preferences for GM(O)-free
foods, although it is not possible to determine from such data whether there is a direct link
between purchases of GM(O)-free products and consumer preferences for this attribute, or
only an association, as other factors may influence purchases of GM(O)-free products that
are not directly related to this quality.
51

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

This section summarises available information on expected growth in the market for GM(O)free products across Member States where such information is available. Most of these data
were provided through consultation with stakeholders.

4.2.1

Austria
There are indications that the share of GM(O)-free products is increasing in Austria for a
selection of animal products. For example, in 2010, the Austrian milk industry and egg
producers switched completely to supply-chain controlled non-GM feed for their animals.
Since January 2012, the largest poultry producers, which cover about 90 per cent of the
Austrian market, have begun using non-GM feed. Because of the size and market relevance
of the retailers (Hofer, REWE Group, Spar) and producers involved, it is expected that the
entire poultry production sector will shortly follow suit.
A pilot project conducted by the supplier Oberndorfer Fleisch GmbH processed 1,000 hogs
per week fed on non-GM feed (BauernZeitung.at, 2012). The Oberndorfer Fleisch GmbH
aims to launch processed GM(O)-free pork products at the end of 2012 for the first time,
using the ARGE GM(O)-free label (Interview Franz Oberndorfer). There are also six small
pilot projects to market GM(O)-free pork in cooperation with the AMA involving 100 farms.
Altogether, only about one per cent of the Austrian pork market is GM(O)-free, although
another two per cent is organic pork which is also ‘GM(O)-free’. Overall, the GM(O)-free
label is most widely used for fresh products sold in the food retail sector, where animal
welfare and food origins are important to consumers, as well as other elements such as
whether a product is GM(O)-free. It is much less common in the case of processed food
products and in ‘cash and carry’ markets in Austria.46

4.2.2

Germany
Although sales volumes could not be obtained, producers have cited increasing sales after
their products were labelled as GM(O)-free. For example, Zottarella (mozzarella) cheese
nearly doubled its sales after the company that makes this product began to use the label in
2012. But the company also extensively promoted the GM(O)-free attribute at the time, and
this increased marketing may be at least partly responsible for the sales increase. The
company Landliebe also reports increased turnover of 15 per cent under the German
GM(O)-free label.47

4.2.3

France
The French scheme is expected to be used by producers selling directly to the public, as well
as by major retailers. There is only one example of producers or retailers using the French
GM(O)-free label, but this is expected to change over time. The retailer Auchan has been
selling non-GM fed animal products since 1997 including a large proportion of organic ownbrand food products (around 2,000 products). When the GM(O)-free labelling decree came
into force in 2012, Auchan introduced GM(O)-free labelling for around 70 own-brand
conventionally produced animal and animal-derived products in their stores. The products
include fish, poultry, pork and eggs.
For plants and ingredients of plant origin the French labelling scheme may only be used for
plants or plant-derived products which have a GM alternative. Since no GM crops are
permitted to be grown in France, it is expected that the uptake of labels will primarily concern
animal products.

4.2.4

Slovenia
An estimated 160 GM(O)-free products are currently labelled in Slovenia covering
approximately 16 per cent of all milk and milk products produced in the country. Operators

46
47

Interview, Agricultural Chamber of Commerce, Austria
Interview, Greenpeace

52

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

have seen sales increases for GM(O)-free certified and labelled products of more than 20
per cent since the label’s introduction in 2011 and particularly for small producers with onfarm processing.

4.2.5

Belgium, Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland
In those countries where a strict approach to GM(O)-free labelling is required (Finland, The
Netherlands, Switzerland), there are few such products on the market and in those where it
is not allowed (Belgium and Sweden) there are no authorised products, although some
unauthorised labels have been observed in Sweden. Market growth for GM(O)-free labelled
products is expected to remain very limited or to be non-existent in these countries.

4.2.6

Organic production
Organic production may also be considered a proxy indicator of interest in GM(O)-free
production. For example, a survey conducted in 2008 found that almost half of respondents
(n=991) would not buy organic food if this was found to contain GM(O)-ingredients (King’s
College, 2008).
In the EU, the land devoted to organic agriculture has increased significantly: over the period
2000-2008, the total organic area grew from 4.3 to 7.6 million hectares, corresponding to a
7.4 per cent yearly increase (European Commission, 2010a). Organic food consumption has
also increased in the EU, and this is particularly evident in the following markets:

4.3

■

Germany registered a 14 per cent yearly increase from 2000 to 2008, and the market
remained stable after the financial crisis (European Commission, 2010a);

■

Italy has seen a nine per cent yearly increase in the period 2001-2009 (European
Commission, 2010a);

■

The UK has seen a 12 per cent annual increase in the period 2000-2008. The economic
recession has affected the UK organic market resulting in a 14 per cent decrease in
consumption in 2009 (European Commission, 2010a);

■

France registered an average annual increase of 18 per cent in the period 2005-2009.
The organic food market is growing in France despite the recession. In 2011, the
majority of organic food consumed in France (78 per cent) was also produced France,
with imports totalling 32 per cent. In early 2012, the number of hectares of organically
farmed land exceeded one million. The total number of organic operators increased by
14 per cent, totalling 35,271 in the last quarter of 2011. At the same time, the number of
farms increased by 12.3 per cent to reach 23,135. Nearly €4 billion worth of organic
produce was sold in France in 2011, an 11 per cent increase compared to 2010.

■

The Irish organic scheme run by ‘Scully’ covers the full range of products: meat, dairy,
fruit and vegetables, dried goods, fish, chilled produce and beverages, representing
approximately €100 million and 1-2 per cent of the market.

■

The market share for organic products in the Netherlands was approximately two per
cent overall in 2011; the share was highest in eggs (9.8 per cent), dairy products (not
including butter and cheese) (6 per cent), and fruits and vegetables (3.3 per cent)
(Ministerie EL&I, 2012).

Costs to produce GM(O)-free products
Some retailers and manufacturers use GM(O)-free labels or maintain non-GM supply chains
due to expressed and revealed consumer demand for these products. But producing GM(O)free products entails significant costs in some cases, and these are not often reflected in
additional costs to consumers, but are rather absorbed by the supply chain. This section
summarises information on cost estimates to produce GM(O)-free products and cost
distributions along the food chain which were provided by some companies through
consultation for this study. This section considers the continued potential for GM(O)-free
production in the EU under these circumstances.

53

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

4.3.1

Price premia have been observed on some GM(O)-free products, but many
products are priced no differently than equivalent conventional products
Most GM(O)-free schemes do not obtain a price premium for their products: representatives
from Carrefour, Loué, and COOP Italia indicated that their GM(O)-free products are priced
no higher than equivalent conventional products (personal communications). In Austria, the
transition to entirely GM(O)-free production in the egg and poultry sector in 2012 means that
there is no longer a price difference for these products. GM(O)-free products are also
typically no more expensive than conventional products in Germany. Carrefour has stated
that any difference in the price of non-GM fed animal products compared to GM-fed animal
products would make labelling commercially unviable.
Some Austrian pork producers have seen a price premium of €1 per kg. Billa AG GM(O)-free
products are 50 cents per kg more expensive than conventional products. Equally, some
non-GM products sold in the UK are less expensive than similar products because they are
‘own branded’ products which are marketed as ‘everyday value’, ‘basics’ or ‘smart price’
products.

4.3.2

GM(O)-free products generally cost more to produce than their conventional
alternatives and these costs are often borne by the supply chain
GM(O)-free products are generally more expensive to produce and supply than an
equivalent product. These costs are not typically borne by consumers:
■

Carrefour estimates that it costs producers €15 to €30 per tonne more to produce
GM(O)-free soy meal compared to GM soy meal. This is equivalent to an eight per cent
increase per tonne. This cost is absorbed by the producer, who gets a guaranteed order
of soy-meal on an annual basis. Around 200,000 tonnes of GM(O)-free soy-meal are
ordered by Carrefour each year.

■

COOP Italia guarantees a premium price to suppliers providing non-GM products in
order to offset their higher costs in terms of both raw materials and technical compliance.
Suppliers bear higher operational costs as well as implicit costs (the opportunity costs of
dealing with conventional goods) due to segregated processing facilities, logistics
operations and premium payments for non-GM products. COOP estimates that the cost
of monitoring the entire supply chain for non-GM is €298,000 per year. For animal
products, beef certification is the most expensive item at €90,000 per year, whereas milk
certification costs only €4,000 per year. Monitoring costs related to eggs, cold cuts, and
feed are €5,000, €53,000 and €23,000 respectively. The cost of controls for non-GM
industrial grocery products are approximately €22,000 per year. These additional costs
are not passed on to consumers.

■

UK farming unions believe it will be more difficult for farmers to remain financially
competitive if they must continue to purchase non-GM feed for their livestock. About 30
million tonnes of soybean meal are imported into the EU every year, mostly from South
American countries where the majority of soybeans are genetically modified. Most own
branded products in supermarkets are cheaper than other brands, marketed as
‘everyday value’, ‘basics’ or ‘smart price’. Some UK stakeholders question whether these
‘budget’ foods can continue to be produced using non-GM ingredients over the long
term.

■

Producers and traders bear most of the additional cost for GM(O)-free labelling in
Austria; very little is passed onto consumers via higher prices.48 Additional costs occur
mostly due to increased prices associated with GM(O)-free feed (the price difference
was estimated to be between €30-60/t higher in March 2012) and control costs. In the
case of GM(O)-free poultry production (Gressl, AMA and Mayringer,
Geflügelmastgenossenschaft).

48

Personal communication with representatives from Spar Austria, Matousek, REWE, Anonymous, Bio Austria,
Faber, ARGE

54

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

4.3.3

■

In Austria, additional costs to GM(O)-free pork producers range from €0.05 to €0.06
cent/kg. On farms where breeding and fattening is combined in one production process,
the additional costs are even higher (€0.10 cents/kg half of a carcass). About 50 per cent
of Austrian pork farms include both breeding and fattening operations (Gressl, AMA).
The IBOSCHWEIN brand of GM(O)-free pork meat reports 10 per cent additional costs
associated with GM(O)-free production (Interview Franz Oberndorfer).

■

In the Netherlands, the strict criteria for the use of the ‘produced without gene
technology’ label requires the application of IP (or similar) systems that can significantly
affect the production costs when applied to complex production chains in relatively small
markets. This means that consumer choice in the Netherlands for ‘GM(O)-free’ products
has been largely restricted to organic foods (with the exception of one product, soya
protein isolate).

■

The additional cost of producing GM(O)-free products is absorbed by the Loué producers
and costs are increasing.

Operators are concerned about their ability to maintain a supply of non-GM feed
for livestock in the future
Operators are concerned about their ability to maintain a supply of non-GM feed for livestock
in the future due to rising costs to obtain these materials. There is considerable volatility in
the price of GM(O)-free feed . In 2012, the GM(O)-free price premium of soya more than
doubled from €30/t to €60-70/t (Agricultural Chamber Austria). These price fluctuations
cannot be transferred to the retailer or to consumers (Gressl, AMA; Matousek, REWE).Some
retailers are moving away from non-GM supply chain assured policies, particularly for poultry
in the UK. Others may follow.
Concerns related to sourcing of non-GM feed vary by type of livestock:
■

GM(O)-free pork production is associated with higher additional costs than the
production of GM(O)-free milk, eggs and poultry;

■

Additional feeding costs associated with GM(O)-free poultry production depend on the
type of poultry (€0.03-0.06 cent/kg live weight) (Mayringer,
Gelfügelmastgenossenschaft); and

■

Additional costs to milk producers range from €0.01 to €0.015 cent/litre milk (Petschar,
Association of Dairy Industry).

Additional costs in some Member States are high in the case of GM(O)-free imports from
South America due to the distance and requirements associated with GM(O)-free
transportation. The transport line of GM(O)-free feed must be strictly separated from
conventional lines to avoid contamination, which must be guaranteed, verified and certified.
A new initiative called ‘Donausoja’ (‘Soy from the Danube’)49 began in January 2012, which
aims to foster and promote the cross-border production and sale of soy in the Danube
region. The initiative aims to improve the independence of European soy supplies. The
association aims to develop guidelines for soy production, which should work as a basis for
contract schemes and quality controls of soy production within the Danube region (Krön,
Donau-Soja).
Information gathered for the UK case study indicates that UK retailers anticipate sourcing of
non-GM feed will become more difficult in the future and ideally would not want to be in the
position of sourcing ‘GM(O)-free’ indefinitely.50 In February 2009, speaking at a conference
the then chief executive of retailer Tesco indicated that they would like to reopen the debate

49

Donau Soja (2013) website, Soja – Herausforderung für Landwirtschaft und Lebensmittelproduktion (Soy – the
challenge for agriculture and food production), http://www.donausoja.org/donau-soja.
50
Based on personal communication with one retailer representative.

55

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

on GM amongst British consumers.51 The GM(O)-free schemes in UK supermarkets have
been predicated by consumer opinion, and recent decisions by most major UK supermarkets
to allow GM feed in poultry were made due to rising costs for GM(O)-free soya, and declining
concern about GM amongst the public.

4.4

The market share of GM(O)-free products in the EU cannot be determined with
existing data, but where data at local and national levels exist, the schemes tend
to have limited market share
Despite rising production and other costs associated with GM(O)-free labelling, use of these
labels is expected to grow in some countries. For example, COOP Italia has introduced new
products to their GM(O)-free scheme, including cold cuts and cheeses as well as processed
meat products. Despite concerns about costs and availability of non-GM feed, information
from interviews with COOP Italia’s qualified suppliers indicate that the number of suppliers
willing to provide non-GM products has slightly increased recently. One possible explanation
is that the market for non-GM products could provide a market niche or a preferred channel
for small and medium-sized producers which represent the most relevant share of the Italian
food industry. This is particularly the case for small and medium-sized feed producers:
whereas the market for compound feed products is characterized by large economies of
scale, exploiting a market niche can give these producers an opportunity to offer product
differentiation.
New rules being introduced in the EU may also provide opportunities for growth in the share
of GM(O)-free products on the market:
■

With the implementation of the French legislation, the number of GM(O)-free labels is
likely to increase. The law may allow some non-GM food products that use a label of
quality and origin (Label Rouge, AOC, IGP, Organic) but which do not currently specify
the GM(O)-free nature of the ingredients to include the permitted wording in their labels.

■

Facilitative legislation for GM(O)-free legislation is in preparation in Greece, Luxembourg
and Croatia—operators may use GM(O)-free labels in these countries in the near future,
depending on the strictness of the criteria and threshold levels chosen.

Strict conditions in the Netherlands (and similar to those set out in the first German law on
‘Ohne Gentechnik’) have resulted in consumer choice for ‘GM(O)-free’ foods being limited to
organic products (with the exception of one product) over the past 13 years. This is similar to
the case in Belgium, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, which have very strict rules on
GM(O)-free labels or prohibit them.
Concern about non-GM feed supplies has led to some operators moving away from non-GM
supply chain requirements, particularly in the UK. Producers are also hesitant to label more
processed food in Austria and in Germany.

51

See online news article on Food Manufacture http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Tesco-bossprepares-for-GM-u-turn (viewed 17/7/2012).

56

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

5

Problem definition
This chapter considers the evidence that the current situation with regard to GM(O)-free
labelling causes consumer detriment and problems for the single market. The different
approaches taken to GM(O)-free product labelling have the potential to give rise to issues
that include:
■

Consumers being misled where standards differ across labelling schemes and/or the
standards underlying these schemes may not match consumer expectations from a
GM(O)-free label;

■

Consumers being confused where they do not understand what the label means or being
overwhelmed by the number of labels on product packages; and

■

Food business operators facing challenges where the single market does not operate
smoothly, such as additional costs or lack of market access.

Research was undertaken for this study to provide information on these issues and
determine the extent to which there may be a case for harmonisation at EU level. Food
business operators, industry representative associations, national competent authorities and
other EU organisations were consulted using questionnaires and interviews. The study
scope did not extend to a consumer survey but information about issues affecting consumers
was included in the questionnaires to, and interviews with, EU stakeholders and Member
State representatives. In addition, a literature review yielded information from existing
studies on consumer-related issues arising from GM(O)-free labelling and from other similar
kinds of labels.
Overall, information gathered for this study suggests that:

5.1

■

Evidence on consumer perceptions and behaviours towards negative (-free) labels is
mixed; and

■

GM(O)-free labelled products are developed for national markets, such that variation in
the labels across Member States is not a major issue for most operators who develop
these products.

Problems for consumers
Multiple GM(O)-free schemes co-exist in the EU at present. This section addresses the
problems that this situation may create for consumers.

5.1.1

Consumers may not have enough information
The absence of GM in a product is a credence attribute which cannot be identified by
consumers either before the purchase (e.g. through appearance), as in the case of search
goods, or after the purchase (e.g. through taste) as in the case of experience goods.
Credence attributes require a means to verify that a product has the desired attribute in order
for the market to function effectively (Grolleau and Caswell, 2006). Food labels help
consumers to exercise their preferences for such goods, and can be an effective means of
communicating useful information to consumers.
Most stakeholders and Member State representatives consulted for this study did not
indicate that lack of information about GM(O)-free labels was a major concern for
consumers. Where they did, the views were mixed. For example, some Austrian
stakeholders think that consumers in Austria are already well informed about GM(O)-free
products,52 while others think that more needs to be done.53

52
53

Matousek, REWE, Plsek, BMG
Anonymous, Bio Austria, Porstner, Global 2000, Faber, ARGE, Gaugitsch, Umweltbundesamt

57

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

5.1.2

Consumers may have too much information (labelling overload)
There are many labels in the market that indicate food quality attributes. A proliferation of
labels can increase the risk of consumer confusion and misunderstanding, and reduce the
effect of food businesses’ efforts to put in place sustainable certification schemes. A move
towards clearer and more understandable food labels has been one of the aims of the recent
review of the EU food labelling legislation. For example, the EU is currently assessing
options that would aim to address consumer concerns about country of origin labelling for
pig, poultry, sheep and goat meat (DG AGRI, 2012).
A majority of all respondents for this study believe that the existence of multiple GM(O)-free
labels confuses consumers (64 of 91 respondents (70 per cent)). National stakeholders cited
this as the biggest problem with the current situation (11 of 52 stakeholders who identified it
as a problem also cited this as the most important problem and six cited it as the second
most important). Overall, MS representatives cited consumer confusion as the second
biggest problem with the current situation (four of 29 cited this as the most important problem
and four cited it as the second most important).
In its response to the consultation for this study, a representative from the Irish government
reported that consumers are already confused by the ‘array of logos and information on food
labels’ and stated that additional labelling is unnecessary. A Belgian MS representative also
highlighted the risk of label multiplication. Four consultees54 noted the risk of consumer
confusion if a GM(O)-free label is added to already regulated schemes such as the positive
labelling scheme for products containing GM and organic labelling. The Finnish government
representative added that the existing harmonised positive labelling is also not understood
by consumers, who are unaware of the criteria behind it. Key findings are summarised in
Figure 5.1. Sectoral responses for national stakeholders are provided in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.1 A majority of respondents thought consumer confusion over multiple labels was a
problem (though not necessarily the most important one)
“Is consumer confusion over multiple/different labels one of the problems arising from the current
situation?”

37

National stakeholders

15
9

EU stakeholders

1

Yes
No

18

MS representatives
0%

20%

40%

11
60%

80%

100%

Note: 4 MS representatives ranked it 1st, 4 ranked it 2nd. 2 of the 10 EU level stakeholders ranked it 1st,
3 ranked it 2nd, 11 national stakeholders ranked it 1st, 6 ranked it 2nd. In total there were 52 national
stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

54

These included an EU level organic producer, two EU level associations of vegetable oil and proteins producers
and an association of enzyme manufacturers.

58

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 5.2 Consumer confusion over multiple labels, views by sector
“Is consumer confusion over multiple/different labels one of the problems arising from the current
situation?”

Consumers

3

1

Food industry associations

9

4

NGOs/certification bodies

5

1

Processors/manufacturers

16

2

Retailers

2

2

Other

1

1

0%

20%

40%

No

5

10

Producers

60%

80%

Yes

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

5.1.3

Consumers may misunderstand the label
Although most consumers claim to read food labels often or sometimes (Cowburn and
Stockley, 2005; European Heart Network, 2003), consumers can find it difficult to identify the
label, even when it is present. For instance, one study shows that consumers who are less
informed about GM technology are unable to identify this type of information placed on the
back of the product, although they do when the information is more visible on the front of the
product (Matsumoto, 2004).
Even where consumers identify and process the information contained on labels, some
consumers struggle to understand the information provided (MAFF, 2000). Studies have
found that supermarket consumers’ attitudes towards GM(O)-free labels are inconsistent
when behaviour is compared to stated preference, as was observed in the nine EU Member
States assessed for a study by King’s College in 2008. The FCEC (2010) study suggested
that consumers may not understand the meaning of ‘GM(O)-free’, particularly on livestock
products, and that many are unaware of the fact that it is not easy to verify whether animals
from which livestock products are derived were fed on non-GM feed.

5.1.4

GM(O)-free labels may mislead consumers
Studies in Germany conducted following the change in GM(O)-free labelling legislation
suggest that consumers expect standards of purity in products labelled as GM(O)-free that
are higher than what is required by existing GM(O)-free labelling schemes (Herrmann et al,
2008 and Henseleit et al, 2009). There are also issues as to whether the product can be
verified as being GM(O)-free. This is especially true where labelling is process-based, rather
than product-based, and thus relies on an audit trail rather than testing.
Consumers are generally sceptical of negative food claims (e.g. ‘low fat’, ‘no pesticides’)
(Teisl et al., 2008). Several studies have also found that consumers react negatively to
GM(O)-free claims (Teisl et al., 2008; Federici, 2010; Teisl et al, 2002). Consumers are even
more sceptical about more generic, complex and ambiguous terms such as ‘natural’,
‘healthy’ and ‘light’ (Abrams et al., 2010). Approximately 57 per cent of respondents in one
study believed that they could trust a GM(O)-free label.55 Trust is higher for other labels such
as Fairtrade (Nielson, 2010).56 Research into the German GM(O)-free label found that less

55
56

Austria case study
Austria case study

59

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

than 14 per cent of respondents trust the label completely. Approximately 34 per cent trust it
somewhat and about 8 per cent do not trust it at all (Buxel and Schulz, 2010). A study in Italy
found that 20 per cent of respondents claimed they would never trust a GM(O)-free label.
Consumer scepticism extends to positive claims, including GM labelled products. For
example, 15 per cent of Austrians surveyed in one study (Marketagent.com, 2012) were
completely unconvinced that the requirement was being met for products containing GMOs
that should be labelled in other EU countries, whilst 44 per cent thought the requirement
probably was not followed.
Respondents to this study thought the risk of misleading the consumer was as an important
issue to consider. When stakeholders were asked what particular problems the current
situation creates, their questionnaire responses mirrored those raised in the FCEC (2010)
study. A majority of all respondents believed that the current situation misleads the
consumer.57 A majority of MS respondents identified ‘misleading the consumer’ as a
problem (20 of 29) and 13 of them indicated that the biggest problem with the current
situation is that consumers risk being misled. The majority of EU level stakeholders (9 of 10)
identified misleading the consumer’ as a problem and 4 of them ranked ‘misleading the
consumer’ as the biggest problem (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3 A majority of respondents thought ‘misleading the consumer’ was a problem (though
not necessarily the most important one)
“Is ‘misleading the consumer’ one of the problems arising from the current situation?”

34

National stakeholders

18

9

EU stakeholders

Yes

1

No
20

MS representatives
0%

20%

9

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: 13 MS representatives ranked it 1st, 1 ranked it 2nd. 4 of the 10 EU level stakeholders ranked it
1st. 9 national stakeholders ranked it 1st, 4 ranked it 2nd. In total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10
EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents

Figure 5.4 ‘Misleading the consumer’ is a problem, views by sector
“Is ‘misleading the consumer’ one of the problems arising from the current situation?”

1

3

Consumers
Food industry associations

7

NGOs/certification bodies

3

6
3
1

17

Processors/manufacturers

2

2

Retailers

No

6

9

Producers

Yes

2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).
57

61 of 75 respondents (81 per cent).

60

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

In particular, some stakeholders and national authorities are concerned that GM(O)-free
labelling is potentially misleading as consumers might think that all products that do not bear
such labels contain GMOs, even when this is not the case. The Belgian CA and a food
ingredients’ producer specifically highlighted this issue in their survey response, and this
issue was brought up in many interviews.
A representative of the EU food industry also indicated that labelling such as ‘GM(O)-free’ is
misleading as it is technically impossible to verify the complete absence of GMOs (e.g.
unauthorised GM contamination). Representatives of the European starch industry view
GM(O)-free labelling as misleading for consumers in the case of feed, as animal products
that do not contain GM material would be labelled based on the GM content in feed.
Concerns about the potential misleading nature of GM(O)-free claims have led one
supermarket in Canada to modify product packaging by concealing claims of a product being
GM(O)-free by ‘blacking out’ the ‘GM(O)-free’ wording (Mills, 2001). Tesco, a UK
supermarket, has stated that it will never claim that a product is GM(O)-free, even though it
sought to remove all GM ingredients from its own-label products for many years (Charles,
2002). Other major UK supermarkets have taken a similar approach.58

5.1.5

Trust in a GM(O)-free label may be eroded due to misleading claims or fraud
As mentioned above, GM(O)-free products are generally considered to be ‘credence goods’:
consumers must rely on labels to make informed judgements about the attribute. The
labelling scheme needs to be credible to engender consumer trust. The credibility of GM(O)free labels can be reduced and eroded in several ways, including by misleading the
consumer (as discussed in section 5.1.4). Additionally, there is the potential for false claims:
since consumers are unable to identify the GM content of the product there is likely to be
some false labelling in a GM(O)-free food market (McCluskey, 2000). A recent investigation
by Sweden’s National Food Administration found that four of ten products that had labels
proclaiming they were GMO-free contained traces of GMOs. These problems are not unique
to the GM(O)-free market – other products were found with a GM content higher than 0.9 per
cent but which were not labelled as containing GMOs (Andersson, 2010). Similar problems
have been found in the gluten-free market (Worosz and Wilson, 2012).

5.2

Problems for operators
Operators may also encounter difficulties with the current situation where multiple GM(O)free schemes co-exist. For example:

5.2.1

■

Different national requirements may present challenges to the smooth operation of the
single market and create an uneven playing field for producers operating under the
different schemes; and

■

Monitoring, verification and certification costs for exporters and burden on authorities
may be higher.

The survey for this study asked operators and MS representatives whether the
current situation causes problems for the European single market; 84 per cent
answered ‘yes’
The questionnaire provided to stakeholders and EU Member State representatives asked the
following question:
Do you think that the current situation regarding ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes cause problems for
the European single market?
Overall, 84 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’. This includes 42 national stakeholders
(86 per cent of national stakeholder respondents), 10 out of 11 EU representative

58

Although most UK supermarkets have since decided to allow GM feed in poultry products

61

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

associations and other EU level organisations (91 per cent of respondents) and 23 MS
representatives (79 per cent of respondents).
Figure 5.5 Most respondents thought the current situation causes problems
”Do you think that the current situation regarding “GM(O)-free” schemes causes problems for the
European single market?”

National stakeholders

44

8

EU stakeholders

9

1

Yes
No

23

MS representatives
0%

20%

6

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 5.6 Problems for the single market, views by sector
”Do you think that the current situation regarding “GM(O)-free” schemes causes problems for the
European single market?”

4

Consumers
11

Food industry associations

2
6

NGOs/certification bodies
16

Processors/manufacturers

2

12

Producers

No

3

2

Retailers

Yes

2
2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

When asked what particular problems the current situation creates, a majority of all
respondents believe that the current situation:
■

Is a problem due to different standards being used (63 of 91 respondents (69 per cent));

■

Distorts competition, creating an uneven playing field for operators (62 of 91 respondents
(68 per cent); and

■

Leads to higher monitoring and verification costs (56 of 91 respondents (62 per cent)).

■

Respondents also indicated that multiple schemes create added costs for the supply
chain (45 of 91 respondents (49 per cent) and two respondents mentioned other impacts
(restricted cross-border trade in raw materials and unenforceability of requirements with
increased pressure on operators and authorities).

Respondents were also asked to rank these problems against others, such as misleading
the consumer. Nineteen Member State respondents, seven EU level respondents and 31
national stakeholder respondents provided a ranking. Of these, a majority of respondents
indicated that the biggest problem is ‘misleading the consumer’, followed by ‘consumer
confusion over multiple labels’. The third biggest problem cited by national stakeholders is
62

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

competition distortion (creating an ‘uneven playing field’) (7 of 31 cited this as the most
important problem and 5 cited it as the second most important). National stakeholders cited
problems arising from the coexistence of different standards (4 of 31 ranked this first and 7
ranked it second) and additional monitoring and verification costs (3 of 31 ranked this first
and 6 ranked it second).

5.2.2

Little other evidence exists of problems related to the operation of the single
market arising from the current situation
Other than the views of this study’s respondents, there is little evidence that the current
situation creates problems for the operation of the EU single market. Some issues have
been noted in the trade between Germany and Austria, two of the longest-running labelling
schemes. The standards in Austria differ in some respects to those in Germany. In principle,
what is marketable in Germany is also marketable in Austria (for example, Spar Austria
offers imported products labelled with the German VLOG label). But it is not clear whether
GM(O)-free Austrian poultry can be sold as GM(O)-free in Germany. The same problem
occurs for the trade between Germany and France. These issues appear to be most acute
for markets close to Member State borders.
Under the new French decree, the threshold for adventitious or technically avoidable
presence of GMOs for some product labels (plant related foods have a threshold of <0.1%)
is lower than the current EU threshold level for positive labelling of 0.9%. Most stakeholders
consulted for this study in France considered this to present a potential issue in terms of
distorting competition amongst the Member States (other MS may have lower limits). It
remains to be seen how many GM(O)-free French food products are actually exported to
other Member States. Carrefour indicated that this was not a major issue.
The UK approved its first certification body for labelling GM(O)-free foods in 2013, which will
allow UK producers to serve EU markets with these products (Svanevik, 2013). The certified
products will be labelled with the ‘Ohne Gentechnik’ mark for export to Germany and the
mark can also be used on meat, dairy and egg products sold to UK consumers. This
example suggests that the private sector has found solutions for developing the GM(O)-free
indication without restricting the functioning of the single market.
GM(O)-free labelling in EU Member States is evolving, however, and additional Member
States are developing regulation in this area or considering the possibility. As the market
matures, single market issues may arise which are not yet anticipated.

63

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

6

Policy objectives and options
The study terms of reference require identification of a set of core elements of a potential
harmonised framework for GM(O)-free labelling in the EU and a preliminary appraisal of the
impacts arising from their implementation. This chapter outlines the objectives that a
harmonised EU-level GM(O)-free labelling scheme may seek to meet, the component
elements of a potential scheme and how those elements might be specified. The
assessment is provided in Chapter 7.

6.1

Objectives
European Commission guidelines on impact assessment require the development of three
‘tiers’ of policy objectives as part of any impact analysis.59 These objectives describe the
purpose of the legislative revision and should directly relate back to the problem definition
set out in Chapter 5. Policy objectives shape policy options and form the basis against which
the impacts of options can be measured and comparisons drawn (and future effects
monitored). The three tiers of policy objectives required in an impact assessment are as
follows:
■

General objectives: the treaty-based goals towards which the legislation contributes, and
equate to the impacts that the revision of the legislation should seek to achieve;

■

Specific objectives: the specific aims of the revision of the legislation, and should relate
directly to the results of the problem definition. In aggregate the achievement of the
specific objectives should contribute towards meeting the general objectives of the
legislative revision; and

■

Operational objectives: the direct deliverables of the legislative revision (e.g. outputs),
and when aggregated should also contribute towards achieving the specific objectives of
the revision exercise.

The general objectives of potential legislative revision for GM(O)-free labelling relate
directly to the potential problems reviewed in Chapter 5 of this report, that is, to:
■

Improve information provision to consumers on GM(O)-free products;

■

Improve the functioning of the single market in GM(O)-free products; and

■

Reduce the administrative burden imposed on food business operators arising from the
production of GM(O)-free products.

A set of specific objectives follow from the general objectives. These objectives address
specific issues and causes of the potential problems discussed previously, and there are four
in total:

6.2

■

Reduce consumer confusion regarding GM(O)-free labels;

■

Improve information for consumers so that they are not misled by GM(O)-free labels;

■

Simplify rules for operators so that competition distortion does not arise where operators
serve multiple markets; and

■

Ensure that internal EU trade is facilitated for GM(O)-free labelled products.

Elements and options for a harmonised system
The evidence gathering task for this study provided information about the current
specification of GM(O)-free labels in use across the EU and in some third countries. This
research showed that active schemes contain most or all of the following elements:

59

European Commission (2013) ‘Impact Assessment’
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/key_docs_en.htm.

64

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Labelling rules, including the wording used, the format of the label and any logo;

■

Indication of the scope of products covered;

■

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence;

■

Specification of inputs to be excluded and any exceptions;

■

Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals fed on GM feed; and

■

Certification, inspection and monitoring procedures.

These elements would form the ‘building blocks’ for a harmonised EU-level scheme for
GM(O)-free labelling. The assessment in Section 7 considers how the specification of these
elements could help to achieve the specific objectives identified above and, in so doing,
address problems in the market. For each element three possible options, summarised in
Table 6.1, have been examined and their impacts assessed by comparison with the
reference scenario in which the regulatory status quo is maintained and GM(O)-free
schemes continue to be developed at national level and by private operators.
A future EU scheme could, in principle, use all the available elements or only some of them,
imposing common EU rules in respect of some aspects of GM(O)-free labelling schemes but
not introducing additional regulation at EU level for other aspects. A scheme that had limited
scope could, for instance, only set common threshold levels for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence, or apply only to a restricted set of products. The assessment
considers each element independently and then goes on to discuss what packages of
elements (and specific options) might collectively address all of the specific objectives.

65

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 6.1 Proposed elements and options

66

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

6.2.2

Labelling rules
There are no specific rules governing ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling in the EU. Products simply need
to comply with the general requirements set out in the legislative framework regarding food
labelling under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.60 ‘GM(O)-free’ labelled food products must
also conform to the rules for positive GM labelling, that is, not contain more than 0.9% GM
content and any GM presence below 0.9% must be adventitious or technically unavoidable.61
This issue is discussed in Section 6.2.4. Animal products are specifically excluded from the
EU rules governing positive GM labelling. ‘Negative labelling’ for animal products is neither
forbidden nor specifically regulated, but general food labelling rules apply.
The baseline data show considerable variance across Member States in the approach taken
to ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling (and marketing) in the EU. There are two main considerations for
any harmonised approach to labelling:
■

The wording that may be used on a product, as well as wording that is not allowed; and

■

The use of a logo (or logos).

In this context, there are three main options to consider for labelling requirements in a
harmonised scheme (Figure 6.1):
■

Prohibitive labelling rules as used in Sweden and Belgium, where products must not
carry any ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling indications but where many products are produced using
non-GM supply chains;

■

Facilitative labelling rules, as used in Austria, France and Germany. Such rules allow
‘GM(O)-free’ labels, and cover the wording that may be used on product packaging and
other marketing materials; and

■

EU guidelines that help Member States and operators comply with EU labelling laws, but
which do not specify the wording that may be used or provide a common logo.

Figure 6.1 Options for harmonised rules concerning labelling rules for ‘GM(O)-free’ products

6.2.2.2

Evidence and views on labelling rules for GM(O)-free products
In 2011 the European Commission organised a workshop on food labelling in the context of
the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, an EU level forum which
encourages the consultation of food chain stakeholders. The workshop on food labelling saw
the participation of Member State representatives, the European Commission and food
supply chain representatives, including consumers’ organisations. The workshop was

60

Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No
1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission
Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission
Regulation (EC) No 608/2004.
61
Set out in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003.

67

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

intended to promote food labelling as a tool to improve consumer information and
businesses' competitiveness. Issues concerning food labelling were also discussed.
Workshop participants concluded that there is a need to prevent labelling proliferation and
excessive market fragmentation. They agreed that more harmonisation is necessary,
particularly regarding voluntary food labelling schemes such as GM(O)-free labelling.62
An EU level harmonised approach could expand the market for GM(O)-free labelled products
in Europe. A potential benefit of introducing an EU-wide GM(O)-free label could include price
premiums for operators, which consumers say they are willing to pay for these kinds of
products. Studies show that products with claims, particularly those related to nutrition and
health, are clearly preferred by consumers (Aschemann-Witzel and Hamm, 2010). A GM(O)free labelled product might therefore be preferred over an unlabelled equivalent. Currently,
however, most products labelled GM(O)-free in the EU are sold at the same price as their
conventional equivalents (i.e. ‘unlabelled products’).
GM(O)-free labels may also affect consumer attitudes towards GM products. For instance,
GM(O)-free messages may lead consumers to believe that these products are superior, or
reinforce and further emphasise the view that GM products carry risks (Matsumoto, 2004;
Siipi and Uusitalo, 2007). Abrams et al. (2010) note that because government regulations on
labelling are typically used to distinguish between safe and unsafe foods, the use of
standards or food labels can give consumers the impression that other products are unsafe.
This argument has also been made in the case of monosodium glutamate (MSG)63 labelling:
a study conducted in Malaysia by Radam et al. (2010) found that MSG-free labelling may
influence the acceptability of other products which contain MSG given that such labels can
generate and reinforce beliefs that MSG is a harmful and/or unsafe ingredient.
GM(O)-free labels also interact with labelling for organic products. The organic designation
provides consumers with a ‘GM(O)-free option’, although the non-GM aspect of the product
is one of a ‘package’ of qualities that the organic indication confers. Some lessons can be
drawn from the experience in the US on rBST-free and organic milk. These two markets
successfully co-exist in the US, as do certified pesticide-residue free (CPRF) products and
organic products (Bernard and Bernard, 2010). One potential reason why this is the case is
that they allow consumers to purchase an attribute that they desire without having to
purchase the whole ‘package’ of attributes, some of which may not be of interest to
consumers.
6.2.2.2.1 Evidence and views on acceptable GM(O)-free labels and other issues
The research conducted for this study also provides evidence relevant to the design of a
standardised label, if one was to be adopted. Simple labels (e.g. which denote the content or
absence of a specific attribute) have been found to be more credible than complex labels
(e.g. ‘natural’). Andrews et al. (2000) found that claims which name a specific substance are
thought to be more credible than claims which state that the product is generally healthy.64
Providing contact information on the label also helps to build credibility with consumers (Teisl
et al., 2008).
Survey respondents for this study believe that the words ‘GMO-free’ and ‘fed with GM-free
feed’ are the two most appropriate labelling formulations (see Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3):
■

‘GMO-free’ was preferred by 17 of 29 MS representatives (59%) and 26 of 52 national
stakeholders (50%) over other alternatives presented; however, only one out of 10 EU

62

High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain (2011), Report on Food Labelling Practices,
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/files/competitiveness/labelling_report_en.pdf.
63
MSG is a naturally-occurring non-essential amino acid. It is marketed as a flavour enhancer in foods. It is
classified as a food additive in the EU. In the US, it is classified as ‘generally recognized as safe’ (GRAS).
64
However, even in the case of a relatively straightforward label such as GM(O)-free, consumers also generalise
with regard to other characteristics. Past research, for instance, has shown that Austrian consumers assume that
products carrying a GM(O)-free label are more sustainable as a whole.

68

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

stakeholders preferred such wording (10%), 5 consider it as not appropriate and 4 did
not reply; and
■

‘Fed with GM-free feed’ was preferred for animal products by 12 of 29 MS
representatives (41%), 24 of 52 national stakeholders (46%) and none of the EU
stakeholders consulted (5 consider it as not appropriate and 5 did not reply) over other
alternatives presented.

Figure 6.2 ‘GMO-free’ is the preferred food labelling option
“Do you think that the wording ‘GMO-free’ is appropriate for a label indicating that the product is
“GM(O)-free”?”

26

National stakeholders

15

11
Appropriate

1

EU stakeholders

5

4

Not appropriate
Did not reply

17

MS representatives
0%

20%

7
40%

60%

5
80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.3 ‘Fed with GM-free feed’ is the most appropriate option for animal products labelling
“Do you think that the wording ‘Fed with GM-free feed’ is appropriate for a label indicating that the
product is “GM(O)-free”?”

National stakeholders

24

EU stakeholders

5

12

16
Appropriate
5

Not appropriate
Did not reply

12

MS representatives
0%

20%

11
40%

60%

6
80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Views were mixed overall, however, and all of the labelling versions suggested were deemed
appropriate and inappropriate by at least five respondents. Table 6.2 shows the response
rate for different labelling indications deemed appropriate or inappropriate by MS
representatives and national stakeholders.

69

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 6.2 Potential labelling options and views from respondents as to their appropriateness
MS Representatives
Appropriate

6.2.3

National Stakeholders

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Inappropriate

GM-free

9

11

14

20

GMO-free

17

7

26

15

Prepared without GMO

6

14

13

19

Prepared without gene technology

5

16

11

23

Does not contain GMOs

11

9

12

24

Not genetically
modified/engineered

9

10

8

29

Fed with GM-free feed

12

11

24

12

Product scope
Product scope is an important element to consider in a potential EU harmonised approach to
‘GM(O)-free’ labelling, particularly because the specifications that apply to food products
(plant-based products) can differ from those applied to feed (animal-based products). The
type of product being labelled can thus affect the specifications for each of the other
elements in a harmonised approach. For example, EU labelling law allows the scope of a
GM(O)-free labelling scheme to extend in principle to any food product (plant-based product)
for which there is a ‘GM equivalent’ authorised for sale on the market.65 Animal product
labelling is more complicated and a GM(O)-free label may not necessarily depend on
whether the animal was fed on non-GM feed for which there is an authorised GM equivalent
on the EU market. The scope for GM(O)-free labelling varies widely under private schemes,
as discussed in Section 3.2. Figure 6.4 illustrates the range of options to consider for this
element of a potential harmonised approach.
Figure 6.4 Options for harmonised rules regarding product scope

The scope would need to cover animal products alone if harmonisation is to be used
primarily to satisfy consumer demand for labelling animal products. A wider product scope
would be appropriate if the primary objective of harmonisation is to avoid or reduce problems
related to an ‘uneven playing field’ for operators resulting from the current variety of different
schemes across the EU.
6.2.3.2

Evidence and views on product scope for GM(O)-free plant-based food products
Respondents to the survey run during this study agreed that the full range of products could
be included in a ‘GM(O)-free’ scheme (vegetables, processed foods, meat and meat
products, dairy products, eggs, yeast and other products, etc.). With few exceptions, all MS
representatives and national stakeholders who responded to this question indicated that all
of these products may be included.

65

A complete register of authorised GMOs can be found on the DG SANCO website:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm.

70

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Food products containing GM ingredients must already be labelled under EU law.
Widespread use of a second label related to the use of GM products and processes
alongside existing requirements for positive GM labels may introduce problems. This would
effectively create three different product categories:
■

One for products that must be labelled as GM (positive labels),

■

One for products that may be labelled as GM-free (negative labels), and

■

One for products that do not meet the requirements for positive labelling and also do not
carry a negative label (unlabelled products).

In the absence of additional information about whether a product is GM(O)-free, consumers
typically act as if there is a low probability that products contain GMOs (Noussair et al.,
2004). In a mandatory labelling system that requires products containing GMOs to be
labelled (positive labelling), consumers assume that the absence of a label (unlabelled
products) means a product is ‘GM(O)-free’ (Federici, 2010). Gruere et al. (2008) find that
where there is a mandatory, positive labelling scheme in place, consumers value an
unlabelled product differently when the choice set contains three options (unlabelled
products, a GM label, and a GM(O)-free label) than when it contains only two options (a GM
label and unlabelled products). Consumers attach greater value to an unlabelled product
when there is no option to buy an equivalent, voluntarily labelled GM(O)-free product. The
value of the unlabelled product is significantly reduced when there is a GM(O)-free product
available.
Two studies (Huffman et al., 2002; Dannenberg et al., 2011) provide evidence that US and
German consumers are able to correctly read and trust labelling signals when the market
contains only one labelled and one unlabelled product. Dannenberg et al (2011) found that
the presence of a GM(O)-free label alongside GM labelling and unlabelled products may
decrease individuals’ trust in the labelling system.
Interviews conducted for this study also found that there is concern amongst some
stakeholders and Member State representatives that consumers may be confused by the
introduction of a second label at EU level, as it would be unclear what unlabelled products
represent. For example, the UK Member State representative indicated that having positive
and negative labelling for products could lead to confusion, particularly for unlabelled food
products.66 The introduction of a GM(O)-free label could generate a negative externality for
producers of non-GM products who market their products without a label (Dannenberg et al.,
2011).
6.2.3.3

Evidence and views on product scope for GM(O)-free labelling for animal products
GM(O)-free labelling for animal products was a primary motivation in the development of
schemes in some Member States and by private operators. While EU regulations on GM
labelling do not require animal products produced from animals fed on GM feed to carry a
positive label, some consumers consider the GM status of the animal feed to be important.
For example, a 2009 study found that 78 per cent of people in Germany believed that this
aspect should be identified on labels (rising to 82 per cent in 2011). GM(O)-free labels which
highlight this issue help to meet demand that is not satisfied by current EU GM labelling
legislation and may add significant value to the marketplace.
Demand for GM(O)-free animals products (fresh meat, eggs, milk) is stronger than the
demand for GM(O)-free plant-based products in Germany and France (Herrmann et al,
2008; French Survey Efficience, 2009). A survey carried out in October 2010 by IFOP for
Carrefour shortly before Carrefour announced its GM(O)-free labelling programme reported
that the majority of French people surveyed (76 per cent) felt that it was very important that
the presence or absence of GMOs in animal feed should be labelled on animal products. A
survey by Efficience 3 (2009) for Loué on French consumers’ views of ‘non-GM’ animal
derived food products found that most of those surveyed (76 per cent) were in favour of a

66

UK case study

71

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

GM(O)-free label as they felt that it was unreasonable that those producers choosing to feed
their animals on non-GM (<0.9%) feed are unable to communicate this to consumers. A
survey conducted in the UK by Gfk/Nop on behalf of Friends of the Earth (2010) found that
66 per cent of individuals would rather buy meat and dairy from animals fed on a non-GM
diet. The survey also found that 72 per cent of consumers were willing to pay a price
premium of 2p/kg or 0.5p/litre for meat and dairy fed on a non-GM diet.
Moreover, the issue of three product categories (GM labelled, GM(O)-free labelled and
unlabelled) does not occur in the case of animal products, which are specifically exempted
from rules regarding GM labelling in the EU. Except where GM(O)-free labels are already
used, consumers cannot identify animal products produced without the use of GM inputs,
such as feed and feed additives. The literature suggests that providing additional information
should increase consumption of the commodity if it has a desirable but costly-to-observe
characteristic and reduce consumption of a competing commodity with an undesirable
characteristic (Kiesel et al., 2005). It is this issue that prompted the development of many of
the existing GM(O)-free labelling schemes. An EU harmonised approach to labelling GM(O)free animal products should not have the same complicated effects as for plant-based
products highlighted in Section 6.2.3.2. Nonetheless, it is unclear that any but the most
informed consumers are aware of these particularities of GM labelling laws in the EU.
Chapter 5 highlights related issues in this regard.

6.2.4

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence
The legislative framework for GM labelling specifies conditions for EU harmonised ‘positive
labelling’ at >0.9% authorised GM presence. ‘Positive labelling’ is not required for food and
feed containing authorised GM material at <0.9%, provided that this presence is adventitious
or technically unavoidable. The 0.9% limit for authorised GM presence refers to the ‘labelling
threshold’ established by the GM legislation.
The 0.9% limit for authorised GM presence also applies for organic production in the EU
under Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, which prohibits the use of GMOs in organic production.
The labelling threshold represents a ceiling which is exclusively linked to adventitious or
technically unavoidable presence of GMOs. The organic production threshold level is thus
the same as that established by EU positive GM labelling legislation, but the organic
Regulation establishes that producers should aim to have the ‘lowest possible presence of
GMOs’ in organic products. National organic labelling schemes are based on the
requirements established at EU level, but can go beyond such requirements by setting
stricter rules. For example, in the UK the Soil Association organic standards have set a
<0.1% threshold (Soil Association, 2012).
The EU’s 0.9% threshold for authorised GM presence is one of the lowest set by countries
which require mandatory labelling of authorised GM products. Japan, for instance, has a 5%
threshold (Federici, 2010). Table 6.3 shows a selection of national mandatory (positive)
labelling thresholds.

72

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table 6.3 Mandatory labelling threshold levels for authorised GM content, various countries
Country

Level

EU

0.9%

Russia

0.9%

Saudi Arabia

0.9%

Brazil

1%

Australia-New Zealand

1%

South Korea

0 – 3%

Japan

5%

Indonesia

5%

Taiwan

5%

Thailand

5%

Source: IFPRI (2007); USDA FAS (2012) various.

When establishing such thresholds in the EU, it is necessary to take into account the
principle that information conveyed through food labelling must not mislead consumers,
including when information is related to threshold levels. This principle is established by
Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC on food labelling, which states that labelling must not
mislead purchasers ‘as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its
nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of
manufacture or production’.
Analytical methods are available that can reliably quantify authorised GM presence to 0.1%.
As a result, there is a theoretical range of threshold levels for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence in a ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling scheme between 0.1% and 0.9%.
GM(O)-free schemes currently operating in the EU have taken a range of approaches to the
threshold level, which can also vary depending on whether it applies to food or feed. Figure
6.5 illustrates the range of options to consider for this element of a potential harmonised
approach.
Figure 6.5 Options for harmonised rules regarding threshold levels for authorised GM presence

The status quo approach for this element would mean that the harmonised rules did not
specify a threshold level.
6.2.4.2

Evidence and views on threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable
GM presence
The Dutch Commission on Genetic Modification (2004) conducted research on the
possibilities for GM(O)-free production chains. As part of this research, focus groups were
73

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

asked to consider GM(O)-free claims. Although participants thought that any GM presence
was not in line with what consumers expect of GM(O)-free products, they understood the
practical problem of achieving a zero-level of contamination and accepted the <0.9%
threshold level, although they found it arbitrary and misleading (de Vriend, 2004).
Herrmann et al. (2008) and Henseleit et al. (2009) found that consumers consistently
assume standards of purity for products labelled as GM(O)-free that are higher than those
applied by existing GM(O)-free labelling schemes. Some stakeholders interviewed for this
study believe that GM(O)-free labels are misleading as they suggest a level of purity, or a
complete absence of GMOs, that may not be possible given the risk of contamination and
the difficulties in testing and verifying that a product is actually free from GMOs. This issue
can be dealt with either by looking at the wording used, or by retaining the ‘GM(O)-free’
wording but setting a very low (or zero) threshold for permissible GM content.
The UK Government has stated that if an operator wishes to implement a GM(O)-free
labelling scheme the product should be completely GM(O)-free, with no threshold limits or
exceptions so the consumer can be absolutely confident of what ‘GM(O)-free’ means.
Sweden has restricted the use of GM(O)-free labelling for the same reasons. Swedish
legislative guidance specifically states, for example, that labelling cooking oil as ‘GM(O)-free’
is misleading since products produced or processed with GMOs must be declared as such
under EU law. As a result, labels indicating that something is ‘free’ can only be used with
respect to nourishment and allergic ingredients (such as gluten or nuts). Product marketing
in Sweden can, however, include an indication that no GMOs were used in its production
(National Food Agency, 2011).
In the survey conducted for this study respondents were asked whether they believe that
only products that do not contain or are not produced using GMOs can be labelled as
‘GM(O)-free’. A majority of Member State representatives agreed (16 MS representatives
answered ‘yes’,11 ‘no’ and 2 did not reply). Five EU stakeholders answered ‘yes’ or noted
that ‘there should be no element of GM technology at any stage of production of ‘GM(O)free’ labelled products’.67 Four EU representative associations said ‘no’ 68 and one did not
reply.
National stakeholder views were evenly split, with half of those who provided a reply in
favour and half against (22 said ‘yes’ and 24 said ‘no’; 6 did not reply).
The majority of retailers (3 out of four) and of producer organisations at national and EU level
(13 of 15) said ‘no’ while all consumer organisations (4 of 4) said ‘yes’. Other groups,
including NGOs, food processors/manufacturers and other food sector representative groups
were more evenly split. The reasoning behind the two positions can be summarised as
follows:
■

Yes: Having a threshold level for adventitious GM content as an element of a ‘GM(O)free’ label (i.e. allowing some GM content, however small) misleads the consumer; or

■

No: It is too difficult and costly or it is not technically feasible to be assured of ‘zero’ GM
content, therefore allowing for adventitious or unavoidable presence in products or
product inputs is necessary to enable GM(O)-free labels to be used.

Survey responses are summarised in Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.6.

67

Europabio, a representative association for the biotechnology sector, FoodDrinkEurope, the EU Vegetable Oil
and Proteinmeal Industry association (Fediol), the European Starch Industry association (AAF) and the European
Association of Manufacturers, Distributors and users of Vegetable Proteins for Human Consumption (Euvepro).
68
The Association of Manufacturers and Formulators of Enzyme Products (Amfep), the European Association of
Sweet Corn Processors (AETMD), the European Food and Feed Cultures Association (EFFCA) and EuroCoop.

74

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.6

Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced
with/from GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’?

22

National stakeholders

24

6
Yes

5

EU stakeholders

4

1

No
Did not reply

16

MS representatives
0%

20%

40%

60%

11

2

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.7

Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced
with/from GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’? Sectoral views

4

Consumers
Food industry associations

6

NGOs/certification bodies

3

Processors/manufacturers

8

6
3
6

2

Producers

1
Yes
4

No

13

Did not reply

3

Retailers

1
2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

There is variation in the threshold levels for GM presence set by different GM(O)-free
labelling schemes in the EU, particularly for animal products (see Section 3.7). Whilst a high
threshold level is more practical and requires fewer resources to enforce, GM(O)-free claims
are less credible to consumers when the threshold is high. Hastak and Mazis (2011) report
that this kind of claim can create semantic confusion whereby the language used causes
consumers to misperceive or miscomprehend the claim and thus be misled. The point at
which consumers lose confidence in the label will depend on the level of GM content that is
considered material to consumers (Federici, 2010). For example, when the US Food and
Drug Administration proposed a threshold level for gluten-free food of 20 ppm, many US
consumers urged government to set a stricter limit of 5ppm, indicating that consumers still
considered 20 ppm to be too low (Smith, 2012).
Past research has shown that an increase in the threshold level for adventitious presence
affects both the supply and the demand sides of the market by reducing the production and
segregation costs in the non-GM supply chain as well as consumer valuation of GM(O)-free
food. Giannakas et al. (2011) conducted a study which looked specifically at consumer
responses to different GM(O)-free threshold levels in the EU. They found that in light of the
expressed level of consumer aversion, it is likely that low threshold levels will not be
tolerated by consumers.
Both the presence and absence of national law on thresholds can create issues in the
market. Some of the stakeholders in France who were interviewed for this study were
concerned about the threshold levels (<0.1% and <0.9%) in the recent French legislation.
Some thought the two levels (<0.1% and <0.9%) were included to please the many and
opposing stakeholders engaged in the non-GM food production debate. In Italy, some issues
75

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

have arisen for operators attempting to make GM(O)-free claims as national law does not
provide any guidance on this matter (see box below).

Example of a court decision on a GM(O)-free label in Italy
Soy steaks labelled as GM(O)-free were found to contain traces of GM material, albeit at levels well
below the 0.9% threshold level. Both distributors and producers were sued for food fraud by the
Italian anti-fraud enforcement authority ‘Nuclei antisofisticazioni e sanità’(NAS) . The Turin Ordinary
Court acquitted the defendants on charges of food fraud but the court found that the defendants had
committed an administrative offence69 by applying misleading advertising (i.e. the GM(O)-free label),
which could have rendered the product ‘improperly appealing’ to consumers (Sentence n. 3164
dated 06.03.2004).

6.2.4.2.2 Threshold levels for ‘GM(O)-free’ food products
There are many precedents for labels that are used by consumers in their purchasing
decisions which use the phrase ‘free from’ or ‘-free’ where the labelling scheme incorporates
purity thresholds for products. Examples of EU and US regulations that have set different
threshold levels for various ‘free’ products are provided in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Threshold levels set for products labelled as ‘-free’ in the EU and the US
Claim

EU

US

Sugar-free

Less than 0.5 g of sugars per 100 g or 100 ml

Less than 0.5 grams (g) per serving

Sodium /
salt-free

Less than 0.005 g of sodium, or the equivalent
value for salt, per 100 g

Less than 5 milligrams (mg) per
serving

Fat-free

Less than 0.5 g of fat per 100 g or 100 ml.
Claims expressed as ‘X % fat-free’ are prohibited

Less than 0.5 g of fat per serving

Cholesterol
-free

N/A

Less than 2 mg of cholesterol and 2
g or less of saturated fat per serving

Saturated
fat-free

The sum of saturated fat and trans-fatty acids
does not exceed 0.1 g of saturated fat per 100 g
or 100 ml

Less than 0.5 g of saturated fat per
serving and less than 0.5 g trans
fatty acids per serving

Calorie-free

N/A

Fewer than 5 calories per serving

Gluten free

No more than 20 mg/kg of gluten

Proposed levels of no more than 20
ppm or more gluten

Source: FDA (2007); EC (2009); Kurtzweil (1995)

According to the US FDA, the definition of a food ‘free’ from a certain substance means the
product either contains no amount or only a trivial or ‘physiologically inconsequential’ amount
of the attribute (UNT, undated). Consumers seem to accept this as they continue to buy
these products, even though there is evidence that some consumers find these claims to be
misleading (e.g. in the case of ‘fat free’ products) and consistently estimate that the actual
levels of these dietary components in the product are lower than the threshold limits (Chan,
2005; Resnick, 1998).
Noussair et al. (2004) considered whether consumers perceive a difference between two
different (hypothetical) threshold levels – 0.1% and 1%. They found that consumers viewed a
hypothetical 0.1% threshold level as different from a GM(O)-free guarantee. Despite this,
there was no difference in consumers’ willingness to pay for a product with a 0.1% limit and
a ‘GM(O)-free’ product, suggesting that consumers would accept this level of GM content.
But a hypothetical 1% threshold level resulted in a significant 10% reduction in willingness to
pay for the product (Noussair et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the majority of participants (89%)
were willing to purchase a product satisfying the 1% level, whilst lowering the limit to 0.1%
69

Pursuant to Decree Law 109/92 on Food Labelling

76

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

meant another 7% of participants were willing to purchase the product. Similarly, Giannakas
et al. (2011) found that an increase in the adventitious presence level reduced the price of
GM(O)-free products.
6.2.4.2.3 Threshold levels for ‘GM(O)-free’ animal product inputs (feed)
There are few precedents for the use of threshold levels in the feed inputs to animal products
beyond those required under organic legislation and positive GM labelling rules in the EU
(see section 6.2.4). A relevant example is the USDA Process Verified Program for marketing
claims on animal products that do not contain antibiotics or animal by-products. In these
cases, a threshold as such does not apply, as all animals must be fed on feed that does not
contain the specified substances from birth to slaughter.

6.2.5

Input specifications and exceptions
There are several categories of inputs to food production that can utilise GM plants or
microorganisms. The EU has to date authorised GM cotton, maize, potato, microorganisms,
oilseed rape, swede-rape,70 soybean and sugar beet for food, feed and other uses in the EU.
In addition to the direct use of GM plants and their products for food and/or feed production,
GM plants may be used to produce additives for food and/or feed. There are also veterinary
pharmaceuticals which are produced using modern biotechnology. Use of these GM inputs is
specifically prohibited from most ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes operating in the EU. Some
exceptions to these rules are granted as discussed below.

6.2.5.1

Exceptions to the use of GM processing aids / compounds for plant-based food
products
Vitamins, enzymes and amino-acids used in food processing are often produced by
genetically modified micro-organisms. They cannot be used in organic production although
the Regulation on organic production foresees the possibility of the Commission providing
exceptions to the prohibition when it would be necessary to use food and feed additives and
other substances where a non-GM equivalent is unavailable. The Commission has not
granted any such exception so far.71
Figure 6.8 illustrates potential options for a harmonised approach to this element for the
input categories related to plant-based food products. The most restrictive approach would
follow the example provided by the Netherlands where no GM inputs are allowed under any
circumstances. The least restrictive approach is the status quo scenario in which harmonised
rules do not specify whether exceptional use of GM inputs to food production are allowed.
Figure 6.8 Options for harmonised rules regarding the use of GM processing aids / compounds

6.2.5.2

Evidence and views on the use of GM processing aids / compounds for plant-based
food products
Most respondents to the survey conducted for this study indicated that a successful
harmonised EU scheme should not allow preparation aided by compounds or processing
aids containing or derived from GMOs (17 of 29 MS representatives (59 per cent), 37 of 52

70
71

Brassica naplis L.
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/expert-recommendations/1_EN_ACT_part1.pdf

77

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

national stakeholders (71 per cent) and 3 of 10 EU stakeholders (30 per cent)). Less than 30
per cent of all respondents felt that exceptions should be allowed for additives and enzymes
where non-GM alternatives are unavailable.72 Survey responses are summarised in 0 and
Figure 6.11.

72

Sectoral stakeholders at national and EU level who answered ‘yes’ included 7 producer organisations, 3 NGOs,
3 food processors/manufacturers, 1 retailer, 1 consumer organisation and 2 food sector organisation.

78

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.9

Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow preparation aided by
compounds or processing aids that contain or are derived from GMOs

“Is the following requirement important to ensure the scheme’s success?
Requirement: the scheme does not allow preparation aided by compounds or processing aids that
contain or are derived from GMOs”

37

National stakeholders

15

3

EU stakeholders

Important

7

Not important
17

MS representatives
0%

20%

12
40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.10 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow preparation aided by
compounds or processing aids that contain or are derived from GMOs, views by
sector
“Is the following requirement important to ensure the scheme’s success?
Requirement: the scheme does not allow preparation aided by compounds or processing aids that
contain or are derived from GMOs”

3

Consumers

1

6

Food industry associations

7
5

NGOs/certification bodies
Processors/manufacturers

12

Producers

11

1
Not important

4

1

Retailers

Important

6

3
2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

79

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.11 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – allowing for exceptions (additives or
enzymes)
“Should the label allow for exceptions for certain additives or enzymes where a non-GM alternative is
not available?”

15

National stakeholders

37

2

EU stakeholders

Yes

8

Off
8

MS representatives
0%

21

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.1

Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – allowing for exceptions (additives or
enzymes), views by sector

“Should the label allow for exceptions for certain additives or enzymes where a non-GM alternative is
not available?”

1

Consumers

3

2

Food industry associations

11
3

NGOs/certification bodies

3

3

Processors/manufacturers

Yes

15
7

Producers
1

Retailers

No

8
3
2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

6.2.5.3

Exceptions to the use of GM inputs for the production of animal products
GM(O)-free animal products under most public and private schemes in the EU must be
produced without the use of GM inputs, including veterinary pharmaceuticals and feed
additives. Certain exceptions may be applied, such as the use of veterinary products
produced using modern biotechnology when a non-GM equivalent is unavailable. The
following exceptions are also provided for in the EU organic regulation:
■

Use of GM veterinary pharmaceuticals:
–

Organic production should be based on methods that exclude the use of GMOs and
products produced from or by GMOs with the exception of veterinary medicinal
products (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, Article 4 (a)(iii)).

–

The use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or
antibiotics for preventive treatment is prohibited (Regulation (EC) No 889/2008,
Article 23).

80

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

–

■

Chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics may be
used if the use of measures including phytotherapeutic, homeopathic products and
trace elements is ineffective, and if treatment is essential to avoid animal suffering or
distress (Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, Article 24).

Use of GM feed additives is restricted to cases involving essential technological or
zootechnical needs or for particular nutritional purposes (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007,
article 7).

Figure 6.2 illustrates potential options for a harmonised approach to this element for the
input categories related to animal products. The most restrictive approach would not allow
GM inputs under any circumstances. The least restrictive approach is the status quo
scenario in which harmonised rules do not specify whether exceptional use of GM inputs to
animal product are allowed.
Figure 6.2 Options for harmonised rules regarding inputs to GM(O)-free animal production

6.2.5.4

Evidence and views on the use of GM inputs for the production of animal products
A majority of respondents to the survey conducted for this study indicated that the scheme
should not allow production from animals where GM additives are used. But rules that do not
provide for exceptions would greatly restrict use of a GM(O)-free label, as is currently the
case in the Netherlands.
Views on prohibiting ‘GM(O)-free’ production from animals treated with veterinary products
made from modern biotechnology where non-GM alternatives exist were more mixed: 8 of 29
MS representatives (28 per cent), fewer than half of national stakeholders (23 of 52, or 44
per cent) and less than one third of EU stakeholders (3 of 10) considered this an important
element.
Respondents were also asked whether any exceptions should be allowed where non-GM
alternatives are unavailable. Forty-one per cent of MS representatives, 42 per cent of
national stakeholders and 20 per cent of EU stakeholders felt that GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals should be allowed when non-GM alternatives are unavailable.73 Survey
responses are summarised in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.5.

73

In terms of the sectors represented, approximately half of the responses across different sectors were in favour
of this exception, but processors/manufacturers mostly were not (only 1 of 9 answered ‘yes’).

81

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.3 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow production from animals
treated with GM veterinary pharmaceuticals
“Is the following requirement important to ensure the scheme’s success?
Requirement: the scheme does not allow production (including meat, dairy, eggs, etc.) from animals
treated with veterinary products produced with modern biotechnology where non-GM alternatives exist”

23

National stakeholders

EU stakeholders

3

MS representatives

8

29
Important

7

Not important

0%

21

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.4 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – does not allow production from animals
treated with GM veterinary pharmaceuticals
“Is the following requirement important to ensure the scheme’s success?
Requirement: the scheme does not allow production (including meat, dairy, eggs, etc.) from animals
treated with veterinary products produced with modern biotechnology where non-GM alternatives exist”

Consumers

1

Food industry associations

4

3
9

NGOs/certification bodies

4

2

Processors/manufacturers

11

7

4

Producers

4

Other

2
20%

Not important

11

Retailers

0%

Important

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

82

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.5 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – exceptions for the use of GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals
“Should the label allow for exceptions for GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a non-GM alternative
is not available?”

22

National stakeholders

30

2

EU stakeholders

Yes

8

Off
12

MS representatives
0%

17

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

Figure 6.6 Elements of a successful harmonised scheme – exceptions for the use of GM veterinary
pharmaceuticals
“Should the label allow for exceptions for GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a non-GM alternative
is not available?”

1

Consumers

3
4

Food industry associations

9
4

NGOs/certification bodies

2

4

Processors/manufacturers

Yes

14
9

Producers
2

Retailers

No

6
2
2

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

6.2.6

Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals
Process-based approaches to assuring ‘GM(O)-free’ status have been adopted for GM(O)free labelling schemes involving animal products. Animal products are specifically excluded
from the rules governing positive GM labelling set out in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and
Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 on GM food and feed. ‘Negative labelling’ for animal products
is neither forbidden nor specifically regulated, but general food labelling rules apply. GM
presence cannot be detected through analytic methods in the final product, therefore, where
negative labelling schemes have been developed for animal products, process-based
approaches to assuring ‘GM(O)-free’ status have been adopted.
The baseline data demonstrate that where Member States have regulated GM(O)-free
labelling, minimum non-GM feeding times for animals vary with respect to:
■

The amount of time that animals must be fed on non-GM feed;
83

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

The type of product/animal species covered; and

■

The way in which the non-GM feeding time is specified (i.e. as the time from birth, the
time from production/slaughter, or the total period of fattening during which non-GM feed
must be used).

There are three main options to consider for minimum non-GM feeding time requirements in
an EU harmonised GM(O)-free scheme:
■

A requirement that all animals must be fed on non-GM feed from birth – the strictest
approach and the one used by most private operators and the Netherlands;

■

Requirements that vary by species, which allow for some period of feeding on GM feed,
but harmonise practice across Member States in terms of the length of time that non-GM
feed must be used before slaughter/production; and

■

The EU rules do not specify minimum non-GM feeding times and so provide flexibility for
Member States and operators to apply their own rules.

Figure 6.7 illustrates the options identified for this element.
Figure 6.7 Options to consider for minimum non-GM feeding times for animals

Rules governing use of animal feed have been established for food which is sold in the EU
as organic. EU organic labelling rules (Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) require livestock to be
fed with organic feed which should come from the farm itself or from other organic holdings
in the same region. The use of non-organic feed must be authorised for use in organic
farming by the European Commission. Animal products can only be sold as organic
(Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) if they come from animals fed with organic feed for at least:

6.2.6.2

■

12 months in the case of equidae and bovines for meat production, and in any case at
least three quarters of their lifetime;

■

Six months in the case of small ruminants, pigs and animals for milk production;

■

10 weeks for poultry meat production, introduced before they are three days old; and

■

Six weeks in the case of poultry for egg production.

Evidence and views on the use of GM inputs for the production of animal products
Research suggests that many consumers assume that a ‘GM(O)-free’ label on an animal
product indicates that the animal has never been fed on GM feed. For instance, research
has shown that 60 per cent of UK consumers expect that animals are fed on non-GM feed
from birth, not only during the period of fattening (FSA, 2012). Survey responses for this
study indicate a preference for non-GM feeding from birth, rather than providing for minimum
non-GM feeding periods before slaughter/production: only 6 of 24 MS representatives (25

84

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

per cent) and 7 of 51 national stakeholders (13 per cent) felt that minimum non-GM feeding
periods should be included.74
In the US, the USDA Process Verified Program (USDA, 2004) sets the requirements related
to marketing programmes for agricultural products. Such requirements include the rules for
marketing claims for animal products, such as 'No Antibiotics' or 'No Animal By-Products'.
Producers can apply to the USDA Process Verified Program and have their quality
management system audited by the USDA. If the requirements set by the USDA are met,
operators can use negative claims alongside with the label 'USDA Process Verified' on their
products. In the case of meat products, examples of requirements for negative claims are
presented in Table 6.5. The listed negative claims can only be used if the animal has not
been fed with the specified substances from birth to slaughter; therefore no minimum feeding
times are set.
Table 6.5 USDA Process Verified Program 'Never Ever 3'
Claim

Requirement

No Antibiotics –
Never Ever

No antibiotics can be administered whether through feed, water, or by injection,
from birth to slaughter. Exceptions are foreseen for a specific type of antibiotics
(ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control).

No Growth
Promotants –
Never Ever

The administration of growth hormones, including natural hormones, synthetic
hormones, estrus suppressants, beta agonists, or other synthetic growth
promotants is prohibited from birth to slaughter.

No Animal ByProducts – Never
Ever

Mammalian and avian by-products are not allowed in the feed. These byproducts include animal waste (e.g. poultry litter) and by-products derived from
the slaughter/harvest process including meat and fat. Fish by-products and
vitamin and mineral supplementation are permissible.

Source: USDA 2009

6.2.7

Certification, controls and monitoring
Certification allows operators to demonstrate to other operators and to their customers that
they meet certain standards. Certification refers to inspections of an individual scheme
member against the agreed standards for that scheme. Inspections are conducted by an
authorised certification body. Inspection and monitoring procedures are used to check that
scheme standards are met in practice.
Certification, inspection and monitoring requirements could be incorporated into harmonised
rules for ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling under two conditions:
■

If harmonised ‘GM(O)’-free legislation is put in place at EU level, the legislation:
–

Could require that these claims are backed by certification provided by certification
bodies accredited to the European standard EN 45011 or ISO/IEC 17065:2012. This
is the approach taken, for example, in Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin, or

–

Could be silent on certification requirements.

Inspection and monitoring procedures could also be specified.
■

The Commission could choose to provide guidelines on certification approaches for
Member States and private operators to follow or to make no mention of certification
approaches. Guidance on inspection and monitoring procedures could also be included.

If prohibitive legislation is chosen, certification approaches would not need to be specified.
Figure 6.8 illustrates the options identified for this element.

74

National stakeholders who answered ‘yes’ include 3 producer organisations, 1 NGO, 1 retailer and 2 food
sector organisations.

85

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.8 Options to consider for certification, inspection and monitoring rules

Governments typically do not provide certification themselves, but rather delegate these
responsibilities to certification bodies approved by accreditation services that meet European
standard EN 45011 or the International Organization for Standards ISO/IEC 17065:2012
‘Conformity assessment -- Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and
services’. Rules on the organisation and operation of accreditation of bodies performing
conformity assessment activities in the EU are defined in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.
Inspections and monitoring may include self-controls by the operators themselves, oversight
by certification bodies, and/or checks by public authorities. In the case of organic production,
Member States are responsible for setting up a system of controls and designate the
competent authorities responsible for controls in conformity with Regulation (EC) No
882/2004 on Official Controls and with Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic
production and labelling. The competent authority can delegate control tasks to accredited
control bodies.
6.2.7.2

Evidence and views on certification, inspection and monitoring rules
A study conducted by Soregaroli and Boccaletti (2003) on consumers’ acceptance of GM
food products in Italy found that consumers’ perception of the reliability of a GM(O)-free food
label depends mostly on the presence of an external certifying institution. Almost 30 per cent
of respondents trusted the government to control the certification system, while the share of
respondents who would trust a brand or a store was much smaller. Almost 20 per cent of the
sample declared they would never trust such labels.
The literature suggests that monitoring and enforcement procedures are also very important
for increasing consumer confidence in a product. A framework for compliance is crucial to
assure consumers that the information provided on a label is truthful and not misleading
(Einsiedel, 2001), even for a voluntary labelling scheme. This is difficult when the label relies
on an audit trail rather than tests.
Most consumers and organisations advocating for labelling in Germany, India and the UK
prefer a product-based labelling approach instead (Einsiedel, 2000; Miles et al., 2005;
Bansal et al., 2007 in Henseleit et al., 2009). Proponents of product-based regulations argue
that this approach benefits consumers because it results in an increased variety of ‘GM(O)free’ products on the shelves. This is due to the fact that product-based labelling standards
are easier both to comply with and control compared to process-based labelling standards
(Gruere and Rao, 2007). Those who favour process-based controls, on the other hand,
argue that consumers expect a ‘GM(O)-free’ labelled product to have been produced without
any form of genetic engineering throughout the production process. Accordingly, ‘GM(O)free’ labels are only beneficial for consumers if they provide this kind of information
(Henseleit et al., 2009).

86

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

6.3

Interplay with and added-value compared to PDO/PGI and organic labelling
The assessment of elements that could comprise a harmonised EU approach to GM(O)-free
labelling should consider the interplay with, and added-value compared to, other EU level
labelling schemes including PDO/PGI and organic labelling.

6.3.1

PDO/PGI
The EU introduced a system to protect and promote traditional and regional food products in
1992. It was inspired by existing national systems such as the French AOC (Appellation
d’Origine Contrôlée) and the Italian DOC (Denominazione d’Origine Controllata) both used in
the wine industry. Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 protects specific product names which can
be proven to be linked to territory or to a method of production.
The protection given to geographical indications75 at international level is considerably
enhanced by the TRIPS Agreement.76 The EU has further consolidated this protection with
the rationale that quality products are protected from the misleading use of their
geographical names on other products, which could confuse consumers. If not protected, the
Commission argues that the value of such products can be eroded and consumers shortchanged.77
In order to carry a geographical indication, the applicant for the indication must establish the
link between the product and the geographical area to demonstrate why a product is
associated with one particular area and not another. The specification or technical file must
show how the characteristics of a particular region affect a product in a way that other
regions cannot. This means that evidence must be provided regarding how the soil type,
topography, climate/microclimate, vegetation, etc. influence the final product. Proof of local
know-how and production skills strengthen the connection between the geographical area,
the quality product and the community.
The EU Regulation on protected food names does not mention any ‘GM(O)-free’
requirements and applicants for the designation are not prohibited from stating that their
production processes or ingredients are ‘GM(O)-free’. Rather, EU law provides eligibility
guidelines for potential applicants with an emphasis on proving the specific unique qualities
intrinsic in the product or the traditional methodology used to produce the product. Applicants
may specify GM(O)-free features as part of the link between the geographical area,
production methods and the quality product. General food labelling laws under Directive
2000/13/EC apply. Some French cheeses currently include a non-GM component to their
designation as described in Chapter 3.

6.3.2

Organic
In contrast to PDO/PGI designations in the EU, organic products do require a ‘GM(O)-free’
production process. In this context, it is important to consider whether a stand-alone GM(O)free label is necessary given the presence and availability of organic products. Gifford and
Bernard (2008) suggest that there is value in a separate GM(O)-free market, although it is
likely to be much smaller than the organic market.
The importance of an organic versus GM(O)-free label to consumers may vary depending on
the product, and customers may value particular organic attributes more than others. For
example, for some organic products the issue of pesticide-avoidance is most valued by
consumers, whilst in other cases the lack of GMOs is valued most highly (Bernard and
Bernard, 2010). A public consultation undertaken by DG AGRI in 2013 found that the
‘GM(O)-free’ attribute was the second most important feature of organic products, behind

75

Geographical Indications are covered by the following: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected
Geographical Indication (PGI), and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG).
76
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
77
Paragraph taken from the “Fact Sheet” issued by the European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture
and Rural Development

87

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

concern about the environment (80.8% of respondents choose organic because of its
‘GM(O)-free’ quality, while 82.5% of respondents choose organic because of concern about
the environment).78 The GM(O)-free attribute was ranked slightly higher than avoiding foods
with pesticide residues (79.8%).79
The opportunity to purchase a product with a single additional desirable attribute may be
particularly attractive if the product is slightly cheaper than the organic alternative, even if it is
still more expensive than the conventional product. For instance, Bernard and Mathios
(2005) found that the premium for organic milk is $0.73 per gallon, while for rBST-free milk it
is only $0.26 per gallon. It is therefore unclear whether organic products are substitutable for
GM(O)-free products. There may be some consumers who would want to purchase GM(O)free products (e.g. at a small premium), but who are unwilling to pay a higher premium for an
organic product which combines other attributes which are not of interest to them. The price
premium associated with organic can lead consumers to avoid the organic market despite
believing that organic attributes are nonetheless important (Abrams et al., 2010).
It is also unclear whether consumers realise that organic products are also ‘GM(O)-free’.
One study found that knowledge of organic tends to be limited to the rules governing use of
pesticides and antibiotics (Gifford and Bernard, 2008). In another, only about 23.5 per cent
and 10.6 per cent of respondents thought that the Austrian Organic and European Organic
labels, respectively, guarantee a product is GM(O)-free.
Seventy-eight per cent of Member State respondents (21) to the questionnaire sent out for
this study saw no added value to dual labelling, often citing the existing association between
the ‘organic’ label and ‘the lowest possible presence’ of GMOs as sufficient. Some Member
State representatives (Latvia, Romania, Ireland and Denmark) added that consumers are
already aware of this association, and that dual labelling would be misleading or
unnecessary. Dissenters to this majority view see explicit labelling as beneficial insofar as it
is made clear that the GM(O)-free label goes beyond the 0.9 per cent threshold towards a
zero-tolerance approach.
Nine out of ten EU-level stakeholder respondents to this question saw no added value in
having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labels alongside organic schemes. All nine justified their
response by stating that GM(O)-free requirements are already part of the organic legislation.
A majority of MS representatives (21 out of 29, 72 per cent) also believes that there is no
added value in having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling alongside organic labelling. Stakeholder
responses at national level were more mixed, with 23 out of the 52 respondents (44 per cent)
believing there is added value for the consumer to be gained from this additional/more
explicit information, particularly if this were to mean a shift towards a zero-tolerance
approach. Survey results regarding views on dual labelling are presented in Figure 6.9.

78
DG AGRI (2013) ‘Consultation for the review of the European policy on organic agriculture’,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/organic/2013_en.htm.
79
Non-representative sample of 44,190 contributions from across the EU; 56% of the respondents were based in
France, followed by 15% in Italy. The distribution by MS is similar to participation in other DG AGRI consultations.
Ninety-six per cent of those surveyed identified themselves as responding as a ‘citizen of the EU’, followed by
2.29% contributing ‘on behalf of a company’. Forty-nine per cent of respondents identified as a ‘farmer’, followed
by 10% as a ‘consumer’, 9% as a ‘processor’ and 9% as ‘other.

88

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 6.9 Organic and GM(O)-free labels
“Do you think there is added value in having explicit “GM(O)-free” labelling alongside organic product
belling?”

23

National stakeholders

29

1

EU stakeholders

Yes

9

No
8

MS representatives
0%

21

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: in total there were 52 national stakeholders, 10 EU level stakeholders and 29 MS respondents.

A large majority of processors/manufacturers (14 out of18), a majority of producers (10 out
of15) and food industry associations (9 out of 13) did not see added value in a GM(O)-free
label, while the majority of consumer associations (3 out of 4) and retailers (3 out of 4) and
two thirds of NGOs/certification bodies (4 out of 6) favoured dual labelling. Survey responses
are summarised in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10

Organic and GM(O)-free labels, views by sector

“Do you think there is added value in having explicit “GM(O)-free” labelling alongside organic product
labelling?”

1

3

Consumers

9

4

Food industry associations

2

4

NGOs/certification bodies

No

10

5

Producers

Yes

14

4

Processors/manufacturers

1

3

Retailers

1

1

Other
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: total sectoral respondents were 4 consumers associations, 13 food industry associations, 6
NGOs/certification bodies, 18 processors/manufacturers, 15 producers, 4 retailers and 2 other
organisations (one research centre and one municipality).

89

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7

Appraisal of elements to include in a harmonised approach
This chapter provides an appraisal of elements that could be included in a harmonised
approach to GM(O)-free labelling in the EU. Each element is considered on its own merits,
drawing on available evidence to assess the areas for which the impacts are likely to be
most significant and/or where there are uncertain outcomes or conflicting information makes
it difficult to determine the most likely direction of change arising from a particular choice.
Discussion on each element focuses on consumer responses to particular aspects of an
element’s specification and economic impacts on operators.
Most of the expected impacts will be similar for each element, but vary by the approach
chosen (e.g. very strict or very relaxed criteria for each element). The chapter concludes with
an assessment of the elements in combination, considering the potential approaches that
might be taken and possible combinations of elements.

7.1

Approach to the appraisal of elements and options
The assessment considers potential impacts on consumers, operators and national
authorities of elements that may comprise a harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling
against the interaction with and value-added compared to EU organic rules and according to
the following assessment categories:
■

Economic impacts,

■

Social impacts,

■

Trade impacts,

■

Consumer impacts, and

■

Environmental impacts.

Table 7.1 sets out the impact categories and associated indicators that the study team
considered to conduct a preliminary impact assessment of a harmonised approach. The
types of data that may be used to support the assessment are provided alongside the impact
categories and associated indicators.
The assessment draws on evidence gathered in the first phase of the study, including
information provided through stakeholders and Member State representative interviews and
survey responses, as well as information obtained through desk research, including
academic articles, position papers, stakeholder reports, Eurobarometer surveys,
Commission studies, and other information.
Table 7.1 Assessment of a harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling
Impact category

Indicators

Data

Economic
impacts

Market share, sales
volume, product coverage,
number of products on the
market , price premium,
cost and availability of nonGM feed and other non-GM
inputs, and ability to reduce
or resolve single market
problems and create a level
playing field for operators

■

quantitative data on existing GM(O)-free
market share / coverage where these are
available

■

quantitative information on the price premium
obtained from GM(O)-free products where
available

■

quantitative information on the cost of non-GM
feed

■

qualitative information about the availability
and issues in procuring non-GM inputs

■

qualitative information on single market issues
and level playing field for operators provided
by stakeholders and MS representatives

■

indicative information on sector employment
based on current market share/product volume

Social impacts

Employment effects

90

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Impact category

Indicators

Data
in the EU

Trade impacts

Consumer
impacts

Environmental
impacts

7.2

Degree of international
trade in ‘GM(O)-free’
products, and non-GM
supply chains originating in
third countries

Ability to reduce consumer
confusion, not mislead
consumers, and meet
consumer
needs/purchasing power

Environmental benefits and
harms arising from non-GM
production vs. GM
production, and other
environmental effects that
may arise from the
production processes
involved in GM(O)-free
schemes

■

consideration of potential for similar schemes
to lead to employment growth (e.g. by looking
at results in other schemes such as organic,
PDO/PGI, other qualitative labels

■

qualitative information from operators and
others on the degree of international trade or
potential trade in ‘GM(O)-free’ products

■

qualitative information on inputs originating in
third countries and any issues with their
procurement

■

quantitative information on the volume of nonGM inputs originating in third countries

■

literature on consumer understanding of
labels, including ‘GM’ ‘GM-free’ and other
similar labels

■

stakeholder and MS representative views on
consumer demand for and understanding of
GM(O)-free labels

■

Willingness to pay/financial capacity to cope
with GM(O)-free products costs.

■

scientific studies on environmental benefits
and harms arising from non-GM vs. GM
production

■

literature review on the environmental
effects/potential that may arise from increased
use of non-GM production, such as where
environmentally friendly practices may be
more common but not directly related to the
environmental impacts of GM/non-GM
production

Element 1: Labelling rules
There are three possible approaches to the inclusion of labelling rules. Each of these is
considered below, including the main issues and expected consumer and economic impacts
to be considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising from the different
options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and consumer impacts in
Table 7.2.

7.2.1

Most restrictive option – prohibitive labelling rules do not allow for any wording
or logos that indicate ‘GM(O)-free’
Prohibitive labelling rules would ban any wording or logos on products that indicate ‘GM(O)free’ status. Only two Member States currently have such rules – Sweden and Belgium. A
restrictive approach would remove all GM(O)-free labelled products from the market.

7.2.1.1

Consumer impacts
This approach would reduce or remove consumer confusion / misleading information arising
from the current EU situation in Austria, France, Germany, and Italy where GM(O)-free
labelled products appear widely (see section 5.1). Consumer demand for GM(O)-free
labelled products would go unmet, however, because no such products would appear on the
EU market.
91

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.2.1.2

Economic impacts
The disappearance of GM(O)-free labelled products from the EU market would have
negative economic impacts on operators supplying these markets (see section 4.2). Price
premia for non-GM feed and other inputs may be reduced or eliminated. Some operators in
the middle of the supply chain may, however, find that costs are reduced as they are no
longer required to meet additional requirements for non-GM supply chains (see section 4.3).
Nonetheless, operators may still try to meet demand for ‘GM(O)-free’ products by
maintaining non-GM supply chains as currently occurs in the UK for some supermarket ‘own
label’ products (see section 3.5.5). Additionally, unless the legislation was wider in scope,
marketing materials could be used to make claims about the ‘GM(O)-free’ status of the
products even where explicit product labels are banned, as currently occurs in Sweden (see
section 3.5.5). This would provide an opportunity for such products to remain on the market,
although market share would likely be reduced.

7.2.2

Intermediate option – ‘facilitative’ labelling rules that specify allowed words
and/or provide for a common logo
An intermediate option would provide for ‘facilitative’ labelling that specifies harmonised
words and/or provides for a common EU logo for GM(O)-free products.

7.2.2.1

Consumer impacts
A harmonised voluntary labelling approach that introduces a common vocabulary and/or a
common logo may help to reduce consumer confusion arising from multiple labels in different
EU Member States. Evidence suggests that consumers may be confused by the appearance
of a second label in addition to existing positive labels and unlabelled plant-based food
products in the EU (see section 6.2.4.2). Additionally, the High Level Forum for a Better
Functioning Food Supply Chain recognises the risk that labelling proliferation can confuse
consumers (see section 6.2.2.2).
A concern with the introduction of harmonised labelling for GM(O)-free products in the EU is
the potential for widespread use of a second label related to the use of GM products. Studies
show that consumers value products differently when there are two labels on the market in
addition to an unlabelled product. The presence of a GM(O)-free label may decrease
consumer trust in products carrying the mandatory GM label and decrease the value of
unlabelled products. Consumers are likely to be confused where two labels and an
unlabelled category coexist, particularly with regard to the unlabelled category. There is also
the potential for GM(O)-free labels to affect consumer attitudes toward GM labelled products
as GM(O)-free products are likely to be viewed as superior to GM labelled products, or
reinforce and further emphasise the view that GM products carry risks. Nonetheless, a
‘second label’ already exists in some EU Member States where GM(O)-free labelling is used
(e.g. Germany, Austria, France, Italy) and there is no evidence to suggest that this is causing
consumer confusion in these countries.
The interaction between organic and GM(O)-free labels is uncertain. The two markets may
be able to co-exist, for example, where a less expensive, stand-alone GM(O)-free label
enables consumers to select for that attribute in the market. Where such a label may be
used alongside organic labels, the requirements of the GM(O)-free label would need to be
stricter than the non-GM requirements for organic in order to add value and reduce
consumer confusion (see section 6.3.2).
Nonetheless, consumers may find it easier to identify and understand GM(O)-free labels
where a single, consistent logo and/or wording is allowed. Lessons may be learnt from the
development of an EU harmonised logo for organic products to facilitate consumer
identification of these products across Europe.

7.2.2.2

Economic impacts
Harmonised voluntary rules for wording and/or a logo could have positive impacts on EU
operators as increased recognisability and potential improvement in consumer trust in the
92

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

standards underlying the label (due to the appearance of harmonisation through a common
logo/words) expands the market share of such products. Harmonised rules would also
enable the smooth operation of the single market, reducing costs on operators where crossborder trade is currently restricted (see section 5.2.2). Most GM(O)-free products are
typically produced specifically for a national market, however, so the need for a single logo
and wording may be less important.

7.2.3

Least restrictive option – facilitative labelling rules that do not specify allowed
words or logo but provide guidelines for MS and operators
This option involves facilitative voluntary labelling rules that would not specify the precise
words that may be used or a common logo but would provide guidelines to enable operators
to establish their own labelling approaches.

7.2.3.1

Consumer impacts
Most GM(O)-free products are developed for national markets, rather than for sale across
different EU Member States. In the large majority of cases, guidelines would be sufficient to
help operators develop suitable labels that meet existing EU labelling requirements to avoid
misleading consumers. Nonetheless, there is some existing cross-border trade, such as
between Austria and Germany and between these countries and France. For these and
other similar situations, common rules could help consumers so that multiple labels do not
create confusion.

7.2.3.2

Economic impacts
EU guidelines for acceptable wording and/or use of a logo could have positive impacts on
EU operators as they could engender greater confidence for operators to develop labelling
that conforms to existing EU labelling rules. Such an approach has been taken in Finland
(see section 3.1.2.7). Hybrid approaches are also possible: France has set down rules
regarding the wording that may be used, but has not specified a logo; Austria provides
guidelines on acceptable wording, but operators are free to use their own logo if they choose
(see section 3.5.1). Most GM(O)-free products are typically produced specifically for a
national market so that EU rules for common wording and/or a logo may be less important.
The introduction of GM(O)-free certification in the UK for food products that may carry the
German ‘Ohne GenTechnik’ mark, both for export to Germany and for domestic consumers
suggests that the private sector can develop approaches that facilitate the smooth
functioning of the single market without government intervention. Guidelines could help bring
consistency to private sector approaches such as this one.

93

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.2 Element 1: Labelling rules
Most restrictive option

Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Impacts

Prohibitive labelling rules do not allow for any wording or
logos that indicate ‘GM(O)-free’

Facilitative voluntary labelling rules specify allowed
words and/or provide for a common logo

Facilitative voluntary labelling rules through
guidelines to assist MS and operators, but does
not specify wording, logo, etc.

Consumer

Reduces or removes consumer confusion / misleading
information arising from the current EU situation in AT,
FR, DE and IT where GM(O)-free labelled products
appear widely. Consumer demand for GM(O)-free
labelled products would go unmet because no products
would appear on the EU market.

May reduce consumer confusion arising from
multiple labels in different EU MS. Evidence also
suggests that consumers may be confused by the
appearance of a second label in addition to
existing positive labels and unlabelled products in
the EU.

Guidelines may be sufficient to help operators
develop suitable labels that avoid misleading
the consumer, but common rules may
facilitate the limited cross-border trade.

Economic

Negative economic impacts on operators supplying
GM(O)-free markets. Price premia for non-GM feed and
other inputs may be reduced or eliminated. Some
operators in the middle of the supply chain may find that
costs are reduced as they are no longer required to
meet additional requirements for non-GM supply chains.

Positive impacts on EU operators through
expanded market share of products; enables the
smooth operation of the single market.

Potential positive impacts on EU operators as
it could create greater confidence for
operators to develop labelling that conforms
to existing EU labelling rules and thus expand
the market share of such products.

Social*

Some job loss across the supply chain may occur where
operators can no longer produce such products. Job
losses expected to be limited due to the niche
representation of the sector. Effects likely to vary
considerably by MS, with greatest potential negative
impacts in those MS where GM(O)-free labelling activity
is currently highest

Increased market share is likely to lead to some
job creation for GM(O)-free labelled products. This
is particularly likely in countries that do not
currently have such products on the market.

Any increased market share is likely to lead
to some job creation for GM(O)-free labelled
products. This is particularly likely in countries
that do not currently have such products on
the market.

Other issues80

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.

80

GMOs authorised for use on the EU market (whether cultivated in the EU or imported) must pass an environmental risk assessment (ERA) prior to deliberate release. From a
regulatory perspective, the production of GM(O)-free labelled products is not linked to any particular environmental benefits or drawbacks in the EU. Therefore, changes to the
current situation are unlikely to have impacts in this area.

94

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.3

Element 2: Product scope
There are two possible approaches to defining the product scope for GM(O)-free labels.
Each is considered below, with a discussion of the main issues and expected consumer and
economic impacts to be considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising
from the different options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and
consumer impacts in Table 7.3.

7.3.1

Intermediate option – facilitative rules that specify a limited range of products to
be covered (i.e. only animal products)
An intermediate option would provide facilitative rules that allow only animal products to
carry a GM(O)-free label, but not all eligible products (including plant-based food products).

7.3.1.1

Consumer impacts
Given the potential problems with two labels (positive and negative) where positive labelling
is required (see section 6.2.3.2), and specific consumer interest in obtaining information
about animal products produced from animals fed on non-GM feed (see section 6.2.3.3),
there may be a case for limited GM(O)-free labelling product scope to focus exclusively on
animal products. This would provide consumers with information they wish to receive without
the misleading effects of two or more labels that may arise for food products.
EU regulations on positive GM labelling do not require animal products produced from
animals fed on GM feed to carry the positive label. Some consumers, however, consider
having this information to be an important issue (see section 6.2.3). GM(O)-free labels which
highlight this issue may not be redundant in that they service a demand unmet by existing
GM labelling policy. In this case, a GM(O)-free label may have added value in the
marketplace. For example, studies have found that the existing demand specifically for
GM(O)-free animals products (fresh meat, eggs, milk) is stronger than the demand for
labelling other products in Germany and France (see section 6.2.3.2).

7.3.1.2

Economic impacts
Limiting the product scope only to animal products would likely have negative impacts on
producers of GM(O)-free labelled plant-based food products as they could no longer be sold
as ‘GM(O)-free’. However, most GM(O)-free labelled products in the EU are animal products,
so the negative impacts will be limited (see section 3.11). Nonetheless, a more expansive
scope for GM(O)-free labelling could provide operators with more opportunities to develop
their GM(O)-free ‘offer’.

7.3.2

Least restrictive option – facilitative rules that allow any product with an
authorised GM equivalent on the EU market to be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’
The least restrictive option would allow all eligible products to be labelled as GM(O)-free.

7.3.2.1

Consumer impacts
If all products can carry a GM(O)-free label, consumers may be confused by the existence of
two labels (a positive and a negative label) and equivalent unlabelled food products (see
section 6.2.3.2).

7.3.2.2

Economic impacts
The schemes operating in the EU allow GM(O)-free labels (in principle) on all eligible food
and feed products. The least restrictive option is therefore likely to have no significant
negative economic impacts for operators in the EU, and may have positive impacts if it
enables more operators to label their products as GM(O)-free.

95

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.3 Element 2: Product scope
Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Facilitative rules that specify a limited range of products to be covered (i.e. only
animal products)

Facilitative rules that allow any product with an authorised GM equivalent
on the market to be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’

Consumer

Would provide consumers with information they wish to have about animal
products without the misleading effects of two or more labels arising for food
products.

If all products can carry a GM(O)-free label, consumers may be
confused by the existence of two labels (a positive and a negative label)
and equivalent unlabelled food products.

Economic

Negative impacts on producers of GM(O)-free labelled food products as these
labels would need to be removed from the EU market. Most such labelled
products in the EU are animal products however, so negative impacts will be
limited.

No economic impacts are anticipated

Social*

Some negative impacts on employment may occur as a result of a more
limited product scope for GM(O)-free labelled products, but due to the
overwhelming proportion of animal products on the EU market carrying this
label, the impacts are likely to be low.

Some positive impacts on employment may occur where the GM(O)-free
market can expand in the EU

Other issues81

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.

81

See footnote 81.

96

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.4

Element 3: Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable
presence
There are three possible approaches to the inclusion of threshold levels for adventitious or
technically unavoidable presence in a harmonised approach. Each of these is considered
below, including the main issues and expected consumer and economic impacts to be
considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising from the different
options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and consumer impacts in
Table 7.4.

7.4.1

Most restrictive option – <0.1% threshold for GM(O)-free labelling of plant-based
food products and animal products
The intermediate option would set the threshold level for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence at the detection limit (<0.1%). Requiring that GM(O)-free labelled
products must have <0.1% GM content is a demanding condition that is more restrictive than
current rules in some Member States under national schemes, but is the same as rules in
other MS and for schemes run by most private operators. A <0.1% threshold is easier to
meet for plant-based food products than for the feed that is used to generate animal
products.

7.4.1.1

Consumer impacts
There are numerous precedents for labels which include an indication of ‘free from’ or ‘-free’
but incorporate thresholds for food products (see section 6.2.4.2.2). There is evidence that
consumers are willing to accept a mismatch between their expectations and underlying
standards since they continue to buy such products. There are fewer examples for animal
products (see section 6.2.4.2.3). Some studies have also found that consumers understand
the practical problems of achieving a ‘zero’ level of contamination and accept that some GM
content may be present so long as the standards are sufficiently strict (see section 6.2.4.2).
Under a restrictive option, those products that currently meet a <0.1% threshold level would
remain on the market. These would primarily be food products and animal products
produced under private operator GM(O)-free schemes. Many animal products carrying a
GM(O)-free label, however, will require a less stringent threshold level of <0.9% for feed (see
economic impacts section 7.4.1.2). As a result some consumer demand for GM(O)-free
products would continue to be met and some additional products may appear, but some
consumer demand would also go unmet as the number of products for which consumers
have the greatest demand (i.e. animal products) would likely be reduced.
This option would also set a stricter threshold level than under existing organic rules. In
principle, this could mean that a GM(O)-free label creates additional value compared to
organic since the requirements for such a label would be stricter than for organic products
(see section 6.2.4). A GM(O)-free label alongside an organic label would indicate to
consumers that the product met stricter requirements than an organic product that did not
carry such a label. Nonetheless, this may also create confusion for consumers as some
consumers expect organic products to be ‘GM(O)-free’ (see section 6.3.2). This may also
reduce the value of organic products for consumers who care about the GM(O)-free status of
organic.

7.4.1.2

Economic impacts
Under the restrictive option, those products that already meet a <0.1% limit in Germany
under the national scheme for food products could continue to be marketed. Those food and
feed products that meet the same limit in France under the new legislation could also carry a
GM(O)-free label under intermediate EU rules. Similarly, Austrian operators and other EU
retailer and private operator schemes in Italy (e.g. COOP Italia and the UNI working group)
apply a voluntary <0.1% limit for food products. In the UK, supply chains developed by
retailers and manufacturers to produce animal products fed on non-GM feed would be able
to carry an explicit label under restrictive EU rules (see section 3.7).
97

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Negative economic impacts will be felt most for producers of animal products that currently
meet a <0.9% threshold level for feed, and particularly in Austria, Germany, France and Italy
where animal products represent the largest proportion of GM(O)-free labelled products.
A strict threshold level may increase the price premium for non-GM feed and other inputs
paid to producers and other suppliers, as these requirements will be more difficult to meet for
some inputs (see section 4.3.2). Strict requirements will also likely require more controls,
including analytical tests and segregation activities in production and transport, which can
increase production costs.
At the same time, stricter rules than those currently applied in some markets may increase
pressure on the supply chain for operators in the middle of the chain to bear greater costs of
adhering to stricter requirements. Additionally, if the products do not meet the stricter limit,
particularly for feed, there will be additional costs to the operator to sell these products on
the conventional market and potential losses from not achieving the price premium as
GM(O)-free. If the product cannot be sold on the conventional market, it may have to be
discarded which could result in significant losses for the operator. Market share may also
decrease for some products where the requirements are set higher than the sector can meet
(see section 4.3.3).

7.4.2

Intermediate option – threshold level set at <0.1% for plant-based food products
and <0.9% for animal products
The intermediate option would set two different threshold levels for adventitious or
technically unavoidable GM presence: one for plant-based food products at <0.1% and one
for animal products at <0.9%.

7.4.2.1

Consumer impacts
Some GM(O)-free labelling schemes set a different threshold level for plant-based food
products than for feed for the production of animal products (see section 3.7). In particular,
the threshold level for GM(O)-free labelling on animal products is often set at <0.9% for feed
whereas a stricter threshold is set for food at <0.1%.
Unlabelled food products are not ‘automatically’ GM(O)-free; they can contain GMOs up to
the 0.9% threshold so long as this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable,
according to Regulation 1829/2003. In order not to be misleading under EU food labelling
law, plant-based food products would likely need to meet a stricter threshold than <0.9% in
order to carry a GM(O)-free label (see section 6.2.4), which this option would provide. This
situation does not apply to GM(O)-free labelled animal products, which are not required to
carry a positive GM label in the EU.
This option would set the same threshold level as existing organic rules for animal products,
but a stricter threshold than for food products (see section 6.2.4). In principle, this could
mean that a GM(O)-free label does not create ‘value-added’ compared to organic for animal
products since the requirements would be the same, but may do so for plant-based food
products (see section 6.3.2). A GM(O)-free label alongside an organic label would highlight
this aspect of the standards that the organic product meets for animal products, but would
not indicate to consumers that the product met stricter requirements than an organic product
that did not carry such a label. Plant-based food products would however indicate that a
stricter requirement was being met.

7.4.2.2

Economic impacts
Consultation with stakeholders and EU Member State representatives for this study suggests
that operators in countries where no national rules are in place or where rules are currently
very restrictive would like the opportunity to provide GM(O)-free labelled products to
consumers. A <0.9% threshold level for animal products would allow all such currently
labelled GM(O)-free products to continue to be placed on the EU market. A <0.1% threshold
level for plant-based food products would allow products that currently meet this requirement
to continue to be placed on the EU market as well. Food products that do not meet the
<0.1% threshold would need to be reformulated or relabelled.
98

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

This option is particularly beneficial for operators producing GM(O)-free animal products,
which represent the greatest proportion of GM(O)-free products and many of which currently
meet a <0.9% threshold level (but not a stricter one). The proportion of ‘GM(O)-free’ plantbased food products currently on the EU market is much smaller than animal products, and
most of these already meet the stricter requirements. This option is therefore likely to have
limited negative economic impacts on GM(O)-free operators.
Previous research has found that a higher (less stringent) threshold level for GM(O)-free
food reduces the price of GM(O)-free products. Evidence suggests that price premiums will
be reduced for producers of some non-GM inputs due to less stringent standards and that
the overall value of such labelled products will also decrease because consumers will have
less confidence in these products (see section 6.2.4.2).

7.4.3

Least restrictive option – threshold levels are set at the least strict level possible in
conformity with EU positive labelling rules
The least restrictive option would set the threshold level for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence at <0.9% to conform with existing EU labelling rules for products
containing GMOs for food and/or feed.

7.4.3.1

Consumer impacts
Some GM(O)-free labelling schemes set the threshold level for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence at <0.9% for food and for feed (see section 3.7). Consumers
continue to buy these products even though research suggests that consumers find a less
restrictive requirement to be misleading (see section 6.2.4.2). Research also suggests that
consumers prefer the requirements to be as strict as possible even though they understand
the practical problems of achieving a ‘zero’ level of contamination and accept some GM
content.
Moreover, unlabelled food products are not ‘automatically’ GM(O)-free; they can contain
GMOs up to the 0.9% threshold so long as this presence is adventitious or technically
unavoidable, according to Regulation 1829/2003. In order not to be misleading under EU
food labelling law, plant-based food products would likely need to meet a stricter threshold
than <0.9% in order to carry a GM(O)-free label (see section 6.2.4). This situation does not
apply to GM(O)-free labelled animal products, which are not required to carry a positive GM
label in the EU.
The least restrictive option would allow the greatest number of products to appear on the EU
market. All products currently carrying the GM(O)-free label in the EU could continue to do
so, and more may appear, especially in countries where rules are not currently in place but
where operators would like to see enabling legislation to back a ‘GM(O)-free’ claim.
Consumer demand for GM(O)-free products would be met but the value of such products
may be diminished for some consumers. Some studies suggest that at least some
consumers would not accept high threshold levels, particularly in the EU context where GM
production is currently low. Nonetheless, animal products do not carry positive GM labels,
and it is this area where consumer demand for GM(O)-free labels is greatest. Moreover,
there are studies that suggest that consumers would accept GM(O)-free products which rely
on a limit that complies with existing threshold levels (i.e. <0.9%).
This option would set the same threshold level as existing organic rules (see section 6.2.4).
In principle, this could mean that a GM(O)-free label does not create ‘value-added’ compared
to organic since the requirements would be the same (see section 6.3.2). A GM(O)-free label
alongside an organic label would highlight this aspect of the standards that the organic
product meets, but would not indicate to consumers that the product met stricter
requirements than an organic product that did not carry such a label.

7.4.3.2

Economic impacts
Consultation with stakeholders and EU Member State representatives for this study suggests
that operators in countries where no national rules are in place or where rules are currently
very restrictive would like the opportunity to provide GM(O)-free labelled products to
99

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

consumers. A <0.9% threshold level would allow all currently labelled GM(O)-free products
to continue to be placed on the EU market. This is particularly beneficial for operators
producing GM(O)-free animal products, which represent the greatest proportion of GM(O)free products and many of which currently meet a <0.9% threshold level (but not a stricter
one).
Previous research has also found that a higher threshold level for GM(O)-free food reduces
the price of GM(O)-free products. Evidence suggests that price premiums will be reduced for
producers of some non-GM inputs due to less stringent standards and that the overall value
of such labelled products will also decrease because consumers will have less confidence in
these products (see section 6.2.4.2).
Most GM(O)-free products are already priced the same as their conventional equivalent, so a
less restrictive option is likely to reduce pressure on operators in the middle of the supply
chain, because a more liberal threshold level compared to some existing schemes will be
easier (i.e. less costly) to meet (see section 4.3.1).

100

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.4 Element 3: Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence
Most restrictive option

Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Impacts

<0.1% (threshold levels set at the strictest limit feasible with existing
analytical methods)

<0.1% for plant-based food products
<0.9% for animal products

<0.9% (above this level, GM presence must be
labelled)

Consumer

Aligns most closely with consumer expectations, but would
reduce the number of GM(O)-free labelled products appearing on
the EU market, especially for animal products (where a 0.9% limit
is currently applied).

Aligns most closely with consumer expectations for
plant-based food products, but not for animal
products. But consumer demand is greatest for
GM(O)-free labelled animal products and consumers
may thus accept a less stringent feed threshold.

Aligns least closely with consumer expectations
but allows the greatest number of products to
appear on the EU market with the label,
particularly animal products.

Economic

More demanding than some conditions applied by schemes in
AT, DE, FR and IT. Would have negative impacts on existing
GM(O)-free producers that use a lower threshold level, and
disproportionately affect animal products. Many products labelled
as GM(O)-free in these markets would need to be reformulated,
removed from the market or given an alternative label.

More demanding than some conditions currently
applied for plant-based food products, but the same as
those applied to most animal products. Negative
economic impacts likely to be limited.

The least restrictive option is likely to increase
the market share for GM(O)-free products but
may reduce the price premium paid to
producers for some inputs.

Social*

Job losses likely to disproportionately affect producers of animal
products and be concentrated where more GM(O)-free products
are produced/sold (AT, DE, FR, IT).

Unlikely to create job losses. Some jobs may also be
created due to expanded use of the GM(O)-free label
in the EU. Impacts are likely to vary across Member
States, and may be greatest in countries where
operators would like to produce such labelled products
but currently do not.

Some jobs may be created due to expanded
use of the GM(O)-free label in the EU. Impacts
are likely to vary across Member States, and
may be greatest in countries where operators
would like to produce such labelled products
but currently do not.

Some trade may be at risk where GM(O)-free inputs are procured
from third countries, particularly for soya, but the impacts are
likely to be less than under a very restrictive approach.

Trade opportunities may increase for third country
suppliers if harmonisation results in expanded use of
the GM(O)-free label in the EU.

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

Trade opportunities may increase for third
country suppliers as they are more likely to be
able to meet less stringent requirements than
those set by some operators and in some MS.

Job gains may occur where GM(O)-free products are developed
in MS where it is currently not allowed or where operators wish to
have EU rules underlying their approach.
A small number of jobs may be created due to increased demand
for analytic methods to detect GM presence.
Other issues82

No environmental impacts are anticipated
* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.

82

See footnote 81.

101

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.5

Element 4: Input specifications and exemptions
There are three possible approaches to the inclusion of input specifications and exemptions.
Each is considered below, including the main issues and consumer and economic impacts to
be considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising from the different
options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and consumer impacts in
Table 7.5.

7.5.1

Most restrictive option – no GM inputs allowed and no exceptions made
A very restrictive approach that does not provide for any exceptions to the use of non-GM
inputs is a demanding condition that is more restrictive than current rules in most Member
States (see section 6.2.5).

7.5.1.1

Consumer impacts
As in the case of <0.1% threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM
presence in all labelled products, strict rules that do not provide any exceptions for GM
inputs are most likely to meet consumer expectations for GM(O)-free products. Equally, very
strict rules would greatly limit the availability of such products on the EU market, as most
existing schemes provide exceptions, particularly for the use of veterinary pharmaceuticals
where a non-GM alternative is unavailable (see section 3.8). As currently under the
legislation in the Netherlands and the guidelines in Finland, very few if any products would
appear on the EU market with a GM(O)-free label.
Impacts will be greatest on consumers in Austria, Germany, France and Italy where GM(O)free labels are most widely used and have been in use for the longest, and where exceptions
are the least restrictive (see section 3.8.1). Impacts will also be felt in Slovenia, where
GM(O)-free labels have come into recent use.
Organic production does not allow for any exceptions to GM inputs except in the case of
veterinary pharmaceuticals where a non-GM alternative is unavailable (see section 6.2.5).
Organic rules would also allow an exception for vitamins, enzymes and amino-acids where a
non-GM alternative is unavailable, but has so far not granted such an exception. A GM(O)free labelling scheme that did not allow any exceptions would therefore be stricter than EU
organic rules.

7.5.1.2

Economic impacts
A restrictive approach to providing exceptions for the use of non-GM inputs would have
negative economic impacts on EU operators because it would reduce the market share of
such products to at or near zero in the EU. Most existing GM(O)-free-labelled products in the
EU would disappear. This would have the greatest negative economic impact on operators in
Austria, Germany and France, where GM(O)-free labelled products have been produced the
longest and already represent significant market share to some operators (see section 3.11).
Negative impacts will be lowest in those Member States that currently maintain similar
standards, such as Finland.
Very restrictive rules may also help relieve pressure on the supply chain to meet GM(O)-free
requirements since a restrictive approach would effectively eliminate GM(O)-free labelling,
resulting in a return to ‘conventional’ production without the extra (more costly) measures to
maintain GM(O)-free standards. Operators may choose to maintain unlabelled, non-GM
supply chains, which would offset this effect (see section 3.4)
Consumers may decide to purchase more organic products to meet the demand for ‘GM(O)free’ products, which could increase the market share for organic in the EU and benefit these
operators. Nonetheless, it is unclear that organic products are a substitute for ‘GM(O)-free’
products and organic requirements are much broader than those for GM(O)-free (and
therefore more demanding for some production-related aspects, such as the use of
pesticides) (see section 6.3.2). Thus the organic market may be unable to compensate for
the loss in the GM(O)-free market to EU operators.
102

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.5.2

Intermediate option – no GM inputs allowed, but some exceptions made
An intermediate option would provide exceptions to the ban on GM inputs in extreme cases,
such as where a non-GM veterinary product is unavailable or where exceptions to the use of
additives and enzymes would only be granted at EU level on a case-by-case basis as under
organic rules.

7.5.2.1

Consumer impacts
Existing national GM(O)-free labelling rules and EU organic rules provide for an exception in
the case of veterinary pharmaceuticals where a non-GM alternative is unavailable (except for
labelling guidelines in Finland) (see sections 3.8 and 6.2.5). In Member States with very
restrictive rules, such as the Netherlands, there are virtually no labelled products on the
market, despite allowing for the use of GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a non-GM
alternative is unavailable (see section 3.11).
Organic rules also restrict the use of additives and enzymes, and these have so far not been
granted any exceptions for their use (see section 6.2.5.1). An intermediate approach would
restrict the number of GM(O)-free products available on the EU market. Nonetheless, there
is a flourishing market for organic products in the EU which suggests that an intermediate
option using a similar approach would still allow many GM(O)-free products to appear on the
EU market to meet consumer demand.

7.5.2.2

Economic impacts
An intermediate option would effectively harmonise conditions currently applied by schemes
in Austria, Germany and France (see section 3.8.1). An intermediate option with strict rules
for the use of non-GM inputs may increase the price premium for non-GM feed and other
inputs paid to producers and other suppliers, as these requirements will be more difficult to
meet for some inputs. Stricter rules than those currently applied in some markets may also
increase downward pressure on the supply chain for operators in the middle of the chain to
bear greater costs of adhering to stricter requirements.
EU organic rules set similarly strict rules to the intermediate option proposed here, and the
organic sector is growing in the EU (see sections 6.2.5 and 4.2.6). Strict rules on the use of
non-GM inputs may not have a considerable impact on GM(O)-free products available in the
EU and therefore, would not have high negative economic impacts on GM(O)-free operators
as would likely be the case under the most restrictive option.

7.5.3

Least restrictive option – GM inputs excluded but no specific mention of
exceptions made
The least restrictive option would exclude the use of GM inputs but would not specify any
rules regarding exceptions.

7.5.3.1

Consumer impacts
Rules regarding input specifications and exceptions vary to some degree across Member
States where GM(O)-free rules are in place. In countries that wish to facilitate such labelling,
exceptions are made in some cases where a non-GM alternative is un available (Austria,
France, Germany) (see section 3.8.1). In countries that wish to restrict such labelling,
exceptions are only made for veterinary pharmaceuticals or not at all (Finland, Netherlands,
Sweden, Switzerland). Where no specific mention of rules on inputs and exceptions are
made, Member States are likely to continue to use their existing rules which will likely lead to
an effective ‘status quo’ situation. Consumer demand will continue to be met as it currently is
under national and private operator schemes. Least restrictive rules are more likely to be
seen as misleading by consumers, however.
Organic rules are more restrictive on these issues (see section 6.2.5); least restrictive
GM(O)-free labelling rules would therefore be more relaxed than existing organic rules and
would be less likely to be considered ‘value-added’ compared to organic for EU consumers
(see section 6.3.2).
103

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.5.3.2

Economic impacts
Consultation with stakeholders and EU Member State representatives for this study suggests
that operators in countries where no national rules are in place or where rules are currently
very restrictive would like the opportunity to provide such labelled products to consumers.
Flexibility on the rules for exceptions to the use of non-GM inputs will also allow all currently
labelled GM(O)-free products to continue to be placed on the EU market.
Evidence suggests that price premiums will be reduced for producers of some non-GM
inputs due to less stringent standards that could more easily be met. The overall value of
such labelled products will also likely decrease because consumers will have less
confidence in these products.
Nonetheless, where no specific mention of rules on inputs and exceptions are made,
Member States are likely to continue to use their existing rules which will likely lead to an
effective ‘status quo’ situation for GM(O)-free labelled products.

104

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.5 Element 4: Input specifications and exemptions
Most restrictive option

Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Impact

No GM inputs allowed and no exceptions made

No GM inputs allowed, but some exceptions made

GM inputs excluded but no specific mention of
exceptions made

Consumer

Avoids the potential for confusion. Informed consumers
content with existing GM(O)-free systems would be
unable to exercise their preferences unless alternative
labelling schemes were developed by producers.

Would not align as closely with consumer
expectations as very restrictive rules but would allow
more products to appear on the market with a
GM(O)-free label, which would come closer to
meeting consumer demand for such products.

Would align least closely with consumer
expectations for GM(O)-free products but
allow the greatest number of products to
appear on the EU market with a GM(O)-free
label.

Economic

Negative impacts on most existing GM(O)-free
producers, but may also relieve downward pressure
from retailers on some operators. Most products
currently on the market would be unable to carry a
‘GM(O)-free’ label.

Negative impacts on existing GM(O)-free producers
that apply less restrictive requirements. Many
products labelled as GM(O)-free in these markets
would need to be reformulated or removed from the
market.

Likely to increase market share for GM(O)free products but reduce price premium paid
to producers for some inputs. Operators
likely to continue using existing rules, which
may result in effective ‘status quo’ situation.

Social*

May result in limited job loss across the supply chain.
Effects likely to vary by MS, with greatest potential
negative impacts where GM(O)-free labelling schemes
have less restrictive rules and high levels of GM(O)-free
labelling activity. Jobs may also be at risk in industries
that provide certification, inspection and monitoring
services due to reduction in labelling activity.

Some job losses expected in MS where exceptions
are currently less restrictive than the intermediate
option would allow. Impacts on jobs are likely to be
less severe than under a very strict approach and
considering that despite stricter restrictions, the
organic market continues to grow in the EU.
Employment losses would be expected for specialist
GM(O)-free producers. Impacts are likely to be less
severe than under a very strict approach.

Some jobs may be created where operators
expand their use of the GM(O)-free label.
Impacts are likely to vary across MS, and
may be greatest in countries where
operators would like to produce such
labelled products but currently do not.

Some trade may be at risk where GM(O)-free inputs are
procured from third countries, particularly for soya, but
the impacts are likely to be less than under a very
restrictive approach.

Some trade may be at risk where GM(O)-free inputs
are procured from third countries, particularly for
soya, but the impacts are likely to be less than under
a very restrictive approach.

No environmental impacts are anticipated.

No environmental impacts are anticipated.

Trade opportunities may be increased where
third country suppliers are more likely to be
able to meet less stringent requirements
than are currently set by some supply chain
operators and in some Member States.

Employment losses would be expected for specialist
GM(O)-free producers.
Other issues83

No environmental impacts are anticipated.
* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.
83

See footnote 81.

105

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.6

Element 5: Minimum non-GM feeding times for animals
There are three possible approaches to the inclusion of minimum non-GM feeding times for
animals. Each is considered below, including the main issues and expected consumer and
economic impacts to be considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising
from the different options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and
consumer impacts in Table 7.6.

7.6.1

Most restrictive option – animals must be fed on non-GM feed from birth
An approach that requires animals to be fed on non-GM feed from birth is a demanding
condition that is more restrictive than current rules in most Member States, but is applied by
most private operator schemes (see section 3.9).

7.6.1.1

Consumer impacts
Very restrictive rules on minimum non-GM feeding times for animals would align most
closely with consumer expectations from a GM(O)-free label. Existing studies suggest that
many consumers assume that an animal product labelled GM(O)-free indicates that animals
have never been fed on GM-feed (see section 6.2.6).
It is unlikely that consumers would be as willing to accept the need for animals to be fed on
GM feed for some period of their lives as compared to threshold levels for adventitious or
technically unavoidable GM presence, for which there is precedence for standards to be set
at or above the detection limit and where consumers tend to appreciate that absolute purity
is either very difficult to ensure or very difficult to prove.
Most private operator-led GM(O)-free schemes and non-GM supply chains currently
operating in the EU require animals to be fed on non-GM feed from birth (see section 3.9.2).
Products labelled GM(O)-free would therefore continue to appear on the EU market. Existing
rules in the Netherlands, Finland and Switzerland also require that animals are fed on nonGM feed from birth. Austria, Germany and France, however, provide for minimum feeding
times, which enable more operators to provide GM(O)-free animal products in these
countries (see section 3.9.1). Consumer demand for GM(O)-free animal products may not be
met under stricter rules in these markets.
Organic rules in the EU allow for minimum non-GM feeding periods (see section 6.2.6).
Some GM(O)-free schemes in the EU, such as in Austria, are moving toward non-GM feed
requirements from birth (see section 3.9.1). Given that there are a range of schemes that
currently provide ‘GM(O)-free’ products where animals must be fed non-GM feed from birth
(e.g. most private operator schemes), it may be that a restrictive rule on this issue will not
greatly limit the availability of GM(O)-free products for consumers.

7.6.1.2

Economic impacts
A very restrictive approach would have negative economic impacts for operators in Member
States that currently allow for a minimum non-GM feeding time before slaughter for livestock
animals. Some UK operators have also stopped maintaining non-GM supply chains for some
livestock animals (namely, poultry) because they believe it is becoming too costly to source
non-GM feed for these animals (see section 4.3.3). Nonetheless, organic producers and
many private operators are able to produce animal products where animals are fed on nonGM feed from birth, suggesting that this requirement may not have as negative an economic
impact on operators as, for example, a <0.1% threshold level for adventitious or technically
unavoidable GM presence or disallowing the use of veterinary pharmaceuticals where a nonGM alternative is unavailable.

7.6.2

Intermediate option – minimum non-GM feeding times established
An intermediate option would harmonise the minimum non-GM feeding times for animals and
maintain a strict standard.

106

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.6.2.1

Consumer impacts
An intermediate option on minimum non-GM feeding times for animals would align less
closely with consumer expectations from a GM(O)-free label and existing studies suggest
that consumers are less likely to accept a mismatch between their expectation that animals
are fed non-GM feed their whole lives and a standard which is less restrictive than, for
example, threshold levels for GM presence (see section 6.2.6).
Most private operator schemes maintain strict rules on minimum non-GM feeding times,
suggesting that it is possible to provide animal products where non-GM feed has been used
for the entire life of the animal (see section 3.9.2). Some UK retailers no longer provide nonGM animal products in some categories (e.g. poultry), however, where they believe it has
become too difficult to maintain non-GM supply chains (see section 4.3.3). An intermediate
option that is strict, but provides some allowance for minimum non-GM feeding times (set to
account for different feed types and other issues for different livestock animals) and that is
harmonised across the EU would provide consistency in the standards underlying the label
while allowing more products to appear on the EU market to meet consumer demand.
Organic rules also provide minimum non-GM feeding times (see section 6.2.6). Less
restrictive GM(O)-free labelling rules would need to take into consideration existing organic
rules and potentially set stricter requirements than for organic in order to be considered
‘value-added’ compared to organic for EU consumers. But GM(O)-free products are also
generally less expensive than organic products and consumers may value a ‘GM(O)-free’
label that has standards similar to the organic Regulation.

7.6.2.2

Economic impacts
An intermediate option that harmonises minimum non-GM feeding times could help to
provide consistency across EU Member States and therefore reduce any internal trade
issues arising from existing variance in EU GM(O)-free labelling schemes (see section 5.2).
Negative consumer views of minimum non-GM feeding times may however reduce the value
of such labelled products (see section 6.2.6).
Existing minimum non-GM feeding times vary across existing national schemes, while most
private operators and organic producers require all animals to be fed non-GM feed from birth
(see section 3.9). Stricter rules than those applied to existing schemes will have a negative
economic impact on operators that currently meet less strict rules.

7.6.3

Least restrictive option – EU rules do not specify minimum non-GM feeding times
– provides flexibility for MS and operators
The least restrictive option would neither exclude nor specify minimum non-GM feeding
times, providing flexibility across the EU for the time required for animals to be fed on nonGM feed before production (e.g. of eggs or milk) or slaughter.

7.6.3.1

Consumer impacts
Minimum non-GM feeding time requirements vary across national GM(O)-free schemes (see
section 3.9). If EU rules do not specify minimum non-GM feeding times, the result is likely to
be very similar to the status quo situation. While this may mean that consumer expectations
are not met by the specifications, it would allow for Member States to tailor their approaches
to the issues arising in each country, where consumption of animal products from different
livestock animals varies considerably and where sourcing issues for GM feed also vary.

7.6.3.2

Economic impacts
Under the least restrictive option, Member States may continue to use their existing
approaches to non-GM feeding times, which can help operators meet the varying
requirements for different types of meat product and thus different types of feed requirement
in each country. This would allow the greatest number of products to appear on the EU
market. Negative economic impacts on EU operators are likely to be minimised under this
approach, both because existing requirements do not change for some, and may become
easier to meet for others.
107

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.6 Element 5: Minimum non-GM feeding times
Most restrictive option

Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Impact

Animals must be fed on non-GM feed from birth

Minimum non-GM feeding times established

EU rules do not specify minimum non-GM feeding
times, providing flexibility

Consumer

Avoids the potential for confusion. Informed
consumers content with existing GM(O)-free systems
would find fewer GM(O)-free labelled animal products
on the EU market.

Would not align as closely with consumer
expectations as very restrictive rules. Would,
however, allow more GM(O)-free labelled products
to appear on the market, which would help meet
consumer demand.

Aligns least closely with consumer expectations
for GM(O)-free products but would allow the
greatest number of GM(O)-free labelled
products to appear on the EU market.

Economic

Negative impacts on existing GM(O)-free producers in
AT, DE and FR. Some MS, such as Austria and
Slovenia are moving towards non-GM feed from birth.
Producers that allow minimum non-GM feeding times
would need to change their production systems or
withdraw from the market.

Could help to provide consistency across EU MS
and therefore reduce internal trade issues arising
from existing variance in GM(O)-free labelling
schemes. Negative consumer views of minimum
non-GM feeding times may reduce the value of
such labelled products.

Fewest negative impacts on operators currently
labelling their products as GM(O)-free as it
would allow for existing rules to be maintained.
Other operators may market such products in
MS where stricter rules apply. Consumers may
place less value on these products with
negative effects on market share.

Social*

May result in some job loss across the supply chain
but this loss expected to be limited due to niche status
of the sector. Effects likely to vary by MS, with greatest
negative impacts likely in those MS where GM(O)-free
labelling activity is highest (e.g. DE, AT and FR). Job
loss concentrated in sectors that produce animal
products. Some jobs may also be at risk in industries
that provide certification, inspection and monitoring
services due to reductions in labelling activity.

Some job losses in MS where minimum non-GM
feeding times are less restrictive than the
intermediate option would allow. Employment
losses will be felt exclusively in sectors that
produce animal products, since plant-based food
products will be unaffected. Impacts on jobs are
likely to be less severe than under a very strict
approach.

Impacts are likely to vary across MS and may
be greatest in countries where operators would
like to produce such labelled products but
currently cannot.
Some jobs may be created in sectors that
produce animal products where minimum rules
are set due to expanded use of the GM(O)-free
label in the EU.

Other issues84

Some trade may be at risk where GM(O)-free inputs
are procured from third countries, particularly for soya,
if non-GM feed cannot be obtained or is too costly.

Some trade may be at risk where GM(O)-free
inputs are procured from third countries,
particularly for soya, but the impacts are likely to
be less than under a very restrictive approach.

Trade opportunities may increase where third
country suppliers are more likely to be able to
meet less stringent requirements than currently
set by some operators and in some MS.

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.
84

See footnote 81.

108

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.7

Element 6: Certification, inspection and monitoring
There are three possible approaches to product scope for GM(O)-free labels. Each of these
is considered below, including the main issues and expected consumer and economic
impacts to be considered in each. Social, environmental and other impacts arising from the
different options for each element are summarised alongside the economic and consumer
impacts in Table 7.7.

7.7.1

Most restrictive option – GM(O)-free claims must be backed by certification;
monitoring and inspection rules provided to ensure that operators do not breach
the rules
The most restrictive option would require certification and would specify monitoring and
inspection rules to ensure that operators adhere to rules prohibiting GM(O)-free labels.

7.7.1.1

Consumer impacts
Studies have found that the reliability of a GM(O)-free label on food seems to depend mostly
on the presence of an external certifying institution. The literature also suggests that
monitoring and enforcement procedures are very important for increasing consumer
confidence in a product. A framework for compliance is crucial, even for a voluntary labelling
scheme to reassure consumers that the information provided on a label is truthful and not
misleading. Facilitative GM(O)-free labelling backed by certification, and inspection and
monitoring rules is likely to have positive consumer impacts.

7.7.1.2

Economic impacts
Costs may increase for some operators where certification is not currently required or
obtained, and where any new monitoring and inspection activities are more demanding than
existing requirements. There will be some economic costs for public authorities to ensure
oversight of the system. Most GM(O)-free schemes in the EU require some form of
certification and are backed by monitoring and inspection activities (see section 3.10).
Increased consumer trust in such requirements may increase the market share for these
products, with positive effects on operators.

7.7.2

Intermediate option – EU harmonised inspection and monitoring specified, but
certification is not required

7.7.2.1

Consumer impacts
If prohibitive legislation is chosen, certification would not need to be specified. Some
facilitative schemes also do not require certification, such as in Germany (see section
3.10.1). Monitoring and inspection approaches would be included in EU harmonised rules,
however, so that any fraudulent or prohibited labels appearing on the EU market may be
removed and consumers can be confident that GM(O)-free production is overseen by
national authorities to avoid inaccurate, misleading, or fraudulent information.

7.7.2.2

Economic impacts
An intermediate approach that does not require certification is likely to be less costly for
operators. There will be some economic costs for public authorities to ensure oversight of
the system.

7.7.3

Least restrictive option – No specific mention of certification, inspection or
monitoring requirements
The least restrictive option would make no specific mention of certification requirements, or
inspection and monitoring activities. Operators and Member States could continue to apply
any existing rules.

109

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.7.3.1

Consumer impacts
If no specific mention is made of certification requirements or inspection and monitoring
procedures, then schemes operating across the EU are likely to continue to use their existing
requirements. Studies have found that respondents trust the government to control the
certification system more than they trust a brand or a store to ensure that certification is
carried out appropriately (see section 6.2.7). Therefore national schemes may be considered
more trustworthy than private operator led schemes. Studies have also found, however, that
where trust in brands or retailers is already high, accurate supply chain controls to avoid the
adventitious presence of GMOs may be more important than certification to increase
consumers’ loyalty.
Some evidence shows that a lack of such requirements can create weaknesses in the
systems. For example, in Sweden, despite restrictions on the use of GM(O)-free labels there
are no prescribed sanctions for companies labelling their products as GM(O)-free (see
section 3.10.4.1). This may explain why products have been found in Sweden bearing a
GM(O)-free label and why some of those products labelled as GM(O)-free were found to
contain traces of GMOs.

7.7.3.2

Economic impacts
Where national schemes do not specify any control procedures, costs for producers may
increase due to additional steps being undertaken by operators to demonstrate that they are
trustworthy. This may also create internal market disruptions. Operator costs may also be
reduced, however, because they may not incur costs of certification, inspection or monitoring
requirements in some Member States.

110

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Table 7.7 Element 6: Certification, inspection and monitoring
Most restrictive option

Intermediate option

Least restrictive option

Impacts

Certification required; inspection and monitoring rules
established

Inspection and monitoring rules established, but
certification is not required

Certification, inspection and monitoring rules
are not specified

Consumer

Consumer confidence likely to be greatest for certified
GM(O)-free labelled products, with inspection and
monitoring rules in place.

Facilitative GM(O)-free labelling backed by
inspection and monitoring rules is likely to have
positive consumer impacts because such rules are
likely to improve consumer trust in such products.
Consumers likely to be less confident in labelled
products without certification requirements.

Some evidence shows that a lack of such
requirements can create weaknesses in the
systems; where national or private operator
schemes do not require these, consumer
mistrust is likely to be higher

Economic

Increased costs for EU operators that do not already
have certification, but potential increased sales due to
increased consumer confidence in product reliability.

Costs may increase for some operators where
monitoring and inspection activities are more
demanding than existing requirements. Increased
consumer trust from such requirements may also
increase the market share for these products, with
positive effects on operators.

Where national schemes do not specify any
control procedures, control costs for
producers may increase due to additional
steps being undertaken by operators to
demonstrate that they are trustworthy.
Operator costs may also be reduced,
however, because they may not incur costs
of certification, inspection or monitoring
requirements in some Member States.

Costs will also be incurred by regulators to develop
certification, monitoring and inspection approaches and
to undertake control activities.

Costs will also be incurred by regulators to develop
monitoring and inspection approaches and to
undertake control activities.
Social*

Some job creation may occur to develop certification
bodies and/or procedures and for inspection and
monitoring services.

A small number of jobs may also be created as a
result of the intermediate approach, particularly
where there is increased demand for inspection and
monitoring activities.

Some jobs may be created to deliver
certification, monitoring and inspection
controls where these are required under
national rules or where there is increased
demand by private operators in the absence
of national rules.

Other issues85

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

No environmental impacts are anticipated

* In all cases, losses in the GM(O)-free sector would be expected to be offset by marginal gains elsewhere in the economy because overall consumption levels are not
expected to change.

85

See footnote 81.

111

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.8

Elements in combination
The appraisal set out in sections 7.2 to 7.7 analysed the core elements that should be
considered in a potential harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling, assessing their
impacts, element-by-element, in isolation and with reference to the baseline situation in the
EU where a multitude of GM(O)-free schemes already operate.
This section sets out possible element combinations, first considering those that are
fundamental to a harmonised approach and then those that may or may not be specified.
The combinations may also vary by the type of approach taken (very restrictive to least
restrictive) depending on the objectives that the approach seeks to meet. Figure 7.1
illustrates the priority for specifying the elements, starting with labelling rules and product
scope. A brief summary of the expected impacts arising from these combinations and
approaches is also provided.

7.8.1

Labelling rules
Labelling rules are the core element of any harmonised approach to GM(O)-free labelling
and will determine whether labelling is allowed or prohibited. If labelling rules are not set, the
situation in the EU will remain as it is (the status quo), with multiple GM(O)-free labelling
schemes developing through national legislation or private operator rules and with continued
variance between these across the EU.
Labelling rules are the only element of a harmonised approach that may be set out
independently of other elements. The approach taken will affect the specification of any other
elements that are included, as discussed below.

112

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 7.1

Labelling rules and product scope are the two elements that require specification for
a harmonised approach; other elements may be specified depending on the labelling
approach and scope of the scheme

113

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

7.8.2

Product scope and strictness of elements specified
A harmonised GM(O)-free approach can also specify the scope of products covered by the
scheme and the strictness of the rules applied to the scheme overall and to specific
elements, including:
■

Threshold levels for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence;

■

Exceptions for the use of certain GM inputs; and

■

Minimum feeding times for animals fed on non-GM feed.

Figure 7.2 illustrates the range of possibilities that may be considered where scope and
strictness criteria are applied to the element related to threshold levels for GM presence in a
GM(O)-free product.
Figure 7.2 Illustrative example of the scope and strictness considerations that may be applied to
threshold levels for GM presence in a GM(O)-free product

The scope specified may also vary within a harmonised approach to provide different levels
of strictness for different elements. For example, different threshold levels for adventitious or
technically unavoidable presence may be specified for animal products and food products as
they are in many existing GM(O)-free schemes. Different minimum feeding times may be
specified for different livestock animals depending on the issues arising with procuring nonGM feed for each.
In general, moving from broad scope and less demanding criteria for the specification of
each element to narrower scope and more demanding criteria will have the following inverse
effects:
■

Consumer understanding and the match between expectations and underlying standards
improves, while

■

Negative impacts on operators increase and market availability of GM(O)-free products
for consumers is reduced.

This is illustrated in Figure 7.3.

114

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Figure 7.3 General impacts arising from scope and strictness specifications in a GM(O)-free
labelling scheme

7.8.3

Certification, inspection and monitoring
Requirements for certification of GM(O)-free operators and any inspection and monitoring
rules may be specified in a harmonised scheme, but are not essential. Evidence suggests
that consumer trust increases where government is involved in setting out specific rules to
ensure that all operators have met a common set of requirements and that they are
complying with the rules. But existing laws may also be used to monitor and enforce GM(O)free labelling rules without creating new requirements. The likely impacts arising from
inclusion of certification requirements (for a facilitative approach) and inspection and
monitoring requirements (for all approaches) are discussed in section 7.7.

115

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

ANNEXES

116

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 1 Study terms of reference
Evaluation Framework Contract: Studies, ad hoc Work for IAs, Preparatory Work for Reports,
Evaluations, etc.
Date: 18/11/2011

STANDARD FORMAT FOR TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
Full title: State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes, and assessment of the need for
possible harmonisation in this field.
Lead Official/s & Unit: Thomas Brégeon, Unit E1 biotechnology, DG SANCO
DG Co-chef de file: Unit 01 DG SANCO
1. Purpose of the Contract
This contract aims to perform an ad-hoc study on existing GM-free labelling schemes at EU level and
to assess the need for harmonisation.
1.1 Context of the study work
The labelling of GMOs is regulated at Union level by Regulation No (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically
modified food and feed and Regulation No (EC) 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of
genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed produced from genetically
modified organisms. The EU legislation ensures that food products or ingredients which contain,
consist of, or are produced from GMOs are labelled. As an exception, labelling is not required for
foods with material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher
than 0,9% of the food ingredient considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient,
provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable (article 12 of Regulation (EC)
1829/2003). This labelling does not apply to meat and food products derived from animals fed with
GMOs. This labelling can be defined as "positive labelling", i.e. signalling the presence of GM
ingredients. The GMO labelling legislation complements the general provisions on food labelling set by
Directive 2000/13/EC on labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and other labelling
schemes (that will be replaced by the recent Regulation on the provision of food information to
consumers, which will be published on 22 November 201186).
Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 does not forbid, within the limits of Directive 2000/13/EC, in particular
Article 2 thereof, additional labelling practices that would aim to inform consumers that, in addition to
what is prescribed by the EU legislation, specific measures have been taken to strictly exclude the
presence or the use of GMO in some food or feed products (so-called "Negative labelling").
Two categories of products can be distinguished:
(1) Food/feed categories for which GM products have not been authorised in the EU (e.g. GM apple):
labelling these foods, or the meat/products derived from animals fed with these feeds as GM-free is
suggesting that they possess a special characteristic when in fact all similar food/feed possess the
same characteristic, and this is misleading within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(iii) of Directive
2000/13/EC.
(2) Food and feed products for which GM products have been authorised in the EU for food/feed use
(e.g. maize and derived maize ingredients, soya): such foods can be placed on the market without a
GM label provided that they contain GM material in a proportion not higher than 0.9 % (Regulation
(EC) No1829/2003, Art 12.2) and that the presence of GM material is unintentional and technically
unavoidable. For these foods, a GM-free labelling cannot be excluded a priori. The same, for the
meat/products derived from animals fed with these feeds, a GM-free labelling cannot be excluded a
priori.

86

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/pe00/pe00043.en11.pdf

117

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Facultative-obligatory "GM-free" labelling schemes have been or are being developed and/or
implemented in several Member States, either by public or private operators and organisations87.
Facultative-obligatory means that operators who choose to use the "GM-free" label are required to
adhere to the provisions of these schemes.
In 2008 the Commission launched a comprehensive evaluation of the legislation on GM food and feed,
where labelling rules for GM food and feed were addressed in details. The complete evaluation
documents
were
published
on
28
October
2011
and
are
available
at:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/index_en.htm
The evaluation specifically addressed the situation of GM-free labelling in the EU, and concluded the
following:
o

A majority of Competent Authorities support the use of some form of negative labelling
(i.e.“GM-free”), although this view is not shared by the majority of stakeholders. Within this
there is majority support for voluntary rather than mandatory labelling and for harmonisation at
EU level.

o

Consideration needs to be given to how the concerns of those who wish to see the labelling of
livestock products can be addressed and whether this would be proportionate given the
potential extent of labelling, complexity and likely economic/administrative burden for the food
chain.

o

It would appear disproportionate and potentially confusing to simultaneously use a positive and
negative approach to labelling; consideration should be given as to which approach better
protects consumer interests.

o

There is an expansion of (unharmonised) “GM-free” schemes at national level with different
requirements, but relatively consistent labelling which may imply a comparability that does not
exist. These may currently compromise the smooth functioning of the single market and
consideration should be given to introducing an approach harmonised at EU level if “GM-free”
labelling is to be used.

o

Given the use of threshold levels for adventitious presence of GM material, whether “GM-free”
schemes really allow consumers to make an informed choice should be carefully considered.

In the light of the findings of the evaluation, the Commission announced that it will launch a study to
take detailed stock of existing GMO-free labelling systems and to assess the need for harmonisation in
this field.
1.2 Objectives and general approach of the study
This study aims to identify and describe food labelling schemes that contain a "GM-free" dimension,
which are being applied or developed by public or private entities in the EU. The study also aims to
identify and analyse core elements to be considered in the context of an EU harmonised approach of
GM-free labelling.
1.3 Use of the contract
SANCO E1 (Biotechnology) is the unit in charge of performing the study.
Associated SANCO Units: 01, E4

87

The issue was discussed at the meeting of 22 September 2011 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain
and Animal Health (section GM Food and Feed and Environmental Risk):
http://ec.europa.eu/food/committees/regulatory/scfcah/modif_genet/sum_22092011_en.pdf
88
The Commission will provide the contractor with a list of official contacts in the Member States Competent
Authorities after signature of the contract.
89
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/certification/index_en.htm
90
Nutrition and health claims made on foods, such as "Fat free" or "Sugar free" are harmonised through
Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
91
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/competitiveness/forum_food/index_en.htm

118

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Associated DGs: SG, AGRI, ENTR, MARKT, TRADE
2. Task(s) to be performed by the contractor
2.1 Scope of the study
(1) Food labelling schemes intended to indicate that the techniques of genetic modification have not
been used, and
(2) Food quality production schemes for which GMO labelling is excluded according to the certification
criteria.
2.1.1 Temporal scope
The contractor should take as observational period the period 2006-2011, with due attention to
labelling schemes developments in the pipeline.
2.1.2. Geographical scope
The contractor should identify the Member States, and/or operators in the Member States, which have
developed and/or implemented relevant GM-free labelling schemes. Member States having explicitly
excluded the use of GM-free schemes (e.g. the Netherlands) should also be identified. GM-free
schemes developed in third countries should also be identified through review of international journals
and publications, and analysed if relevant.
2.1.3 Actors
In order to perform the study, the contractor should consult National and EU regulators (in charge of
GMOs, food labelling, agriculture, consumer protection and other relevant items88), as well as relevant
economic operators, in particular with interest in GM-free labelling schemes, involved in the food chain,
from the farm to the fork (in particular SMEs, farmers, processors, traders, retailers, consumers), both
at national and European levels and in third countries.
Non-Governmental Organisations dealing with environment protection, agricultural practices,
consumer protection and rights, etc., should also be consulted.
Research organisations active in agriculture and food chain economics, food labelling, and consumer
behaviour analysis should be consulted.
An indicative list of relevant stakeholders to consider is provided in annex I.
2.2 Study tasks
The Commission expects the contractor to perform the following tasks:
1- mapping and analysis of existing GM-free labelling schemes in the food sector
The contractor should identify and analyse comprehensively the features of the existing and
developing voluntary GM-free labelling schemes in the EU (and in third countries, if relevant).
The analysis should include at least the following aspects: regulatory status, market shares, type of
certification (public or private), possible use of labels, threshold levels in food and feed (0,9%, 0%,
etc.), products concerned (e.g. food products of plant origin, food products originating from livestock
fed with non GM feed, processed products, processing aids, etc.), methods of certifications and
control, impacts on exchanges within the internal market and with third countries, and any other
relevant aspects.
The contractor shall analyse the compatibility of the various certification schemes with the Commission
Communication — EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural
products and foodstuffs (2010/C 341/04) (OJ c341/5 d.d.16-12-2010)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:EN:PDF
The study should also include in its scope more generic food labelling and certification models such as
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic farming, "Organic certification schemes", "Protected
Designation of Origin" or "Protected Geographical Indications", when absence of GMO labelling (i.e. at
least below the 0,9% labelling threshold level) is part of the certification criteria. In this respect, the
contractor should consult the Inventory of certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

119

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

marketed in the EU Member States developed for the Directorate Agriculture and Rural Development
of the Commission89. The full version of the final report will be provided at the kick-off meeting.
The contractor should identify and assess other relevant labelling statements for food products (e.g.
"additive free", "no artificial colors", "gluten free", "Alcohol free" and others90) and raise relevant
elements that could help analysing the potential impacts of GM-free schemes in the EU context
(examples of relevant aspects: production cost of labelling, impact on consumer behaviour, etc.). In
this respect, the contractor should also consider the work done by the High Level Forum for a Better
Functioning Food Supply Chain91, and more particularly the workshop on food labelling organised on
12 July 2011 (Key findings report available in Annex 2).
The contractor should also analyse the reasoning developed by the Member States explicitly
prohibiting the development of GM-free labelling schemes on their national territories.
The findings of the mapping should be reported in a format allowing an analytical comparative
overview of the respective characteristics of the existing/developing schemes. In particular, the report
should address the similarities/differences and possible (in)compatibilities of the existing labelling
schemes as well as their respective economic impacts.
2- Analysis of essential elements to consider in the perspective of assessing the need for
harmonisation of the criteria for GM-free labelling schemes applied in the Member States
Based on the mapping of the existing/developing GM-free labelling and, irrespective of the levels of
comparability/compatibility of existing/developing GM-free labelling schemes identified in task 1, the
contractor should identify a selection of core elements that should be considered in the perspective of
considering a possible harmonised framework for GM-free labelling schemes.
The impacts of the implementation of these elements should be assessed by the contractor, in
isolation (element per element) and in combination also with already existing schemes (i.e. different
approaches for GM-free labelling schemes), as compared to the current situation (referred to as status
quo). The different approaches should be selected for further analysis together with the Commission.
The selected elements should be assessed along the following criteria:
- Capacity to improve the information of European consumers regarding the characteristics of the food
they buy;
- Detailed analysis of the economic impacts incurred by the use of the labels for the regulators, the
operators along the food chain (including trade issues), and for end-consumers, at national level and
EU level when relevant (including the impact on the functioning of the Internal Market and on
imports/exports from or to third countries).
- Analysis of the potential social and environmental benefits and risks incurred by the use of the labels
in line with current standards for impact assessment analysis.
- Impact on and interplay with and added-value compared to existing EU and national food certification
and labelling schemes, such as organically certified products or "Protected Designation of Origin" or
"Protected Geographical Indications" (consider in particular the risk of consumer confusion).
2.3 Methodology
The consultation and the data collection shall be based at minimum on desk research, questionnaire
and telephone/face to face interviews. The desk research should be comprehensive and the methods
used described in the submission of the offer. The contractor should provide an inventory of binding
legislations and guidance on GM-free labels currently in force in all the Member States. The
contractors should list and analyse all the publications and studies they have identified addressing the
accuracy, feasibility, reliability, efficiency, related costs and perception of these labels, as well as the
economic, social and environmental impacts incurred by their implementation on the regulators and on
all the relevant actors of the food chain, the consumers and other relevant stakeholders. A survey with
competent authorities and stakeholders was carried out in 2009 under the auspices of the evaluation of
the GM food/feed legislation. This information should be used as a starting point for the current study.
For the current assignment, in a first step, an interview will be done by phone on the basis of a
questionnaire with MS and stakeholder experts (building on the one devised and administered for the

120

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Evaluation). Following the analysis of the questionnaire, a selected number of interviews will be carried
out face to face or over the telephone to collect additional information. These interviews should be
done on the basis of a representative sample, i.e. have sufficient coverage in terms of countries and
actors involved. The sample should be balanced in terms of geographical cover.
This will give the opportunity to collect information from different available sources. The questionnaire
will be prepared by the Contractor in consultation with the Commission.
Information should be collated from all Member States via a mix of static (desk research) and
participatory tools (phone or face-to-face interviews, e-surveys, consumer polls) while giving sufficient
attention to information sources alternative to official data sources. A final workshop with experts, the
Commission and possibly with selected stakeholders should be organised by the contractor to sanction
the final report. The focus is also on validating the quality of the analysis and of the executive
summary. SWOT analyses of the selected approaches in task 2 compared to baseline situation in
terms of potential for harmonisation should be performed, and included in the Executive Summary.
Case studies e.g. France, Germany, Austria, Italy (MS where GM-free schemes are in place) and the
Netherlands (where GM-free schemes are explicitly prohibited) should be developed by the
consultants in order to act as quality control filter for the data provided by MS and to provide in-depth
insight of approaches adopted by these Member States of interest. The analysis should attempt to
develop a cost-effectiveness exercise (analyse number of satisfied consumers as measured by
objective quantitative methods e.g. customer exit polls, telephone surveys or drawing on already
available data sets) benchmarked with the present status quo for the different approaches identified
within the remits of the defined task 2.
The contractor is to work in close collaboration with project officers at the European Commission in
charge of follow-up of the contract. The contractor is expected to develop and implement a
methodology that ensures that all the evaluation tasks are sufficiently well covered, including:
1. a detailed work plan covering at least: a project plan, detailed timetable, budget, a list of experts and
their CVs to be involved in the contractor's team, indicating the task in the project plan to which they
will be committed. [Note: no on the spot visits are foreseen in this study];
2. a description of the complete methodology (building on the proposed guidance in annex II), including
consideration given to past surveys to Competent Authorities in the concerned countries, and to other
stakeholders; the contractor shall provide a selective overview of answers received.
Proposals for further methodological tools that may contribute to achieving the objectives of the study
will be considered positively when evaluating the proposals.
3. Description of Experts skills & profiles
3.1 Experts experience required
The contractor should possess a proven level of knowledge and experience in economics, sociology,
agrofood policy analysis and analysis of public policies in Member States with special focus on data
collection & analysis and policy development. The contractor should also possess requisite training
and experience in evaluation methods.
The contractor should possess high level expertise required for the tasks to be carried out. Therefore
he or she should:
•

Indicate profile and categories of the experts of the contractor's team

•

Designate the expert to be team leader for the whole exercise of evaluation to be carried out

The contractor must meet the following criteria:
i.
The contractor's team responsible for implementing all the tasks related to the objectives
includes at least one team leader with a relevant post graduate university qualification. The team
leader should ensure uninterrupted coordination with the European Commission.
ii.
Members of the team are to be assigned according to the necessary knowledge and skills for
performing the various tasks and subtasks required.

121

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

iii.

Excellent English language skills are required, both written and spoken.

iv.
Demonstrated capability to access documents and interact with informants in all countries as
necessary for the completion of the tasks.
4. Organisation of the work
4.1 Budget allocated
Foreseen maximum amount: EUR 125.000.
4.2 Overall management of the contract
The contractor is requested to produce records/minutes of meetings and to submit them to the
Commission for approval the week following the meeting.
4.3 Reporting and deliverables
The present assignment includes the submission of a series of deliverables: reports and presentations.
The contractor will deliver the following reports at key stages of the evaluation process: inception
report, interim report, draft final report and final report. Each report should be written in English, and
critically assessed as it provides the basis for tracking the quality of the work done by the evaluator.
These reports will be submitted to the Commission, which may ask for complementary information or
propose adjustments in order to redirect the work as necessary. Reports must be approved by the
Commission. With work progressing and in the light of new findings, revisions of reports already
approved may be necessary.
It is essential that all the reports be clear, concise, unambiguous and comprehensive. They should also
be understandable for non-specialists. The presentation of the texts, tables and graphs has to be clear
and complete and correspond to commonly recognised standards for studies to be published. A
structured and precise elaboration of add-ons based on previous deliverables at every stage of the
process is requested (for example, this could be done via colour-coding parts of the report developed
at the offer, inception, interim and draft final stage). An indicative size of each report to be provided is
(excluding annexes):
•
•
•

inception report: up to 50 pages
interim report: up to 100 pages
final report: up to 150 pages

The reports should be provided to the Commission in both MS-Word and Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format
with the charts in Excel. They should be accompanied, where requested, by appropriate annexes and
delivered in accordance with the deadlines and requirements set out in the Terms of Reference and
agreed with the Commission.
Every two weeks, the contractor should submit a short progress note to the Commission reporting on
the state of execution of the tasks. Furthermore, the following reports and presentations shall be
delivered:
Kick-off meeting report
After signature of the contract, the contractor will participate in a kick-off meeting with the Commission.
The purpose of this meeting is to verify:
•

the contractor's understanding of the Terms of Reference

•

the proposed general approach to the work (methodology, planning, structure of deliverables
etc.)

•

the composition and eligibility of the contractor's team.

Inception report – within 1 month after the kick-off meeting
The inception report completes the structuring phase of the study. It aims at describing the
organisation of the work, adapting and substantiating the overall approach, the methodology required
for each evaluation question and/or specific task requested as well as the work plan outlined in the
proposal, including the planned timelines. It should set out in detail how the proposed methodology will
be implemented, and in particular lay out clearly in tabular form how the method allows each task to be

122

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

answered via establishment of judgement criteria and within these, of evaluation indicators. A further
column highlighting choice of relevant evaluation tools should complete the table. The inception report
should develop such a chart to a level that allows the Commission to gain a good understanding of the
evaluation tools and related methodological steps proposed.
The report may complete and/or suggest additional evaluation questions the contractors consider
suitable. As such, this document will provide an opportunity to make a final check on the feasibility of
the method proposed and the extent to which it corresponds with the task specifications.
The known sources of information, use of tracers (case studies), contact persons in Member States, as
well as the way the contractor will interact with Member States representatives will be fully clarified at
this stage.
The inception report is submitted to the Commission. On the basis of discussion, including with the
contractor, changes and improvements may be requested. Final version of evaluation tasks/questions
suggested by the contractor and evaluation indicators to be used will be validated by the Commission
at this stage. The contractor will submit a final version within two weeks.
Interim report – within 6 months of the signature of the contract
This report will provide information on the analysis of data collected. The evaluator should already be
in a position to provide: a) aggregated data and overview of the period under evaluation, and b)
preliminary findings and conclusions regarding the evaluation tasks/questions.
The report will provide the Commission with an opportunity to check whether the study is on track and
whether it has focused on the specified information needs.
The contractor will submit a revised interim report with the necessary updates of the report after check
by the Commission.
Draft final report – within 10 months of the signature of the contract
This document will provide the preliminary conclusions of the contractor in respect of the tasks in the
task specifications. These will be based on evidence generated through the evaluation. Any
judgements provided should be clear and explicit. It will also provide a technical overview of the
evaluation process highlighting limitations and possible bias therein.
The draft final report should include an executive summary of not more than 5 pages (synthesis of
analyses and conclusions), the main report (structure to be confirmed by the Commission services but
planned to reflect the content of the assignment), technical annexes (inter alia the Task Specifications
and a compilation of all requested country-based information) and a draft one-page summary of the
Key Messages (conclusions in bullet form) of the evaluation. The latter should precede the executive
summary.
Final report – to be submitted within 15 days of communication of comments made by the Commission
on the draft final report
The final report should have the same structure as the draft final report. It will take account of the
results of the comments and discussions with the Commission regarding the draft final report insofar
as they do not interfere with the autonomy of the contractor in respect to the conclusions. The
executive summary (including the Key Messages section preceding it) should be provided.
The copyright of the reports remains with the Commission.
4.4 Quality Assessment
The Commission will have to agree on a quality assessment of the final report.
For details on minimal requirements regarding quality assessment of the deliverables, please see
Annex 3.
In order to ensure the necessary quality for such work requested by the Commission, contractors
should be constantly minded that:
•

the evaluation shall respond to the information needs, in particular as expressed in the terms

123

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

of reference and following discussions with the Commission;
•
the methodology and design shall be adequate for proceeding to the evaluation tasks and for
obtaining the results needed to answer the evaluation questions;
•
collected data must be adequate for their intended use and their reliability must be
ascertained;
•
data shall be analysed systematically to answer the evaluation questions and to cover all the
information needs in a valid manner;
•
findings shall follow logically from and be justified by the data/information analysis and by
interpretations based on pre-established and rational criteria;
•

conclusions for being valid shall be non-biased and fully based on findings.

5. Timetable
5.1 Timetable for the work and deliverables
The contractor is to start the desk-work in January 2011 and the contract should be completed within
11 months from the signature of the contract.
6. List of annexes with specific information
Relevant Community legislation and statistics, databases and other information available at the
Commission services
(Detailed information allows better offers and more focused work of the contractor)

124

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

ANNEX I
Indicative list of relevant stakeholders
BEUC Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs
CELCAA Comité européen de liaison des commerces agroalimentaires
CIAA Confédération des industries agroalimentaires de l’Union européenne
COCERAL Comité du commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail, oléagineux, huile d’olive,
huiles et graisses et agrofournitures de l’Union européenne
COPA-Cogeca Comité des organisations professionnelles agricoles de l’Union européenne –
Confédération générale des coopératives agricoles de l’Union européenne
ECCA European Crop Care Association
ECPA European Crop Protection Association
EMRA European Modern Restaurant Association
ESA European Seed Association
EUROCOMMERCE European Representation of Retail, Wholesale and International Trade
EUROCOOP European Community of Consumer Cooperatives
EUROPABIO European Association of Bioindustries
FEFAC Fédération européenne des fabricants d’aliments composés pour animaux
FERCO Fédération européenne de la restauration collective concédée
FRESHFEL European Fresh Produce Association
HOTREC Confédération des associations nationales de l’hôtellerie, de la restauration, des cafés
et établissements similaires de l’Union européenne et de l’Espace économique européen
IFOAM EU GROUP International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements — European
Union Regional Group
UECBV Union européenne du commerce du bétail et de la viande
UGAL Union des groupements de détaillants indépendants de l’Europe
ECVC European Coordination via Campesina
FoEE Friends of the Earth Europe
PFP Primary Food Processors
SLOW FOOD Slow Food Associazione Internazionale

ANNEX II

C:\Documents and
Settings\bregeth\Des

125

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

ANNEX III
Offer
The methodology of this study must be drawn by the tenderers taking into account the objectives and scope
described above and existing good practice. The final methodology will be agreed by the Commission and the
Contractor during the inception phase.
The tenderers are required to:
- prove understanding of the scope and objectives by drafting an intervention logic,
- prove ability to address the tasks envisaged by breaking them down as in the attached model (model - table
n°1),
- clearly detail the different steps of the process specifying required resources (human and financial) and time
(model - table n°2),
- present timetable of main milestones of the process
Table n°1
Evaluation task

Judgement criteria

Indicators

Data Sources

Table n°2

Task

Expert (name, category

Time required

specialisation)

Tenderers are not expected to restrict themselves to listed minimum requirements. Proposals for
additional methodological tools that may contribute to addressing the evaluation questions in a more
satisfactory manner will be considered positively when evaluating the proposals.
Inception report
This report will describe in more detail the way the evaluation will be conducted and the methodology.
It will provide proposed content of the questionnaires (if any), interview questions (if any), focus group
outlines (if any) and the list of organisms to be consulted and also the number of interviewees and
their positions and names (if any) (model - table n°3).
This document will provide the Commission with the opportunity to check the feasibility of the method
proposed and the extent to which it corresponds with the needs outlined in the terms of reference.
Table n°3
Evaluation

Judgement

task

criteria

Indicators

Data

Survey

List of

Timetable of

Sources

questions,

organisations to

consultations

interview

be consulted,

questions,

interviewees,

focus group

their positions

outlines

and names

126

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Interim Report
This report shall describe the work completed (most of the fieldwork should be finished):
- list of reviewed documents,
- number of questionnaire and interviews completed,
- summary of preliminary results of the investigation,
- validation of data,
- the way the contractor intends to make the results of interviews comparable,
- (if relevant) list of problems the contractor faced in his work in the framework of the specific
contract,
- a process advancement table with critical analysis on the progress of the fieldwork.
Draft Final Report
Evidence from

Findings: factual

Conclusions: the

Possible recommendations: recommended

evaluation tools

statements derived

evaluators'

changes or improvements

from the available

interpretation of the

evidence

evidence, applying
transparent
judgment criteria

127

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 2 Questionnaire – stakeholders and MS representatives
A2.1

Member State representative questionnaire

State of play in the EU on GM(O)-free food labelling
schemes and assessment of the need for possible
harmonisation
MEMBER STATE REPRESENTATIVES CONSULTATION
The purpose and coverage of this survey
GHK Consulting Ltd and a team of experts have been commissioned by the European Commission,
Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) to conduct a study on existing
‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes in the EU and assess the need for a harmonised approach at EU level.
This survey aims to:

▪

Gather information about the different ‘GM(O)-free’ food labelling schemes that exist or are being
developed in Member States, in order to better understand their design and implementation;

▪

Understand what elements are important for ensuring a ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling scheme is
successful; and

▪

Assess the impacts of a possible harmonised approach to ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling in the EU.

For further information about the study, please visit the project website: www.gm-free.eu

Your responses:
We want to hear the views of Member State representatives on these issues and request your
participation in completing this survey to assist us with the study. Nominated authorities in all Member
States are being asked to complete and return this survey. A survey is also being sent to industry
representatives and other stakeholders to understand their views on these issues. All responses will
be treated as confidential and not attributable to individuals or organisations.

Deadline for completing the survey:
Please complete and return the survey by 8 June 2012.

How to submit this form
Please use this interactive Adobe Acrobat document to fill in the survey. You can save a partially
completed survey and circulate via email if inputs from more than one person are required. You may
fill in as much text as may be required for each descriptive response.
Once you have finished please click the ‘Submit’ icon located at the top right of the document to
submit your response. Alternatively, please attach a saved copy of the survey to an email and return
to Elta Smith, GHK project manager (elta.smith@ghkint.com; +44 (0) 20 7611 1134).
If you have any questions about the study, the survey or about individual questions please contact Elta
Smith and you will receive a reply by telephone or email as soon as possible.
The official responsible for this study at DG SANCO is Thomas Brégeon
(Thomas.Bregeon@ec.europa.eu; +32 2 295 47 29).

128

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Please provide your contact details by completing the table below. This information will not be passed
on to anyone else, and will only be used if we require additional information.
Name:
Organisation:
Contact telephone:
Contact email address:
Member State:

We thank you in advance for your time and support.

Introduction to GM(O)-free labelling
The EU regulates products that contain GMOs and requires a label indicating the presence
of GMOs where food products contain or consist of GMOs or are produced from or contain
ingredients produced from GMOs. A label is not required for food products containing
material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher
than 0.9 per cent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a
single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
The regulatory framework does not restrict or prohibit labelling that indicates that specific
measures have been taken to strictly exclude the presence or the use of GMOs in some
food or feed products (within the limits of Directive 2000/13, and in particular article 2
thereof). Many public and private operators and organisations throughout the EU have
therefore developed labelling schemes for these products.
Labelling may be based on product and/or process requirements, and the labels can reflect
these differences (e.g. GM-free or GMO-free labels). For the purposes of this survey, the
term ‘GM(O)-free’ captures the multiple possibilities for these types of label.
There are various types of GM(O)-free schemes being used in the EU, including both
private and public standards, as well as explicit and implicit standards (i.e. where ‘GM(O)free’ criteria is embedded within a wider label). This may include:

▪

Type I: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is the main focus of the label, and where the
product label explicitly highlights to the consumer the ‘GM(O)-free’ attribute of the
product.

▪

Type II: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is labelled alongside or in combination with a
product label for the consumer which also highlights other product attributes (e.g.
regional provenance, organic provenance).

▪

Type III: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is a criterion, but is not supported by a
specific product label for the consumer (other communications many be used to
highlight the GM(O)-free attributes of the product).

129

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

‘GM(O)-free’ labelling in your Member State
The first part of the survey will ask for information about the number and types of ‘GM(O)free’ schemes in your Member State.
Type I: Schemes with an explicit label identifying the ‘GM(O)-free’ attribute of the
product
For this section of the questionnaire, we are only interested in initiatives in which the
‘GM(O)-free’ attribute is explicitly labelled on the product.
1.

Is there specific legislation for GM(O)-free labelling in your Member State?
Specific legislation is in place which facilitates/supports GM(O)-free labelling
Please provide the title(s) of the relevant legislation:
Legislation is in place which prohibits GM(O)-free labelling
Please provide the title(s) of the relevant legislation:
No specific legislation which enables or prohibits GM(O)-free labelling

2.

Are there any ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes operating in your Member State in which
‘GM(O)-free’ is specifically labelled on the product?
Yes
No
If yes, how many Type I schemes are operating in your Member State?
If no, are there any plans to develop any Type I schemes in your Member State in the
near future?
Yes (please provide details below)
No
If yes, for each scheme, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or
organisations that we can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes:
Scheme
number

Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone
number/ email
address

Scheme 1

Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Scheme 4
Scheme 5

Further comment (if any):

130

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Type II: ‘GM(O)-free’ is included on a product label that highlights other product attributes
In this section, we are interested in food product labelling schemes for which ‘GM(O)-free’ is one
criterion but the label highlights other product attributes (e.g. regional provenance, organic
provenance). ‘GM(O)-free’ may be designated alongside or in combination with this other product
label. This includes food labelling and certification models such as organic farming, ‘Organic
certification schemes’, ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ or ‘Protected Geographical Indications’.
3.

Are there any food product labelling schemes operating in your Member State for which
‘GM(O)-free’ is specifically labelled on the product alongside a label highlighting another
product attribute?
Yes
No

4.

(please go to Question 5)

Please indicate the Type II food product labelling schemes in your MS:
Organic provenance
Protected Designation of Origin
Protected Geographical Indications
Other (please specify)
How many Type II schemes are operating in your Member State?
For each one, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or organisations that we
can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes.
Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone
number/ email
address

Organic provenance
Protected Designation
of Origin
Protected Geographical
Indications
Other (as described
above)

Further comment (if any):

131

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Type III: ‘GM(O)-free’ is a criterion for product procurement by retailers but does not
have a specific product label for the consumer
In this section, we are interested in food product labelling schemes for which ‘GM(O)-free’
is a criterion used in product procurement by the retailer or producer but is not supported
by a specific product label for the consumer (other communications many be used to
highlight the GM(O)-free attributes of the product).
5.

Are there any Type III food product labelling schemes in your MS which
incorporate a ‘GM(O)-free’ element but are not labelled as such?
Yes
No

(please go to Question 6)

If yes, how many Type III schemes are operating in your Member State?
For each one, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or
organisations that we can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes:
Scheme
number

Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone number/
email address

Scheme 1

Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Scheme 4
Scheme 5

Further comment (if any):

132

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

EU level harmonisation of GM(O)-free labelling
This section asks for your views on the current situation whereby there is no ‘GM(O)-free’
labelling legislation at EU level and on possible EU level harmonisation.
Need for and impacts of a harmonised GM(O)-free label for the EU
6.

Do you think there is added value in having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling—that is, labelling
that highlights this specific product attribute—alongside other types of qualitative scheme
(e.g. ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ or ‘Protected Geographical Indications’)?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

7.

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of
organic products, organic products should have the ‘lowest possible presence of GMOs’,
since GMOs and products produced from GMOs are ‘incompatible with the concept of
organic production and consumers’ perception of organic products.’ Therefore, the
‘existing labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are exclusively linked to the
adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs.’
Do you think there is added value in having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling alongside
organic product labelling?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

8.

Do you think that the current situation regarding ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes cause problems for
the European single market?
Yes
No

(please go to Question 11)

133

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

9.

If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 8, what problems do you believe arise from the current
situation?
Type of problem

Tick box (please
indicate all
problems you
believe arise from
the current
system)

Ranking of
answers (please
rank the
problems
identified in the
order of
importance to
you)

Misleading the consumer (i.e. providing
false information)
Consumer confusion over multiple/
different labels
Standards differ (e.g. acceptance of GM
feed)
Impacts on other labelling schemes (e.g.
organic, regional provenance)
Costs to the supply chain
Uneven playing field for producers
operating under the different labelling
schemes
Monitoring, verification, and certification
costs are multiplied for each market
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):

10. Do you believe action should be taken at European level to harmonise GM(O)-free
schemes?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

134

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

11. If a harmonised system were implemented, how do you think this should be done?
Legal basis

Ranking of answers
(please rank in the order
of importance to you)

Legal requirements with which all operators who choose
to label ‘GM(O)-free’ must comply
Voluntary guidelines that operators could choose to
implement
Other (please explain/ provide an alternative)

Further comment (if any):
12. If there was action at European level to harmonise GM(O)-free labelling, what would be the
most important elements of such a system?
Elements of a system

Ranking of answers (please rank
in the order of importance to you)

The format of the label
The wording used (e.g. ‘GM(O)-free’)
The scope of the labelling (the products covered)
The standards for use of GM(O)-free
Tolerance of adventitious presence of GMOs
The use of GM medicines and enzymes
Traceability systems
Inspection and monitoring
Other (please specify)

Further comment (if any):
13. Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced with/from
GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ (i.e. no allowance for the adventitious or accidental
presence of GMO)?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

135

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

14. If you answered ‘No’ to Question 13, what do you think should be the tolerance level for
adventitious or accidental presence of GMO, below which products could be labelled as
‘GM(O)-free’?
Food tolerance level:

Feed tolerance level:

Further comment (if any):

15. What products should be included in a GM(O)-free system?
Product scope

Tick box (please indicate all
products that you think should
be included in a GM(O)-free
system)

Vegetables
Processed foods (including oils, fats)
Meat and meat products
Dairy products
Eggs
Yeast
Other (please specify)

Further comment (if any):

136

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

16. What wording do you think is appropriate for a label indicating that the product is ‘GM(O)free’ and for what product(s)?
Wording for the label

Appropriate Not
appropriate

Products

GM-free
GMO-free
Prepared without GM
Prepared without gene technology
Does not contain GMOs
Not genetically modified /
engineered
Fed with GM-free food
Other (please describe)
Further comment (if any):
17. What other production process-related elements do you think are important to ensure the
scheme’s success?
Requirement

Tick box (please indicate Comments
all elements that you
think are important to
ensure the scheme’s
success)

Does not allow preparation aided by compounds
or processing aids that contain or are derived
from GMOs
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
GM feed
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
conventional feed that contains GM additives
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
GM feed that contains GM additives
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals treated with veterinary
products produced with modern biotechnology
where non-GM alternatives exist
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):

137

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

18. Should the label allow for any exception(s)?
Exception

Tick box (please
indicate all exceptions
that you think the label
should allow for)

No exceptions
Exception for GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a nonGM alternative is not available
Exceptions for certain additives or enzymes where a nonGM alternative is not available
Exceptions for feed additives where a non-GM alternative
is not available
Exceptions that allow for a minimum time period during
which animals are fed ‘GM-free’ feed before slaughter /
production
Other (please describe)

Further comment (if any):

19. Do you foresee any challenges to implementing a harmonised system?
Yes
No

If yes, what are they?

If yes, how do you think these challenges could be overcome? If not, why?

138

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

20. Please indicate what in your view will be the impact of a harmonised EU-wide ‘GM(O)-free’
labelling scheme in addressing the following problems:
Problem

Impact (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very positive’ to ‘very
negative’)

Explanation

Misleading the consumer (i.e.
providing false information)
Consumer confusion over
multiple/ different labels
Standards differ (e.g. tolerance
for GM feed)
Impacts on other labelling
schemes (e.g. organic, regional
provenance)
Costs to the supply chain
Uneven playing field for
producers operating under the
different labelling schemes
Monitoring, verification, and
certification costs are multiplied
for each market
Other (please describe):
Further comment (if any):
21. Please indicate what in your view will be the overall qualitative impact of a harmonised EUwide ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling system for the following groups:
Impacted group

Impact (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very positive’ to ‘very
negative’)

Explanation

Member State authorities
Producers
Importers
Food
manufacturers/processors
Retailers
Consumers
Other (please describe):
Further comment (if any):

139

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

22. Please indicate where in your view the costs will arise from implementing a harmonised
EU-wide ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling system among the following groups*:
Impacted group

Costs (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very high’ to ‘very
low’)

Explanation

Member State authorities
Producers
Importers
Food
manufacturers/processors
Retailers
Consumers
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):

*If you prefer to send us any data or reports providing quantitative information on GM(O)-free
labelling separately, please email these along with your survey to elta.smith@ghkint.com.
23. Do you have any additional comments that you would like us to consider?

140

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

A2.2

Stakeholder questionnaire

State of play in the EU on GM(O)-free food labelling
schemes and assessment of the need for possible
harmonisation
STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
The purpose and coverage of this survey
GHK Consulting Ltd and a team of experts have been commissioned by the European Commission,
Directorate General Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO) to conduct a study on existing
‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes in the EU and assess the need for a harmonised approach at EU level.
This survey aims to:

▪

Gather information about the different ‘GM(O)-free’ food labelling schemes that exist or are being
developed in Member States, in order to better understand their design and implementation;

▪

Understand what elements are important for ensuring a ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling scheme is
successful; and

▪

Assess the impacts of a possible harmonised approach to ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling in the EU.

For further information about the study, please visit the project website: www.gm-free.eu

Your responses:
We want to hear the views of industry representatives, consumers and other stakeholders on these
issues and request your participation in completing this survey to assist us with the study.
Stakeholders in all Member States are being asked to complete and return this survey. A survey is
also being sent to Member State representatives to understand their views on these issues. All
responses will be treated as confidential and not attributable to individuals or organisations.

Deadline for completing the survey:
Please complete and return the survey by 8 June 2012.

How to submit this form
Please use this interactive Adobe Acrobat document to fill in the survey. You can save a partially
completed survey and circulate via email if inputs from more than one person are required. You may
fill in as much text as may be required for each descriptive response.
Once you have finished please click the ‘Submit’ icon located at the top right of the document to
submit your response. Alternatively, please attach a saved copy of the survey to an email and return
to Elta Smith, GHK project manager (elta.smith@ghkint.com; +44 (0) 20 7611 1134).
If you have any questions about the study, the survey or about individual questions please contact Elta
Smith and you will receive a reply by telephone or email as soon as possible.
The official responsible for this study at DG SANCO is Thomas Brégeon
(Thomas.Bregeon@ec.europa.eu; +32 2 295 47 29).

141

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Please provide your contact details by completing the table below. This information will not be passed
on to anyone else, and will only be used if we require additional information.
Name:
Organisation:
Contact telephone:
Contact email address:
Member State:

We thank you in advance for your time and support.

Introduction to GM(O)-free labelling
The EU regulates products that contain GMOs and requires a label indicating the presence
of GMOs where food products contain or consist of GMOs or are produced from or contain
ingredients produced from GMOs. A label is not required for food products containing
material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher
than 0.9 per cent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a
single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
The regulatory framework does not restrict or prohibit labelling that indicates that specific
measures have been taken to strictly exclude the presence or the use of GMOs in some
food or feed products (within the limits of Directive 2000/13, and in particular article 2
thereof). Many public and private operators and organisations throughout the EU have
therefore developed labelling schemes for these products.
Labelling may be based on product and/or process requirements, and the labels can reflect
these differences (e.g. GM-free or GMO-free labels). For the purposes of this survey, the
term ‘GM(O)-free’ captures the multiple possibilities for these types of label.
There are various types of GM(O)-free schemes being used in the EU, including both
private and public standards, as well as explicit and implicit standards (i.e. where ‘GM(O)free’ criteria is embedded within a wider label). This may include:

▪

Type I: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is the main focus of the label, and where the
product label explicitly highlights to the consumer the ‘GM(O)-free’ attribute of the
product.

▪

Type II: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is labelled alongside or in combination with a
product label for the consumer which also highlights other product attributes (e.g.
regional provenance, organic provenance).

▪

Type III: Schemes in which ‘GM(O)-free’ is a criterion, but is not supported by a
specific product label for the consumer (other communications many be used to
highlight the GM(O)-free attributes of the product).

142

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

‘GM(O)-free’ labelling in your Member State
The first part of the survey will ask for information about the number and types of ‘GM(O)free’ schemes in your Member State.
Type I: Schemes with an explicit label identifying the ‘GM(O)-free’ attribute of the
product
For this section of the questionnaire, we are only interested in initiatives in which the
‘GM(O)-free’ attribute is explicitly labelled on the product.
1. Is there specific legislation for GM(O)-free labelling in your Member State?
Specific legislation is in place which facilitates/supports GM(O)-free labelling
Please provide the title(s) of the relevant legislation:
Legislation is in place which prohibits GM(O)-free labelling
Please provide the title(s) of the relevant legislation:
No specific legislation which enables or prohibits GM(O)-free labelling

2.

Are there any ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes operating in your Member State in which
‘GM(O)-free’ is specifically labelled on the product?
Yes
No
If yes, how many Type I schemes are operating in your Member State?
If no, are there any plans to develop any Type I schemes in your Member State in the
near future?
Yes (please provide details below)
No
If yes, for each scheme, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or
organisations that we can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes:
Scheme
number

Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone
number/ email
address

Scheme 1
Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Scheme 4
Scheme 5

Further comment (if any):

143

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Please also provide any information you may have on the following:
Extent of Type I labelling schemes

Available figures

The type and number of products to
which GMO-free labels are applied in
your Member State

The sales volume of GM-free products
being sold in your Member State

The market share of GM-free products in
your Member State

Further comment (if any):

144

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Type II: ‘GM(O)-free’ is included on a product label that highlights other product attributes
In this section, we are interested in food product labelling schemes for which ‘GM(O)-free’ is one
criterion but the label highlights other product attributes (e.g. regional provenance, organic
provenance). ‘GM(O)-free’ may be designated alongside or in combination with this other product
label. This includes food labelling and certification models such as organic farming, ‘Organic
certification schemes’, ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ or ‘Protected Geographical Indications’.
3.

Are there any food product labelling schemes operating in your Member State for which
‘GM(O)-free’ is specifically labelled on the product alongside a label highlighting another
product attribute?
Yes
No

4.

(please go to Question 5)

Please indicate the Type II food product labelling schemes in your MS:
Organic provenance
Protected Designation of Origin
Protected Geographical Indications
Other (please specify)
How many Type II schemes are operating in your Member State?
For each one, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or organisations that we
can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes:
Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone number/
email address

Organic provenance
Protected Designation
of Origin
Protected Geographical
Indications
Other (as described
above)

Further comment (if any):

145

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Please also provide any information you may have on the following:
Extent of Type II labelling schemes

Available figures

The type and number of products to
which organic labels are applied in your
Member State
The type and number of products to
which Protected Designation of Origin
labels are applied in your Member State
The type and number of products to
which Protected Geographical
Indications labels are applied in your
Member State
The type and number of products to
which ‘other’ labels are applied in your
Member State (as described above)
The sales volume of organic products
being sold in your Member State

The sales volume of Protected
Designation of Origin products being
sold in your Member State
The sales volume of Protected
Geographical Indications products
being sold in your Member State
The sales volume of ‘other’ products
being sold in your Member State (as
described above)
The market share of organic products in
your Member State

The market share of Protected
Designation of Origin products in your
Member State
The market share of Protected
Geographical Indications products in
your Member State
The market share of ‘other’ products in
your Member State (as described above)

Further comment (if any):

146

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Type III: ‘GM(O)-free’ is a criterion for product procurement by retailers but does not
have a specific product label for the consumer
In this section, we are interested in food product labelling schemes for which ‘GM(O)-free’
is a criterion used in product procurement by the retailer or producer but is not supported
by a specific product label for the consumer (other communications many be used to
highlight the GM(O)-free attributes of the product).
5.

Are there any Type III food product labelling schemes in your MS which
incorporate a ‘GM(O)-free’ element but are not labelled as such?
Yes
No

(please go to Question 6)

If yes, how many Type III schemes are operating in your Member State?
For each one, please provide any contact details you have for individuals or
organisations that we can follow-up with for additional information on the schemes.
Scheme
number

Scheme name

Contact name

Organisation

Telephone number/
email address

Scheme 1
Scheme 2
Scheme 3
Scheme 4
Scheme 5

Further comment (if any):
Please also provide any information you may have on the following:
Extent of Type III labelling schemes

Available figures

The type and number of products to
which GMO-free criteria are applied in
your Member State
The sales volume of GM-free products
being sold in your Member State
The market share of GM-free products in
your Member State
Further comment (if any):

147

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

EU level harmonisation of GM(O)-free labelling
This section asks for your views on the current situation whereby there is no ‘GM(O)-free’
labelling legislation at EU level and on possible EU level harmonisation.
Need for and impacts of a harmonised GM(O)-free label for the EU
6.

Do you think there is added value in having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling—that is, labelling
that highlights this specific product attribute—alongside other types of qualitative scheme
(e.g. ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ or ‘Protected Geographical Indications’)?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

7.

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of
organic products, organic products should have the ‘lowest possible presence of GMOs’,
since GMOs and products produced from GMOs are ‘incompatible with the concept of
organic production and consumers’ perception of organic products.’ Therefore, the
‘existing labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are exclusively linked to the
adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs.’
Do you think there is added value in having explicit ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling alongside
organic product labelling?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

8.

Do you think that the current situation regarding ‘GM(O)-free’ schemes cause problems for
the European single market?
Yes
No

(please go to Question 11)

148

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

9.

If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 8, what problems do you believe arise from the current
situation?
Type of problem

Tick box (please
indicate all
problems you
believe arise from
the current
system)

Ranking of
answers (please
rank the
problems
identified in the
order of
importance to
you)

Misleading the consumer (i.e. providing
false information)
Consumer confusion over multiple/
different labels
Standards differ (e.g. acceptance of GM
feed)
Impacts on other labelling schemes (e.g.
organic, regional provenance)
Costs to the supply chain
Uneven playing field for producers
operating under the different labelling
schemes
Monitoring, verification, and certification
costs are multiplied for each market
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):
10. Do you believe action should be taken at European level to harmonise GM(O)-free
schemes?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

149

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

11. If a harmonised system were implemented, how do you think this should be done?
Legal basis

Ranking of answers
(please rank in the
order of importance to
you)

Legal requirements with which all operators who choose
to label ‘GM(O)-free’ must comply
Voluntary guidelines that operators could choose to
implement
Other (please explain/ provide an alternative)
Further comment (if any):
12. If there was action at European level to harmonise GM(O)-free labelling, what would be the
most important elements of such a system?
Elements of a system

Ranking of answers (please
rank in the order of importance
to you)

The format of the label
The wording used (e.g. ‘GM(O)-free’)
The scope of the labelling (the products covered)
The standards for use of GM(O)-free
Tolerance of adventitious presence of GMOs
The use of GM medicines and enzymes
Traceability systems
Inspection and monitoring
Other (please specify)

Further comment (if any):
13. Do you believe that only products which contain no GMO, or are not produced with/from
GMO, can be labelled as ‘GM(O)-free’ (i.e. no allowance for the adventitious or accidental
presence of GMO)?
Yes
No
Why do you think so?

150

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

14. If you answered ‘No’ to Question 13, what do you think should be the tolerance level for
adventitious or accidental presence of GMO, below which products could be labelled as
‘GM(O)-free’?
Food tolerance level:

Feed tolerance level:

Further comment (if any):
15. What products should be included in a GM(O)-free system?
Product scope

Tick box (please indicate all
products that you think should
be included in a GM(O)-free
system)

Vegetables
Processed foods (including oils, fats)
Meat and meat products
Dairy products
Eggs
Yeast
Other (please specify)

Further comment (if any):

151

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

16. What wording do you think is appropriate for a label indicating that the product is ‘GM(O)free’ and for what product(s)?
Wording for the label

Appropriate Not
appropriate

Products

GM-free
GMO-free
Prepared without GM
Prepared without gene technology
Does not contain GMOs
Not genetically modified /
engineered
Fed with GM-free feed
Other (please describe)
Further comment (if any):
17. What other production process-related elements do you think are important to ensure the
scheme’s success?
Requirement

Tick box (please indicate
all elements that you
think are important to
ensure the scheme’s
success)

Comments

Does not allow preparation aided by compounds
or processing aids that contain or are derived
from GMOs
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
GM feed
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
conventional feed that contains GM additives
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals that have been fed on
GM feed that contains GM additives
Does not allow production (including meat, dairy,
eggs, etc.) from animals treated with veterinary
products produced with modern biotechnology
where non-GM alternatives exist
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):

152

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

18. Should the label allow for any exception(s)?
Exception

Tick box (please indicate all
exceptions that you think the
label should allow for)

No exceptions
Exception for GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a nonGM alternative is not available
Exceptions for certain additives or enzymes where a nonGM alternative is not available
Exceptions for feed additives where a non-GM alternative
is not available
Exceptions that allow for a minimum time period during
which animals are fed ‘GM-free’ feed before slaughter /
production
Other (please describe)
Further comment (if any):
19. Do you foresee any challenges to implementing a harmonised system?
Yes
No

If yes, what are they?

If yes, how do you think these challenges could be overcome? If not, why?

153

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

20. Please indicate what in your view will be the impact of a harmonised EU-wide ‘GM(O)-free’
labelling scheme in addressing the following problems:
Problem

Impact (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very positive’ to ‘very
negative’)

Explanation

Misleading the consumer (i.e.
providing false information)
Consumer confusion over
multiple/ different labels
Standards differ (e.g. tolerance
for GM feed)
Impacts on other labelling
schemes (e.g. organic, regional
provenance)
Costs to the supply chain
Uneven playing field for
producers operating under the
different labelling schemes
Monitoring, verification, and
certification costs are multiplied
for each market
Other (please describe):

Further comment (if any):

154

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

21. Please indicate what in your view will be the overall qualitative impact of a harmonised EUwide ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling system for the following groups:
Impacted group

Impact (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very positive’ to ‘very
negative’)

Explanation

Member State authorities
Producers
Importers
Food
manufacturers/processors
Retailers
Consumers
Other (please describe):
Further comment (if any):
22. Please indicate where in your view the costs will arise from implementing a harmonised
EU-wide ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling system among the following groups*:
Impacted group

Costs (please indicate on a
scale of ‘very high’ to ‘very
low’)

Explanation

Member State authorities
Producers
Importers
Food
manufacturers/processors
Retailers
Consumers
Other (please describe):
Further comment (if any):
*If you prefer to send us any data or reports providing quantitative information on GM(O)-free
labelling separately, please email these along with your survey to elta.smith@ghkint.com.

155

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

23. The next set of questions asks about the representation by SMEs in your
sector/industry.
The EU definition of a small-, medium-sized and micro-enterprise is an enterprise that
meets one of the following criteria:
Enterprise category
Medium sized
Small
Micro

Headcount

Turnover

Balance sheet
total

< 250

≤ € 50 million

≤ € 43 million

< 50

≤ € 10 million

≤ € 10 million

< 10

≤ € 2 million

≤ € 2 million

Please identify (name) your sector/industry:
Please indicate the approximate number of enterprises operating in your sector:
Enterprise category

Number of each
category of
enterprises in your
sector

Proportion (%) of
each category of
enterprises in your
sector

Medium sized
Small
Micro
Please indicate the estimated number and/or proportion of SMEs and microenterprises
operating in your sector that may be affected by any EU level action to harmonise
GM(O)-free labelling (please go to Question 24 if this question is not applicable):
Please tick here if your response to this question is the same as your response to the
question immediately above:
If your response is different, please fill out the following table:
Enterprise category

Number of each category
of enterprises in your
sector affected by
harmonisation

Proportion (%) of each
category of enterprises in
your sector affected by
harmonisation

Medium sized
Small
Micro
24. Do you have any additional comments that you would like us to consider?

156

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 3 Case study consultees
A1.1

Austria

Table A1.1

Consultation overview - Austria

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Bundesgremium des Agrarhandels (Austrian Trading Organisation for
Food and Agriculture)

Agricultural trade association

Vereinigung Österreichischer Milchverarbeiter (Austrian Association of
Dairy Industry)

Dairy association

Fachverband der Nahrungs- und Genussmittelindustrie (VFÖ) (Austrian
Board of Food and Luxury Food Industry)

Food processors organisation

Danube Soy

Soy producers association

AMA Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing

Agricultural institution

Global 2000 Heidemarie Porstner

NGO

Greenpeace Austria

NGO

ARGE ohne GenTechnik

Certification organisation

SPAR Österreich

Retailer

Bio Austria

Organic association

Oberndorfer Fleisch GmbH

Slaughtering and cutting

Agricultural chamber Upper Austria

Umbrella organisation
representing farmers’ interests

Agricultural chamber Austria

Umbrella organisation
representing farmers’ interests

REWE Austria

Retailer

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (BMG)

Competent Authority

Umweltbundesamt

Environmental agency

A1.2

Germany

Table A1.2

Consultation overview - Germany

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Deutscher Bauernverband (German Farmers‘ Organisation)

Producer / farmer organisation

Raiffeisen Verband (Raiffeisen Organisation)

Producer / farmer organisation

Bund für Lebensmittelrecht und Lebensmittelkunde e.V. (Association of
Food Law and Food Science)

Retailer association

Deutscher Verband Tiernahrung e.V (German Feed Association)

Feed association

Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft e.V. (BÖLW)

Food processor association

Milchindustrie-Verband e.V. (German Association of Dairy Industry)

Dairy association

Foodwatch Greenpeace

NGO

Friends of the Earth (BUND)

NGO

Marketinggesellschaft Gutes aus Hessen (Marketing Organisation for
food from Hessia)

Marketing association

VLOG Verband Lebensmittel ohne Gentechnik

Certification organisation

157

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Tegut

Retailer

REWE

Retailer (one of the biggest
retailer groups in Germany)

Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz
(Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection)

Competent Authority

A1.3

France

Table A1.3

Consultation overview - France

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Carrefour

Retailer

Loué

Poultry producer

Auchan

Retailer

Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires (ANIA)

Food industry association

Consommation, Logement, Cadre de Vie (CCLV)

Consumer association

Union Nationale de L’Apiculture Française (UNAF)

French beekeepers’ trade union

Fédération Nationale des Syndicats d'Exploitants Agricoles (FNSEA) Federation of farmers’ trade unions
DGCCRF

Consumers, Competent Authority

Ministère de l’Agriculture

Agriculture, Competent Authority

A1.4

Italy

Table A1.4

Consultation overview - Italy

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Coldiretti

Producer/ farmer association

COOP Italia

Retailer

CSQA

Independent Certification Body

Progeo Molini

Wheat milling/processing

Fileni

Poultry producer

Slow Food Italy

NGO

Regione Emilia-Romagna

Italian regional government - GMOfree region representative

Ministero della salute

Competent Authority

Neviani mangimi

GMO free certified feed producer

Fontanesi

Large pig farmer selling to a ‘no-GMO’
supply chain

158

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

A1.5

The Netherlands

Table A1.5

Consultation overview – The Netherlands

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Federation of Dutch Food Industries (FNLI)

Food industry association

Rob Top (individual)

Former civil servant, Ministry of
Health, Welfare and Sports, involved
in drafting regulation in 1999

Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

Competent authority

Bionext

Organic producer

Consumentenbond

NGO

NVWA

Publicly funded nutrition and
sustainable food organisation

Barentz Ingredients

Soy producer

ZLTO

Producer / farmer association

Greenpeace Netherlands

NGO

Central Bureau for Food Trade (CBL)

Retailers

A1.6

United Kingdom

Table A1.6

Consultation overview – United Kingdom

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Marks and Spencer

Retailer

Tesco

Retailer

National Farmers Union (NFU)

Producer/ farmer association

Food and Drink Federation (FDF)

Manufacturer’s association

IGD

Charity dedicated to food and grocery
industry development and consumer
needs

Food Standards Agency (FSA)

Competent Authority

A1.7

Sweden

Table A1.7

Consultation overview - Sweden

Organisation

Sector / organisation type

Livsmedelverket (Swedish Food Agency)

Competent Authority

Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF)

Producer / farmer association

Konsumentverket (Swedish Consumer Agency)

Competent Authority

Hej då GMO! (‘Goodbye GMO!’)

NGO

159

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

160

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 4 Consultation responses – EU level stakeholders
Table A4.1

EU Consultees

Acronym

Name

Sector

Consultation response

AAF

European Starch Industry

Questionnaire

AETMD

European Association of canned and frozen sweet corn
processors

Questionnaire

Amfep

Association of Manufacturers and Formulators of Enzyme
Products

Questionnaire

BEUC

Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs

Interview

CELCAA

Comité européen de liaison des commerces
agroalimentaires

Referred us to EU
members92

CIAA

Confédération des industries agroalimentaires de l’Union
européenne

No reply

COCERAL +
UNISTOCK

Comité du commerce des céréales, aliments du bétail,
oléagineux, huile d’olive, huiles et graisses et
agrofournitures de l’Union européenne

Questionnaire

European association of professional portside storekeepers
for agribulk commodities
COPA-Cogeca

Comité des organisations professionnelles agricoles de
l’Union européenne – Confédération générale des
coopératives agricoles de l’Union européenne

JRC workshop
presentation

ECCA

European Crop Care Association

Response indicated
that they are not
discussing the issue at
this time

ECPA

European Crop Protection Association

No reply

EFFCA

European Food and Feed Cultures Association

Questionnaire

EMRA

European Modern Restaurant Association

No reply

ESA

European Seed Association

Interview scheduled
but not conducted

EUVEPRO

European Vegetable Protein Federation

Questionnaire

EUROCOMMERCE

European Representation of Retail, Wholesale and
International Trade

Interview

EUROCOOP

European Community of Consumer Cooperatives

Interview +
questionnaire

EUROPABIO

European Association of Bioindustries

Interview +
questionnaire

FEDIOL

European Vegetable Oil and Proteinmeal Industry

Interview +
Questionnaire

FEFAC

Fédération européenne des fabricants d’aliments composés
pour animaux

Interview

FERCO

Fédération européenne de la restauration collective
concédée

Response indicated
that they are not
discussing the issue at

92

EU members were contacted; participating members represented elsewhere in this table.

161

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Acronym

Name

Sector

Consultation response
this time

FoodDrinkEurope

European Food and Drink Industry

Interview +
questionnaire

FRESHFEL

European Fresh Produce Association

No reply

FoEE

Friends of the Earth, Europe

Interview

HOTREC

Confédération des associations nationales de l’hôtellerie,
de la restauration, des cafés et établissements similaires de
l’Union européenne et de l’Espace économique européen

No reply

IFOAM EU GROUP

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
— European Union Regional Group

Interview

UECBV

Union européenne du commerce du bétail et de la viande

No reply

UGAL

Union des groupements de détaillants indépendants de
l’Europe

No reply

ECVC

European Coordination Via Campesina

No reply

PFP

Primary Food Processors

Response was
expected but was not
provided

SLOW FOOD

Slow Food Associazione Internazionale

Interview

162

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 5 Data tables for questionnaire responses
Table A5.1

Elements ranked as the most (or second most) important to respondents
MS Representatives

National Stakeholders

EU Stakeholders

Format of label

-

0 (2)

1 (0)

Wording used

3 (1)

4 (10)

0 (1)

Scope of labelling

5 (5)

7 (6)

0 (1)

Standards of use

11 (7)

21 (5)

1 (0)

Tolerance of adventitious
presence

1 (8)

13 (6)

0 (1)

Use of GM medicines and
enzymes

0 (1)

0 (1)

-

Traceability systems

3 (1)

1 (11)

-

Inspection and monitoring

0 (4)

1 (7)

-

Table A5.2

Q15: What products should be included in a GM(O)-free system?
MS Representatives

National Stakeholders

EU Stakeholders

Vegetables

15

29

2

Processed foods

16

32

1

Meat and meat products

15

34

1

Dairy products

15

32

1

Eggs

15

33

1

Yeast

11

28

0

Other

8

16

0

Cereals, fruits, feed, all

Cereals, fish, all

n/a

Other (please specify)

Table A5.3

Q16: What wording do you think is appropriate for a label indicating that the product is
‘GM(O)-free’ and for what products? 93
MS Representatives
Appropriate Not appropriate

National Stakeholders
Appropriate

Not appropriate

GM-free

9

11

14

20

GMO-free

17

7

26

15

Prepared without GMO

6

14

13

19

Prepared without gene technology

5

16

11

23

Does not contain GMOs

11

9

12

24

Not genetically
modified/engineered

9

10

8

29

Fed with GM-free food

12

11

24

12

93

Stakeholders who did not provide any response aren’t included in the table.

163

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table A5.4

Q17: What other production process-related elements do you think are important to ensure
the scheme’s success?
MS Representatives

National Stakeholders

No preparation aided by compounds or
processing aids containing or derived from
GMOs

17

37

No production from animals fed on GMfeed

14

29

No production from animals fed on
conventional feed containing GM additives

12

34

No production from animals fed on GMfeed containing GM additives

14

28

No production from animals treated with
veterinary products produced with
modern biotechnology where non-GM
alternatives exist

8

23

Table A5.5

Q18: Should the label allow for any exceptions?
MS Representatives

National breakdown

No exceptions

8

22

For GM veterinary pharmaceuticals where a nonGM alternative is not available

12

22

For certain additives or enzymes where a non-GM
alternative is not available

8

15

For feed additives where a non-GM alternative is
not available

7

11

For a minimum time period during which animals
are fed ‘GM-free’ feed before slaughter /
production

6

8

Table A5.6

Q20: MS Representative views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling scheme
Very
positive

Positive

No impact
(unknown)

Negative

Very
Negative

Total
responses

Mislead consumer

7

11

0 (2)

2

4

26

Consumer confusion over multiple
labels

4

13

2 (1)

6

0

26

Standards differ

9

9

2 (1)

4

1

26

Other labelling scheme impacts

1

6

13 (3)

2

0

25

Costs to supply chain

0

5

2 (5)

12

2

26

Distort competition (‘uneven playing
field’)

3

14

4 (2)

3

0

26

Monitoring and verification costs

1

7

1 (4)

9

4

26

164

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table A5.7

Q20: National stakeholder views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling scheme
Very
positive

Positive

No impact
(unknown)

Negative

Very
Negative

Total
responses

Mislead consumer

17

14

2 (2)

3

3

41

Consumer confusion over multiple
labels

11

14

3 (5)

4

2

40

Standards differ

13

17

4 (2)

2

2

40

Other labelling scheme impacts

5

12

11 (6)

6

0

40

Costs to supply chain

4

14

4 (5)

7

6

40

Distort competition (‘uneven playing
field’)

14

18

3 (3)

4

0

42

Monitoring and verification costs

7

14

4 (7)

6

1

42

Table A5.8

Q20: EU stakeholder views on the impact of a harmonised EU-wide labelling scheme
Very
positive

Positive

No impact
(unknown)

Negative

Very
Negative

Total
responses

Mislead consumer

1

1

(3)

1

3

9

Consumer confusion over multiple
labels

2

(3)

1

3

9

Standards differ

2

(3)

1

3

9

1 (4)

2

1

8

1

1 (3)

2

2

9

1

1 (3)

2

1

9

2

1 (3)

2

1

Other labelling scheme impacts
Costs to supply chain
Distort competition (‘uneven playing
field’)

1

Monitoring and verification costs

Table A5.9

Q21: MS Representative views on the qualitative impacts of a harmonised EU-wide labelling
scheme on different groups
Very
positive

Positive

No impact
(unknown)

Negative

Very
Negative

Total
responses

MS Authorities

5

8

5 (1)

5

1

25

Producers

2

12

2 (0)

6

2

24

Importers

1

9

4 (2)

8

1

26

Food manufacturers/processors

0

12

2 (3)

7

1

25

Retailers

1

12

5 (3)

4

0

25

Consumers

8

11

1 (1)

4

0

25

165

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table A5.10

Q21: National stakeholder views on the qualitative impacts of a harmonised EU-wide labelling
scheme on different groups
Very
positive

Positive

No impact
(unknown)

Negative

Very
Negative

Total
responses

MS Authorities

7

19

2 (4)

4

2

38

Producers

13

18

1 (2)

3

2

39

Importers

8

15

2 (4)

7

2

38

Food manufacturers/processors

10

18

1 (3)

5

2

39

Retailers

10

17

4 (5)

2

0

38

Consumers

18

13

2 (3)

3

1

40

Table A5.11

Q22: MS Representative views on where the costs will arise of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme among different groups
Very high

High

Medium
(unknown)

Low

Very low

Total
responses

MS Authorities

4

4

8 (3)

4

1

24

Producers

3

10

8 (1)

1

1

24

Importers

2

4

10 (3)

4

1

24

Food manufacturers/processors

4

11

9

0

1

25

Retailers

1

5

4 (4)

5

5

24

Consumers

1

8

10 (2)

2

1

24

Table A5.12

Q22: National stakeholder views on where the costs will arise of a harmonised EU-wide
labelling scheme among different groups
Very high

High

Medium
(unknown)

Low

Very low

Total
responses

MS Authorities

2

6

12 (4)

7

3

34

Producers

9

3

11 (5)

5

0

32

Importers

4

7

9 (4)

6

2

32

Food manufacturers/processors

7

3

16 (5)

3

0

34

Retailers

0

0

10 (4)

12

7

33

Consumers

7

2

7 (4)

11

6

37

166

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 6 Non-food/non-feed products
Non-food/feed products may be another market for GM free products. Experience in the organic sector
is an important precedent in this respect. Private certification schemes exist in the EU for organic
textiles and cosmetics, but the two product categories are not included in the EU organic legal
framework, which is limited to agricultural products for food and feed for animals intended for food.94
■

Textiles: The EU Ecolabel Scheme provides for voluntary labelling of organic cotton if the product
is at least 95% organic cotton.95 Cotton and wool are also included in the scope of the UK Soil
Association organic certification (Soil Association, n.d.). The Global Organic Textile Standard
(GOTS) is the world's leading processing standard for organic textiles and has been developed by
international associations of textile producers and certification agencies (GOTS, n.d.).

■

Beauty products: EU legislation96 regulates the use of claims on cosmetic products. Common
criteria related to labelling cosmetic products as ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ are under development
(ISO, forthcoming). Cosmetics, skin care products, hair products and soaps are currently certified
as organic by the UK Soil Association (Soil Association, n.d.). The Slovenian Institute of Inspection
and Certification has recently introduced standards for organic and natural cosmetics, including
GM(O)-free requirements (IKC, 2012). Ecocert was the first certification body that developed
standards for natural and organic cosmetics; guidelines were introduced in 2003 (Ecocert, 2012).
The COSMOS scheme is an international standard for organic cosmetics developed by European
standards associations. This standard forbids the use of GMOs (COSMOS, 2011). In 2007, the
European Organic Food Federation introduced specific standards for non-food products including
the following categories: hair and body care preparations, toiletries (soaps and dental care
products), cosmetics and fragrances, aromatherapy products (Organic Food Federation, 2007).

■

Medicinal and aromatic plants: several producers of medicinal herbs and essence in the EU are
certified as organic by Demeter, an international certification organisation (Demeter, 2012).
Different companies producing certified organic medical and aromatic plants are present, for
example, in France, Germany and Italy (Iporex, 2012).

Organic certification of the listed products include ‘GM(O)-free’ requirements: Demeter, for examples,
requires a GM(O)-free certification for all inputs at risk from genetic modification (Demeter, n.d.).
Organic certification and labelling of textiles and cosmetics is also allowed in third countries. The US
Department of Agriculture, for example, provides for organic certification of textiles, cosmetics and
personal care products and has developed specific guidelines for labelling these products (USDA,
2012). Other categories of non-food products certified as organic or GM(O)-free are found to be
present in third countries, including:
■

Cleaning products: examples of products with certified organic ingredients can be found in New
Zealand (BioGro, 2012). ‘Non-GMO Project’ verified cleaning products have been developed in the
US (cleanVia, 2012);

■

Non-GMO disposable dinnerware has been developed by a US company in cooperation with the
‘Non-GMO Project’ (VerTerra, 2010).

There might be scope for certification for other products derived from agriculture, including paper and
wood products. The absence of GM wood, for example, is one of the conditions required by the EU
Ecolabel for Wooden Furniture (European Commission, n.d.) and for Wooden Floor Coverings
(European Commission, n.d.). Certification of paper products with this EU scheme, on the other hand,
does not currently include GMO-free requirements. Examples of European companies specialised in

94

See Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of
organic products.
95
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU
Ecolabel.
96
Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

167

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

the production of furniture from organic materials can be found (Harlands, n.d.). There is no specific
standard or certification scheme for wooden furniture comparable to those for textiles.

168

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 7 GM(O)-free labelling ‘landscape’ in third countries
In the US, Canada, Australia and Japan, negative ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling is voluntary. Manufacturers
are required to take measures to substantiate the claim by testing the presence of novel protein and
novel DNA, and document handling practices and procedures (Wong, 2003).

A7.1

Japan

Japan currently allows negative labelling to be conducted on a voluntary basis. Labelling requirements
are set out in the ‘Labelling Standard for Genetically Modified Foods’ (Notification No 517 of the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) of March 31, 2000). There are three categories
of products that may be labelled as GM(O)-free as outlined in Table A7.1.
Table A7.1

Product categories for which a GM(O)-free label may be used

Category

Label designation

Products for which GM can be detected after
processing and where non-GM production and
distribution is managed and documented through an
IP system

The product ingredient label may include ‘non GM’ or
‘non GM is sorted’ after the particular relevant
ingredient (e.g. soybean)

Products for which GM cannot be detected after
processing (e.g. oils, liquid sugar)

The product ingredient label may include ‘GM
[ingredient] is separated’ (e.g. ‘GM soybean is
separated’), or ‘non GM’ after the particular relevant
ingredient (e.g. soybean)

Animal products (meat, milk, etc.)

The label may indicate that the product was produced
from animals fed on non-GM feed (e.g. ‘this milk is
made from animals fed on non-GM feed’)

Sources: ICF GHK and CAA personal communication, 26/10/2012 and CAA Food Labelling System Overview (no
date)

There are no provisions for a common mark or logo for non-GM products. Wording that indicates the
non-GM status of the product must be indicated in the ingredient list after the name of the ingredient in
accordance with the situations set out above.
The threshold level allowed for labelling ‘non GM’ products is set at 5% (above which products must
be positively labelled as containing GM ingredients). For products to be labelled ‘non-GM,’ ingredients
must also be identity-preserved at each step of the production and distribution process in accordance
with the ‘Labeling Standard for Genetically Modified Foods’.97 In the event such documentation cannot
be provided, products are only allowed to be labelled as ‘not segregated from GM products’ (Wong,
2003). Identity-preservation is the responsibility of the individual operator; there is no certification
authority or third party for certifying non-GM products. The Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) has
published Distribution Manuals for soybeans, corn, potato and papaya to assist operators in IP
handling for non-GM foods (CAA 2011, 2002, 2001, 2000). The competent authority (MAFF) and
prefectural governments carry out post-marketing food surveillance.
There is no information on the product scope or market share for products carrying the non-GM label
(ICF GHK and CAA personal communication, 27 October 2012).

A7.2

New Zealand

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was set up in May 2000 to investigate and report on
the issues and options surrounding genetic modification for New Zealand. The institution currently
supports the New Zealand Joint Food Code as well as the Code’s mandatory labelling requirements
for GM-derived produce. The Commission considers that a standard GM(O)-free label should be used
97

Notification No 517 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of March 31, 2000; latest revision
Notification No 9 of the Consumer Affairs Agency of August 31, 2011.

169

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

on a voluntary basis to indicate that a food contains no genetically modified material and has not been
manufactured in a genetically modified production process.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1986, New Zealand’s Commerce Commission interprets ‘GM(O)-free’ as
the absence of any GM ingredient in a food or genetic modification in the production process of a food
product. As such, no ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling scheme exists in New Zealand. Alternative terminologies to
‘GM(O)-free’ may be used, however. These include:
■

‘Not sourced from GM ingredients’ (which does not provide the assurance that the food is free
from accidental GM contamination during storage, handling, processing or manufacturing stages);

■

‘Best endeavour to be GM-free’ (where the intention of the label is to convey that all efforts have
been made to be ‘GM(O)-free’ but there may be an associated risk of adventitious contamination).

A7.3

United States

GM(O)-free labelling is voluntary in the US. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the use of negative labelling may suggest to consumers that GM(O)-free foods or ingredients are
superior compared to their GM counterparts, but the FDA does not recognise any such material
difference. Negative labelling may also be misleading if it suggests that a food or ingredient is not
genetically modified when there is no authorised GM equivalent on the market.
In 1999, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) released the ‘ Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labelling Indicating Whether
Foods have or have not been Developed using Bioengineering’ to provide assistance to
manufacturers. Some examples of voluntary labelling possibilities under the FDA guidelines are
detailed below.
Table A7.2

Voluntary labelling guidelines in the United States

Wording on label

FDA comment

GMO-free/GM-free (does not contain genetically
modified organisms), OR Not genetically
modified OR Biotech-free

Not recommended. ‘Free’ implies zero content,
which is nearly impossible to verify.

We do not use ingredients produced using
biotechnology

OK

This oil is made from soybeans that were not
genetically engineered

OK

This cantaloupe was not genetically engineered

May be misleading because it implies that other
cantaloupes may be genetically engineered.
However, currently, there are no such varieties
on the market

Genetically engineered

OK

This product contains cornmeal that was
produced using biotechnology

OK

This product contains high oleic acid soybean oil
from soybeans developed using biotechnology to
decrease the amount of saturated fat guidelines

OK. The underlined part is mandatory because it
indicates a nutritional change. The rest is
voluntary under the proposed guidelines

Source: US FDA (1999)

The most popular ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling scheme is the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ scheme, initiated in
2005. The Non-GMO Project developed out of two initiatives led by natural food retailers: the ‘Big
Carrot Natural Food Market’ in Toronto, Canada and ‘People Want to Know Campaign’ in the US. The
efficiency of the Canadian initiative was impeded by the absence of an authoritative standard for nonGM production and the US initiative lacked an industry-wide non-GM standard. The two campaigns
agreed to form the Non-GMO Project with the aim of creating a standardised meaning of ‘non-GM’ for
the North American food industry. By the spring of 2007, the Non-GMO Project included
representatives from all stakeholder groups in the natural products industry, such as consumers,

170

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

retailers, farmers and manufacturers. The scheme began to enrol ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ products
in 2008.98
According to SPINS (a market research firm), sales of ‘Non-GMO Project’ certified products reached
US$1 billion in 2011. A 2012 SPINS report claims that ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ is the fastest
growing eco-label in North America. The scheme ensures that products bearing the seal have gone
through a verification process (known as the Product Verification Program (PVP)) which is aimed to
assess compliance with the Non-GMO Project Standard.
Figure A7.1

Non-GMO Project label

The ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ scheme provides an assurance that a product has been produced
according to consensus-based best practices for GMO avoidance which include the following ‘action
thresholds’ for adventitious GM material: 0.1% for seed, 0.5% for food, and 0.9% for feed. The
scheme is currently open to food manufacturers, processors, retailers, seed companies and organic
certifiers.
Non-GMO inspection services can also be done in conjunction with yearly organic inspections to
reduce costs and increase efficiency. Nevertheless, the ‘Non-GMO Project’ does not currently include
a monitoring process.
Currently, there are more than 220

99

brands that bear the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ seal. In total,
there are around 1,422 US (and Canadian) participating retailers that have chosen to endorse the
Non-GMO Project Verified seal.

A7.4

Canada

Canada currently operates a voluntary GM(O)-free labelling scheme. The voluntary rule applies to the
advertising and labelling of pre-packaged, bulk and prepared food. The GM(O)-free labelling scheme
that is in use in Canada is the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ Seal described in the US (section A7.3).
The Canadian government has supported the development of a national standard for the voluntary
labelling of GM foods. On 15 April 2004, the Government of Canada announced the official adoption,
by the Standards Council of Canada, of the Standard for Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods
That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering as a National Standard of Canada. As such,
food products containing small amounts of genetically modified ingredients can still be labelled
‘GM(O)-free’ if accidental GM contamination is less than 5%. The labelling guidelines are outlined in
Table A7.3.

98

Non-GMO Project website: ‘About the Non-GMO project’ (http://www.nongmoproject.org/about/)
Product categories include: baby food and infant formula, beverages, body care products, breads and baked
goods, candy, chocolate and sweeteners, cereals and breakfast foods, condiments, oils, dressings and spreads,
dairy products, feed and seed, fruit and vegetables, grains, beans and flour, herbs, spices and other ingredients,
meat, fish and eggs, mercantile, packaged/frozen meals, pasta, pet products, snack foods and bars, soups and
sauces, tofu, tempeh and alternative meat products, vitamins and supplements, wholesale ingredients.
99

171

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Table A7.3

Canadian National Standard for GM(O)-free labelling
Claim for a GM(O)-free label can be made

Claim for a GM(O)-free label cannot be made

Single-ingredient
food

Single-ingredient food is obtained from
sources of which less than 5% are
products of genetic engineering

Single-ingredient food is obtained from
sources to which a product of genetic
engineering has been intentionally added

Ingredient in a
multi-ingredient
food

Less than 5% of the source of the
ingredient is a product of genetic
engineering

Ingredient has been obtained from
sources to which a product of genetic
engineering has been intentionally added

A7.5

Australia

Negative labelling is voluntary in Australia. Nevertheless, the ability for manufacturers to use GM(O)free labelling statements such as ‘not sourced from genetically modified ingredients’ or ‘free from
genetic modification’ is subject to the stringent laws imposed by the Fair Trading Act which stipulates
that ‘GM(O)-free’ products should contain no mixture or highly-processed ingredients from GM crops.
Food suppliers are therefore recommended to take adequate steps to substantiate a ‘GM(O)-free’
claim with evidence, thus ensuring that it is neither misleading nor deceptive (Wong, 2003).
The Australian Food Standard 1.5.2 sets out conditions for claims that a product is ‘GM(O)-free.’
Suppliers need to provide GM test results for any relevant food or ingredient believed to be completely
‘GM(O)-free’. The GM status of many agricultural commodities can be established via IP systems.
These are designed to ensure the absence of GM components in foods or ingredients by separating
non-GM from GM components throughout the supply chain. The Standard does not make the use of
IP systems mandatory. As long as suppliers can ensure the integrity and purity of their products,
‘GM(O)-free’ claims are permissible.
Due to this stringency, negative labelling is uncommon amongst Australian producers and retailers.
False claims are heavily sanctioned under the Fair Trading Act – if convicted, a fine of up to
AUS$60,000 for an individual or AUS$200,000 for a company may be levied. The court may also
suspend activities completely.
Organic certification organisations, such as the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture,
Australia (NASAA), strongly advocate ‘zero’ tolerance towards genetic modification. Due to the rigid
fair trading laws, certifiers like NASAA use the term ‘non-GMO’ although NASAA’s organic products
are not labelled as ‘non-GMO’ or any other similar label in the context of its organic standard.
References to genetic engineering on product labels are limited to the production and processing
methods to indicate that genetic modification techniques have not been used.
A major retailer, Foodland, has declared itself ‘GM(O)-free’ in its marketing materials and has
indicated willingness to introduce a private ‘non-GM’ label.

A7.6

India

India has not yet established a mandatory or voluntary negative labelling scheme. The Ministry of
Commerce and Industry has entrusted the Export Inspection Council of India (EICI) with the
responsibility of issuing ‘non-GMO’ certificates for exporters of various products.
In 2000, the Indian Government released the National Standards for Organic Products (NSOP) under
the ‘National Programme for Organic Production’ (NPOP). These standards do not allow organic
products to be labelled ‘GM(O)-free’ so as to avoid potentially misleading claims about the end
product. References to the avoidance of genetic engineering in the production method are allowed on
product labels.

172

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Third-party certification is also used. Sonic Biochem has endorsed the CERT ID Non GMO label.100
Sonic Biochem is particularly known for its ‘soya range’ which includes processed foods, health foods,
bakery and confectionery products, chocolates, nutraceuticals, pet foods, and cosmetics.

A7.7

China

There are no private or public ‘GM(O)-free’ labelling schemes in China. Nonetheless, an international
organic certification body known as the Organic Crop Improvement Association International (OCIA)
certifying body has developed International Certification Standards, which are used by Chinese
manufacturers and retailers if they wish to endorse the organic seal. OCIA does not allow organic
labelling to include ‘GMO-free’ or similar wording but labels may reference the fact that production and
processing methods have not used genetic modification techniques.

100

Cert ID Europe provides food safety certification against the British Retail Consortium Global Standard Food Certification
(BRC), Non GMO and EU Regulatory Certification and ProTerra certification for environmentally sustainable and socially
responsible food and feed production (http:/www.cert-id.eu/About-Us).

173

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 8 Meta-analysis of WTP studies for GM(O)-free products
Table A8.1

Results of a meta-analysis of GM food valuation studies (Lusk et al., 2005)

Author

Country of study

Valuation method

Nature of elicitation
question

Type of valuation

Product

Tangible consumer
benefit101

% Premium for NonGM(O)

Boccaletti & Moro
(2000)

Italy

Payment card

Hypothetical

WTP

General

No
Yes

1.06
-6.63

Burton et al. (2001)

United Kingdom

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

General

No

169.

Grimsrud et al.
(2003)

Norway

Semi-double-bound
DC

Hypothetical

WTA

Bread

No

49.87

Moon &
Balasubramanian
(2003)

United Kingdom

Payment card

Hypothetical

WTP
WTA

Breakfast cereal

No

27.97
95.97

Noussair, Robin &
Ruffieux (2002)

France

Auction

Real

WTP

Cornflakes

No

29.63

Noussair, Robin &
Ruffieux (2004)

France

Auction

Real

WTP

Cookies

No

51.

Tonsor &
Schroeder (2003)

United Kingdom
Germany
France

Conjoint choice

Real

WTP/WTA

Beef steak

No

101.61
29.58
32.36

Baker & Burnham
(2001)

United States

Conjoint ranking

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

Cornflakes

No

40.

Bugbee & Loureiro
(2003)

United States

Double-bound DC

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

Tomato
Beef

Yes

-12.37
-32.60

Buhr et al. (1993)

United States

Auction

Real

WTP

Pork sandwich

Yes

-15.44

Chen & Chern

United States

Dichotomous

Hypothetical

WTP

Vegetable oil,

No

6.50

Europe

United States

101

For example, increased nutrition or shelf life.

174

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Author

Country of study

(2001)

Valuation method

Nature of elicitation
question

Type of valuation

choice (DC)

Product

Tangible consumer
benefit101

Cornflakes, salmon

% Premium for NonGM(O)
14.50
21.50

Chern et al. (2003)

United States

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/ WTA

Salmon (feed)
Salmon (meat)
Salmon (feed)
Salmon (meat)

No

41.00
53.00
54.00
67.00

Huffman et al.
(2003)

United States

Auction

Real

WTP

Vegetables
Corn chips
Potato

No

15.39
16.13
16.67

Loureiro & Hine
(2002)

United States

Payment card

Hypothetical

WTP

Potato

No

6.

Lusk (2003)

United States

Double-bound DC

Hypothetical

WTP

Golden rice

Yes

-19.54

Lusk et al. (2001)

United States

Auction

Real

WTP

Corn chips

No

13.00

Lusk et al. (2002)

United States

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

Corn chips

No
Yes

11.33
-0.33

Rousu at al. (2003)

United States

Auction

Real

WTP

Vegetables
Corn chips
Potato

No

5.26
10.29
12.00

VanWechel et al.
(2003)

United States

Auction

Real

WTP

Potato chips
Cookie
Muffin

No

8.60
6.70
11.00

Chern at al. (2003)

United States
Norway
Japan
Taiwan

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

General-Animal

No

56.00
62.00
36.50
19.00

Lusk at al. (2004a)

United States (TX)
United States (CA)
United States (FL)
United Kingdom
France

Auction

Real

WTA

Cookie

No

40.00
80.00
20.00
160.00
784.00

Mixed

175

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of the need for possible harmonisation

Author

Country of study

Valuation method

Nature of elicitation
question

Type of valuation

Product

Tangible consumer
benefit101

% Premium for NonGM(O)

Lusk, Roosen &
Fox (2003)

United States
United Kingdom
Germany
France

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

Beef steak

No

39.94
74.24
90.24
109.65

James & Burton
(2003)

Australia

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

General-Plant

No

18.20
21.05

Li at al. (2003)

China

Double-bound DC

WTP

Rice

Yes

-38.00
-16.30

McCluskey at al.
(2003)

Japan

Semi-double-bound
DC

Hypothetical

WTA

Noodles

No

60.34

West et al. (2002)

Canada

Conjoint choice

Hypothetical

WTP/WTA

Tomato, potato
chips, chicken

Yes

-67.00
-63.00
-24.00

Other

Hypothetical

Adapted from Lusk et al., 2004

176

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

Annex 9 References
■

Agrifood Awareness Australia (2004) ‘Global GM Food Labelling Laws’, Biotech Bulletin 8,
http://www.afaa.com.au/biotechpdf/08_2004_Global_Labelling_Laws.pdf.

■

Agrifood Awareness Australia (2009) ‘State governments and GM crops’, Issue Paper 5,
http://www.afaa.com.au/pdf/IssuePaper5-GE_free_zones.pdf.

■

Ajzen, I., T. Brown and C. Rosenthal (1996) ‘Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of
personal relevance, quality of information and motivational orientation’, Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, vol. 30 (January), pp. 43–57.

■

Amagasa, K. (2008) ‘How genetically modified foods are accelerating the food crisis’,
http://www.nishoren.org/en/?p=150.

■

Arvanitoyannis, I. and A. Krystallis (2005) ‘Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards
genetically modified foods, based on the ’perceived safety vs. benefits’ perspective’, International
Journal of Food Science & Technology.

■

AsureQuality (2010) ‘AsureQuality Organic Standard for Primary Producers’,
http://www.ebookonline.co.nz/asurequality/asurequality_organic_standard_-_full/.

■

Baker, G. and T. Burnham (2011) ‘Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market
Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers’, J. Agr. and Resour. Econ,
26:387- 403.

■

Balineau, G. and I. Dufeu (2010) ‘Are Fair Trade Goods Credence Goods? A New Proposal, with
French Illustrations’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 92, pp.331–345.

■

Bayerischer Landtag (2012) ‘Application: Geprüfte Qualität Bayern-Siegel um Garantie der
Gentechnikfreiheit er-weitern’,
http://www.bayern.landtag.de/www/ElanTextAblage_WP16/Drucksachen/Basisdrucksachen/00000
08000/0000008029.pdf.

■

Bech-Larsen, T. and K. G. Grunert (2000) ‘Can health benefits break down Nordic consumers’
rejection of genetically modified foods? A conjoint study of Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and
Finnish consumer’s preferences for hard cheese’, Paper at ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for
the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge Conference.

■

BioGro (2012) ‘Household cleaning products’,
http://www.biogro.co.nz/mm_uploads/BioGro_ID_2012_household_clean.pdf.

■

Biological Farmers of Australia (2010) ‘Australian Certified Organic Standard: The Requirements
for Organic Certification’, http://www.bfa.com.au/Portals/0/ACO_2010_Standard_full.pdf.

■

Boccaletti, S. and D. Moro (2000) ‘Consumer Willingness to Pay for GM Food Products in Italy’,
AgBioForum, vol. 3, pp.259-267.

■

Boccaletti, S. And D. Moro (2004) ‘Gli alimenti geneticamente modificati’, Il sistema agroalimentare dell’Emilia-Romagna, Rapporto 2003, a cura di R. Fanfani e R. Pieri, Franco Angeli,
Milano.

■

Bredahl, L. (2001) ‘Determinants of consumers attitudes and purchase intentions with regards to
genetically modified foods – results of a cross-national survey’, Journal of Consumer Policy 24,
pp.23–61.

■

Bugbee, M. and M. Loureiro (2003) ‘A Risk Perception Analysis of Genetically Modified Foods
Based on Stated Preferences’, Selected paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics
Association annual meetings, Montreal, Canada.

■

Buhr, L., D. Hayes, J. Shogren and J. Kliebenstein (1993) ‘Valuing Ambiguity: The Case of
Genetically Engineered Growth Enhancers’, J. Agr. and Resour. Econ, pp.175-184.

■

Burton, M., T. Rigby, T. Young and J. Sallie (2001) ‘Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically
Modified Organisms in Food in the UK’, Eur. Rev. Agr. Econ, vol. 28, pp. 479-498.

177

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Buxel, H. (2010) ‘Akzeptanz und Nutzung von Gute- und Qualitatssiegeln auf Lebensmitteln –
Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung’, https://www.fhmuenster.de/fb8/downloads/buxel/10_Studie_Lebensmittelsiegel.pdf.

■

Byrne, P. (2010) ‘Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods’, Colorado State University,
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html.

■

Canavari, M. and R.M. Nayga Jr. (2009) ‘On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally
enhanced genetically modified food’, Applied Economics, Vol. 41, No 1, pp.125-137.

■

Canavari, M., F. Tisselli, R.M. Nayga Jr., and R. Scarpa (2009) ‘Italian Consumer Acceptance of
Nutritionally Enhanced GM Food’, Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at the International
Association of Agricultural Economists’, Conference, Beijing, China, August 16-22.

■

Caswell, J.A. and E.M. Mojduszka (1996) ‘Using Informational Labeling to Influence the Market for
Quality in Food Products’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 78, pp.1248–53.

■

Cembalo, L., G. Cicia, and F. Verneau (2001) ‘Prodotti Transgenici e Consumatori: il Ruolo della
Conoscenza e dell’Attitudine al Rischio’, paper presented at the XXXVIII Convegno SIDEA,
Catania, September 27-29.

■

Chang, X. (2007) ‘Labeling Policy and Impact on Consumer's Purchasing Behavior in China: A
Case Study of Vegetable Oil in Nanjing’, Intemational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and
Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS).

■

Chen, H. and W. Chern (2001) ‘Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Foods: Results from a
Public Survey in the U.S.’, Working paper, Dept. of Agr., Environ., and Develop. Econ., Ohio State
University, Columbus.

■

Chern, W., K. Rickertsen, N. Tsuboi, and T. Fu (2003) ‘Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to
Pay for Genetically Modified Vegetable Oil and Salmon: A Multiple-Country Assessment’,
AgBioForum, vol. 5, pp.105-112.

■

CleanVia (2012) ‘Eco-logo certified’, http://www.cleanvia.com/household.html.

■

Consument en Biotechnologie (1999) ‘Jaarverslag stichting Consument en Biotechnologie, 1997 –
1998’, Den Haag.

■

Consumentenbond and Greenpeace (1999) ‘Consumentenbond en Greenpeace: huismerken
gentechvrij’, Persbericht, 19 maart.

■

Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) (2000) ‘Japanese Agricultural Standard: Labeling Standard for
Genetically Modified Foods’, http://www.caa.go.jp/jas/hyojIPdf/kijun_03.pdf.

■

Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) (2001) ‘Distribution Manual for non-GM: Soybeans and Corn,
http://www.maff.go.jp/e/jas/labelling/pdf/modi03.pdf.

■

Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) (2002) ‘Distribution Manual for non-GM: potato’ (2002)
(http://www.maff.go.jp/e/jas/labelling/pdf/modi04.pdf).

■

Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) (2011) ‘Distribution Manual for non-GM: papaya’
(http://www.caa.go.jp/foods/pdf/syokuhin736.pdf).

■

COSMOS (2011) ‘COSMOS-standard’, Cosmetics organic and natural standard,
http://www.cosmos-standard.org/docs/COSMOS-standard_v1.1_310111.pdf.

■

Costa-Font, M., J.M. Gil, and W.B. Traill (2008) ‘Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes
towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy’. Food Policy, vol. 33,
pp.99-111.

■

Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by
law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products.

■

Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products.

■

Curtis, K., J. McCluskey, and T. Wahl (2004) ‘Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food
products in the developing world’, AgBioForum.
178

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Dagevos, J.C. and H.J.M. Hansman (2003) ‘Weten, wensen en waarden: consument en
voedsel(veiligheid)’, Den Haag: Voedingscentrum.

■

Dannenberg, A., S. Scatasta, and B. Sturm (2011) ‘Mandatory versus voluntary labelling of
genetically modified food: evidence from an economic experiment’, Agricultural Economics, vol.
42, pp.373-386.

■

de Vriend, H.C. (2004) ‘Mogelijkheid van gentechvrije ketens: Onderzoek naar voorwaarden,
knelpunten en mogelijkheden vanuit een ketenbenadering’, Stichting Consument en
Biotechnologie, commissioned by the Commission on Genetic Modification, July.

■

Demeter (2012) ‘Demeter product database’, http://database.demeter.net/prpub/all/all/6596.

■

Demeter (n.d.) ‘Requirements for achieving a Demeter certification’,
http://www.demeter.net/certification/procedures/procedure-example.

■

Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi (2005) ‘National
Programme for Organic Production’,
http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/ORGANIC_CONTENTS/English_Organic_Sept05.
pdf.

■

DG AGRI (2013) ‘Review of the political and legal framework for organic production’, Enlarged
Advisory Group on Organic Farming, results of the public consultation.

■

DG AGRI (2012) ‘Study on mandatory origin labelling for pig, poultry and sheep and goat meat’,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/tenderdocs/2012/63845/specs_en.pdf.

■

DG SANCO (2012) ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/index_en.htm.

■

Codex Alimentarius (2010) ‘Guidelines on substances used as processing aids’.

■

DG SANCO (n.d.) ‘Biotechnology – Exemption’,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/exemption/index_en.htm.

■

DG SANCO (n.d.) ‘Animal Nutrition – Feed Additives – Introduction’,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/feedadditives/index_en.htm.

■

DG SANCO (2011) ‘Food enzymes’, http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/fAEF/enzymes/index_en.htm.

■

Ecocert (2012) ‘Natural and organic cosmetics’, http://www.ecocert.com/en/natural-and-organiccosmetics.

■

Efficience 3 (2009) «Opinion des Français sur le « Sans OGM »dans les produits alimentaires
d’origine animale», Février.

■

Einsiedel, E. (2000) ‘Consumers and GM food labels: Providing information or sowing confusion?’
AgBioForum, vol.3(4), pp.231-235.

■

Eurobarometer (1996 - 2010).

■

European Commission (1997) Regulation (EC) No 258/97 Of The European Parliament And Of
The Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients.

■

European Commission (2010a) ‘An analysis of the EU organic sector’,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/markets/organic_2010_en.pdf.

■

European Commission (2010b) ‘Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change?’.

■

European Commission (n.d.) ‘The EU Ecolabel for Wooden Furniture’,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Wooden_furniture.pdf.

■

European Commission (n.d.) ‘The EU Ecolabel Wooden Floor Coverings’,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Wooden_floor_covering.pdf.

■

Fagan, J. (2003) ‘Cert ID, A Successful Example of an Independent, Third-Party, Private
Certification System’, The Farm Foundation, presented at the Symposium ‘Product Differentiation
and Market Segmentation in Grains and Oilseeds: Implications for Industry in Transition’,
http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/Fagan.pdf.
179

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

FarmingUK (2013) ‘Cert ID’s ‘Ohne Gentechnik’ opens doors for UK food and feed,
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Cert-ID-s-Ohne-Gentechnik-opens-doors-for-UK-food-andfeed_25157.html.

■

Federal Office of Public Health, Switzerland (2008a) ‘Detailed guidance on the provisions relating
to labelling’,
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/lebensmittel/04858/04863/04884/04931/index.html?lang=it.

■

Federal Office of Public Health, Switzerland (2008b) ‘Labelling’,
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/lebensmittel/04858/04863/04884/index.html?lang=it.

■

Firinaiu, S., M.G. Muglia, G.M. Mureu, M. Pinna, and C. Virdis (2011) ‘OGM e percezione dei
consumatori. Un'indagine campionaria’, AgriregioniEuropa, vol. 7(26), settembre.

■

Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC) (2010) ‘Evaluation of GM Food and Feed Legislation’,
commissioned by DG Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO), European Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/evaluation_gm_report_en.pdf.

■

Food Manufacture (2012) http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Tesco-bossprepares-for-GM-u-turn.

■

Food Smart (2003) ‘Summary Report on Voluntary GM-free Labelling’, Workshop, 27 November,
http://www.foodsmart.govt.nz/elibrary/summary_report_voluntary.htm.

■

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2012) ‘Genetically Modified foods’,
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/.

■

Forsa (2009) ’78 Prozent der Deutschen woollen kein Genfood. Umfrage des
Meinungsforschungsinstituts Forsa fur Slow Food Deutschland’,
http://www.slowfood.de/w/files/pdf_neu/meinungen_zu_gentechnik_190509.pdf.

■

Friends of the Earth (FoE) (2010) ‘Press release on GM labelling survey results’,
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_poll_15062010.html.

■

FSA (Food Standards Agency) (2008) ‘GM Labelling’, http://www.food.gov.uk/policyadvice/gm/gm_labelling.

■

FSA Social Science Research Unit (2012) ‘Biannual Public Attitudes Tracker’, Wave 4, May 2012.

■

FSA (2012) ‘GM Labelling - Exploring public responses to the labelling of GM food and the use of
GM-free labelling - Qualitative and Quantitative Findings’,
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/publication/gm-labelling-report.pdf.

■

Gaskell, G., S. Stares, A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, C. Corchero, C. Fischler, J. Hampel, J. Jackson, J.
Kronberger, N. Mejgaard, G. Revuelta, C. Schreiner, H. Torgersen, and W. Wagner (2006)
‘Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends’, A report to the European
Commission’s Directorate-General for Research, Brussels, July,
http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pr1906en.cfm.

■

Gifford, K. and J.C. Bernard (2008) ‘Factor and Cluster Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Organic
and Non-GM Food’, Journal of Food Distribution Research 39(2).

■

GOTS (n.d.) ‘Global organic textile standard’, http://www.global-standard.org/about-us.html.

■

Gouri, P.V.S.M. (2008) ‘Joint Training for harmonisation or risk assessment in India’, The
Inspectors’ Report, Spring, http://www.ioia.net/images/TIRArchive/v17n2pt2.pdf.

■

Greenpeace India (2009) ‘A consumer’s guide to GM free food’,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40702028/Safe-Food-Guide.

■

Greenpeace India (2010) ‘Safe Food Guide’,
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/PageFiles/164196/safe-food-guide-v-2-0.pdf.

■

Greenpeace Netherlands (2012) Website, http://www.greenpeace.nl/Nieuws/Nieuwsberichten/.

■

Grimsrud, K. M., J. J. McCluskey, M. L. Loureiro, and T. I. Wahl. (2003) ‘Consumer Attitudes
Toward Genetically Modified Food in Norway’, Working paper, IMPACT Center, Washington State
University, Pullman.
180

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Gruere, G. and S.R. Rao (2007) ‘A Review of International Labelling Policies of Genetically
Modified Food to Evaluate India’s Proposed Rule’, AgBioForum, vol. 10(1), pp.51-64,
http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a06-gruere.pdf.

■

Halford N. and P. Shewry (2000) ‘Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation
and public concerns’, British Medical Bulletin, vol.56, pp.62-73.

■

Harlands (n.d.) ‘Putting policy into practice’, http://www.organic-furnishings.co.uk/ABOUT_US/9/.

■

Harrison, W., S. Boccaletti, and L. House (2004) ‘Risk Perceptions of Urban Italian and United
States Consumers for Genetically Modified Foods’, AgBioForum: The Journal of
Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, vol. 7(4).

■

Helgren, K., J. Peacock, D. Finnegan, S. Sprow, and B. King (2000) ‘Genetically Modified Foods:
Consumer Views and Regulations around the World’, California Polytechnic State University for
Mindfully.org, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/World-Consumer-Views-CalPoly.htm.

■

Henseleit, M., S. Kubitzki, and R. Herrmann (2009) ‘GMO-Free’ Labels – Enhancing Transparency
or Deceiving Consumers?’, Gewisola.

■

Hobbs, J.E. and M.D. Plunkett (2003) ‘Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Issues and the Role
of Information Asymmetry’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

■

Hossain, F. and B. Onyango (2004) ‘Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally
enhanced genetically modified foods’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 28 (3),
pp.255–267.

■

House, L., J. Lusk, S. Jaeger, W.B. Traill, M. Moore, C. Valli, B. Morrow, and W.M.S. Yee (2004)
‘Objective and Subjective Knowledge: Impacts on Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified
Foods in the United States and the European Union’, AgBioForum, vol.7(3), pp.113-123.

■

Hu, W. and K. Chen (2004) ‘Can Chinese Consumers Be Persuaded? The Case of Genetically
Modified Vegetable Oil’, AgBioForum, vol. 7(3), pp.124-132,
http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n3/v7n3a04-hu.pdf.

■

Huang, J., H. Qiu, J. Bai, and C. Pray (2005) ‘Awareness, acceptance of and willingness to buy
genetically modified foods in Urban China’, Appetite, vol.46, pp.144-151,
http://www.igsnrr.cas.cn/xwzx/jxlwtj/200607/P020090715580077097899.pdf.

■

Huffman, W., J. Shogren, M. Rousu, and A. Tegene (2003) ‘Consumer Willingness to Pay for
Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from
Experimental Auctions’, J. Agr. and Resour. Econ., vol.28, pp.481-502.

■

IFOP pour Carrefour (2010) « Etude sur le thème des OGM ».

■

IGD (2010) ‘Consumer attitudes to GM food’,
http://www.igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=8&tid=30&cid=1487.

■

IKC (2012) Standard ‘Naravna in ekološka kozmetika’ (Standard ‘Natural and organic cosmetics’),
http://www.ikc-um.si/ikcum/standard-rnaravna-in-ekoloka-kozmetikalc.

■

International Organization for Standardization (ISO, forthcoming), ‘Cosmetics – Technical
definitions and criteria for ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ ingredients and products’, ISO/NP 16128.

■

International Trade Centre (2011) ‘Organic Food Products in China: Market Overview’, Technical
Paper, http://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracenorg/Content/Publications/Organic-foodproducts-in-China-market-overview.pdf.

■

Iporex (2012) ‘Organic medical & aromatic plants’, http://www.organicbio.com/en/directory/medical-and-aromatic-plants/.

■

Irmer, F. (2010) ‘Those Seeking Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods Look to Milk’,
http://berkeley.news21.com/theration/2011/07/25/those-seeking-mandatory-labeling-of-geneticallymodified-foods-look-to-milk/.

■

James, C. (2003) ‘Preview: Global Status of Commercialised Transgenic Crops 2003’, ISAAA
Brief, No.30, http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cbtnews/press_release/briefs30/es_b30.pdf.

181

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

James, S., and M. Burton (2003) ‘Consumer Preferences for GM Food and Other Attributes of the
Food System’, Austral. J. Agr. and Resour. Econ., vol. 47, pp.501-518.

■

Kaye-Blake, W., C. Saunders, and J. Fairweather (2007) ‘GM food and New Zealand Consumers’,
Lincoln University's Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.

■

King’s College London (2008) ‘Do European Consumers buy GM Foods?’, Final report on
‘Consumer choice’, a FP6 project, 14 October.

■

Kirsten, A. (2008) ‘Organic Labelling’, G Online Website,
http://www.gmagazine.com.au/n.d.e/173/full.

■

KRAV (n.d.) ‘GMO risk guidance’, http://www.krav.se/Documents/gmo/risklista.pdf.

■

Krishna, V.V. and M. Qaim (2008) ‘Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues
in India’, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol.30(2), pp.233-251, http://www.askforce.org/web/Developing/Krischna-Consumer-Attitudes-India-2008.pdf.

■

Li, Q., K. Curtis, J. McCluskey and T. Wahl (2003) ‘Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically
Modified Foods in Beijing, China’, AgBioForum, vol.5, pp.145-152.

■

Lin, W., A. Somwaru, F. Tuan, J. Huang, and J. Bai (2005) ‘Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for
Genetically Modified Foods in China’, 9th International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology:
Ten Years After,
http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/abstract/file/Lin_William_Abstract_Propos
al_05_on_GM_foods_in_China.pdf.

■

Lin, W., F. Tuan, Y. Dai, F. Zhong, and X. Chen (2008) ‘Does Biotech Labeling Affect Consumers'
Purchasing Decisions? A Case Study of Vegetable Oils in Nanjing, China’, AgBioForum, vol.11(2),
pp.123-33.

■

Liu, Y. (2007) ‘Regulating transgenic technology in China: Law, regulation and public policy’,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wMdFsWmXmH4J:www.genomicsnetwork.ac.uk/m
edia/10%2520Liu.ppt+legislation+on+GM+labelling+in+China&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEE
SiSvpd0Yj1_refdJI5jWTPANzZNW3pBLwBQHenPwlHJ1A932Z3aJhdHUxeRczxuwYpVCHHfJKxP
Ufhf9prgkA7La7RfaxaT8vIWmj5PUOlOALUMoX4jWw2OJhFiQnkRQjQoAzuw&sig=AHIEtbSUuRg
CWOvLi8-5ZtGzF6xbMuOsAw&pli=1.

■

LNV Consumentenplatform (2002) ‘Genetische modificatie en voedsel, weet u wat dat is?’

■

LNV Consumentenplatform (2004) ‘Consumentenonderzoek Natuurlijkheid, waarde voor beleid’,
11 juni 2004.

■

Loureiro, M. and S. Hine (2002) Discovering Niche Markets: A Comparison of Consumer
Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado-Grown), Organic, and GMO-Free Products, J. Agr. and
Appl. Econ., vol.34, pp.477-487.

■

Loureiro, M. and M. Bugbee (2005) ‘Enhanced GM foods: are consumers ready to pay for the
potential benefits of biotechnology?’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, vol.39, pp.52–70.

■

Loureiro, M. and S. Hine (2004) ‘Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labelling policies’,
Food Policy, vol.29, pp.467–483.

■

Lusk, J. (2003) ‘Effect of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Golden Rice’, Amer. J.
Agr. Econ., vol.85, pp.840-856.

■

Lusk, J. and A. Rozan (2008) ‘Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically
Modified Food’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol.33(2), pp.270-289.

■

Lusk, J., M. Daniel, D. Mark, and C. Lusk (2001) ‘Alternative Calibration and Auction Institutions
for Predicting Consumer Willingness to Pay for Non-Genetically Modified Corn Chips’, J. Agr. And
Resour. Econ., pp.40-57.

■

Lusk, J., L. House, C. Valli, S. Jaeger, M. Moore, B. Morrow, and W. Trail (2004) ‘Comparative
Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the
United States and European Union’, Working paper, Dept. of Agr. Econ., Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
182

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Lusk, J., M. Moore, L. House, and B. Morrow (2002) ‘Influence of Brand Name and Type of
Modification on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Engineered Corn Chips: A Preliminary
Analysis’, Internat. Food and Agribus. Mgmt. Rev, vol.4, pp.373-383.

■

Lusk, J., J. Roosen, and J. Fox (2003) ‘Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth
Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany,
the United Kingdom, and the United States,’ Amer. J. Agr. Econ., vol.85, pp.16-29.

■

Lynch, D. and D. Vogel (2001) ‘The regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case
Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics’, Council on Foreign Relations Press,
http://www.cfr.org/genetically-modified-organisms/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-casestudy-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688.

■

Mather, D.W., J.G. Knight, and A. Insch (2011) Social Stigma and Consumer Benefits: Trade-Offs
in Adoption of Genetically Modified Foods. Science Communication. DOI:
10.1177/1075547011428183.

■

Matsumoto, S. (2004) ‘Consumers’ Reponses to Front vs. Back Package GM Labels in Japan’,
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organisation, Vol.2, Art. 5.

■

McCluskey, J., H. Ouchi, K. Grimsrud, and T. Wahl (2001) ‘Consumer Response to Genetically
Modified Food Products in Japan’, Washington State University/Washington University IMPACT
centre, http://impact.wsu.edu/publications/tech_papers/pdf/01-101.pdf.

■

Meyer, H. (2007) ‘GMO-Free Regions Manual: Case Studies from Around the World’, IFOAM,
http://stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/FreeCaseStudies.pdf.

■

Michelle, K. (2012) ‘Europe addresses GM-free labelling concerns’, Food Manufacture, July, Vol.
87(7), p.48.

■

Miles, S., O. Ueland, and L.J. Frewer (2005) ‘Public Attitudes towards Genetically-Modified Food’,
British Food Journal, vol.107(4), pp.246-262.

■

Miljötidningen (2011) ‘Förbjudet att utlova GMO-fritt’, http://www.jordensvanner.se/2011/forbjudetatt-utlova-gmo-fritt.

■

Miljötidningen (2011) ‘Livsmedelskedja fick GMO-fodret på fal’,
http://www.jordensvanner.se/2011/livsmedelskedja-fick-gmo-fodret-pa-fall.

■

Ministerie van EL&I (2012) ‘Monitor Duurzaam Voedsel 2011’.

■

Ministerie van VWS (1999) ‘Verslag van de vergadering van het Deskundigen-overleg Nieuwe
Levensmiddelen van het Regulier Overleg Warenwet op dinsdag 12 januari 1999’, Den Haag.

■

Ministerie van VWS (2009) ‘Verslag van de vergadering van het Deskundigenoverleg
Biotechnologie van 8 oktober 2009’, Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Kenmerk
VGP/ROW 2978416.

■

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Australia (2003) ‘Discussion Paper on GM-free labelling’,
http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/pdf-library/publications/Discussion-paper-on-Voluntary-GMFree-Labelling.pdf.

■

Moon, W. and S. Balasubramanian (2003) ‘Is There a Market for Genetically Modified Foods in
Europe? Contingent Valuation of GM and Non-GM Breakfast Cereals in the United Kingdom’,
AgBioForum, vol.6, pp.128-133.

■

National food agency (2009) ’Rapport från GMO-projektet 2009’, undersökning av GMO-livsmedel
- förekomst, spårbarhet och märkning,
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/rapporter/genteknik/2009_livsmedelsverket_21_undersokning_
av_gmo_livsmedel_2009.pdf.

■

Noussair, C., S. Robin and B. Ruffieux (2002) ‘Do Consumers Not Care About Biotech Foods or
Do They Just Not Read Labels?’ Econ. Letters, vol.75, pp. 47-53.

■

Noussair, C., S. Robin, B. Ruffieux (2004) ‘Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified
food?’ The Economic Journal.

183

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2008) ‘Overview of the Gene Technology Regulatory
System’,
http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/gmofactsheets3/$FILE/factregsysovervi
ew08.pdf.

■

Onyango, B. (2004) ‘Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods: the role of product
benefits and perceived risks’, Journal of Food Distribution Research, vol.35, pp. 154–161.

■

Onyango, B. and R. Govindasamy (2004) ‘Measuring U.S. Consumer Preferences For Genetically
Modified Foods Using Choice Modelling Experiments: The Role Of Price, Product Benefits And
Technology’, Paper at American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, 1–4 August.

■

Ordinance of the Department of Home Affairs of 23 November 2005 on the Labelling and
Advertising of Foodstuffs, http://www.admin.ch/ch/i/rs/817_022_21/index.html.

■

Ordinance of the Department of Home Affairs of 23 November 2005 on Genetically Modified
Foodstuffs, http://www.admin.ch/ch/i/rs/8/817.022.51.it.pdf.

■

Organic Food Federation (2007) ‘Standards for organic non-foods personal care products’,
http://www.orgfoodfed.com/Non%20Food.htm.

■

Philips, P.W.B. and H. McNeill (2000) ‘A Survey of National Labeling Policies for GM Foods’,
AgBioForum, Vol.3(4), http://agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a07-phillipsmcneill.htm.

■

Philips, P.W.B. and D. Corkindale (2002) ‘Marketing GM Foods: The Way Forward’, AgBioForum,
vol.5(3), pp.113-121.

■

Phillips, P.W.B. and H. Foster (2000) ‘Labelling for GM Foods: Theory and Practice’, Working
Paper 3, ICABR Conference,
http://www.usask.ca/politic/Phillips/pdfs/Labeling%20for%20GM%20Foods%203.pdf.

■

Phillips, P.W.B. and I. Grant (1998) ‘GMO labelling: Threat or opportunity?’, AgBioForum: The
Journal of Agrobiotechnology, Management and Economics, Vol.1(1),
http://www.agbioforum.org/v1n1/v1n1a07-phillips.htm.

■

POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) (2002) ‘Postnote: labelling of GM foods’,
February, No. 172, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn172.pdf.

■

Radam et al. (2010) ‘Consumers’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Willingness to Pay towards Food
Products with “No Added Msg” Labeling’,
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijms/article/view/5968/4761.

■

Rondeel (2013) ‘Meer informatie: Het voer’, http://www.rondeeleieren.nl/de-kippen/het-voer/.

■

Rousu, M., W. Hffian, J. Shogren and A. Tegene (2003) ‘Should the United States Regulate
Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Foods? Evidence from Experimental Auctions,’
Working paper, RTI International, Raleigh, NC.

■

Saunders, C. and C. Cagatay (2001) ‘Economic Analysis of Issues Surrounding Commercial
Release of GM Food Products in New-Zealand’,
http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/docs/SaundersGMMarkets.pdf.

■

Scottish Government (2012) ‘Scottish Government Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Crops’,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/Environment/15159.

■

Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth (2000) ‘Salient values similarity, social trust, and
risk/benefit perceptions’, Risk Analysis, vol.20, pp.353–362.

■

SKAL (2012) ‘Skal-Certificatiegrondslagen’, vastgesteld op 21 juni 2012.

■

SLV (2011) ‘National plan for food chain control 20122015’, Part 3 - Collaboration and continuous
improvements, http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/livsmedelsforetag/vagledningar/NKP%2020122015%20-%20Del%203%20Samarbete%20och%20standiga%20forbattringar.pdf.

■

Smith, J. (2008) ‘GM Catastrophe’, http://www.gefreeaustralia.org/images/GMCatastrophe.pdf.

■

Social Science Research Unit (SSRU) (2009) ‘Exploring attitudes to GM food’,
http://www.food.gov.uk/science/socsci/ssres/foodsafetyss/gmfoodpublicattitudes.
184

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

Soil Association (2012) ‘Soil Association organic standards, farming and growing’, April,
www.soilassociation.org/whatwedo/organicstandards.aspx.

■

Soil Association (n.d.) ‘Organic beauty’,
http://www.soilassociation.org/whatisorganic/organicbeauty.

■

Soregaroli, C., S. Boccaletti, and D. Moro (2003) ‘Consumer’s attitude towards labeled and
unlabeled GM food products in Italy’, International and Agribusiness Management Review, No.2,
pp. 111-127.

■

Staatsblad (1999) ‘Besluit van 29 oktober 1999, houdende wijziging van het Warenwetbesluit
Nieuw Voedingsmiddelen’, Staatsblad 1999 - 499.

■

Sternfeld, E. (2009) ‘Organic Food ‘Made in China’’, Hintergrundinformationen 10/2009, http://euchina.net/web/cms/upload/pdf/materialien/eu-china_2009_hintergrund_10.pdf.

■

Stull, M. (2000) ‘Voluntary labelling of foodstuffs derived from modern biotechnology’,
AgBioForum, Vol.3(4), http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a11-stull.htm.

■

Svanevik, L.E. (2013) ‘Non-GM food labelling brought to UK’, GlobalMeatnews.com, 14 March,
http://www.globalmeatnews.com/Industry-Markets/Non-GM-food-labelling-brought-to-UK.
Svensk Sigil (n.d.) ’GMO-Policy communication’, http://www.svensktsigill.se/Hem/SvensktSigill/Saker-mat/GMO-policy/.

■
■

Svensk Sigil (n.d.) ‘Labelling policy’,
http://www.svensktsigill.se/PageFiles/5166/M%C3%A4rkning%20och%20Hantering%20%28SvS0
318-1%29.Centuri.pdf.

■

Swinburne University of Technology (2010) ‘Attitudes to GM agriculture unchanged’, Media News,
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/chancellery/mediacentre/research/news/2010/02/attitudes-to-gmagriculture-unchanged.

■

Teisl, Mario F., B. Roe, M. Vayda and N. Ross (2003) ‘Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified
Foods with Bundled Health and Environmental Attributes,’ Proceedings of the 7th ICABR
International Conference on Public Goods and Public Policy for Agricultural Biotechnology,
Ravello, Italy.

■

Tenbült, P., N.K. de Vries, E. Dreezens and C. Martijn (2005) ‘Perceived naturalness and
acceptance of genetically modified food’, Appetite, vol.1(45), pp. 47-50.

■

Terlouw, J.C. et.al (2002) ‘Eten en Genen: Een publiek debat over biotechnologie en voedsel’,
Verslag van de Tijdelijke commissie biotechnologie en voedsel onder voorzitterschap, Den Haag,
9 januari.

■

Tonsor, G. and T. Schroeder (2003) European Consumer Preferences for U.S. and Domestic
Beef: Willingness to Pay for Source Verification, Hormone-Free, and Genetically Modified
Organism-Free Beef." Selected paper presented at American Agricultural Economics Association
annual meetings, Montreal, Canada.

■

Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal (1997) ‘Motie van de leden Stellingwerf en M.B’. Vos,
Voorgesteld 20 februari 1997. Kamerstuk 25 126 - Biotechnologie en levensmiddelen.

■

Umweltbundesamt GmbH, H Gaugitsch and A Heissenberger (2012) ‘Comparison of regulatory
frameworks of Austria, Germany, France and South Tyrol for GM free labelling of food products’,
Final Version, 11 October.

■

US FDA (1999) ‘Food Labelling Nutrition Guidance’,
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/foodlabelin
gnutrition/ucm059098.html

■

USDA (2012) ‘Labeling organic products’,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo.

■

USDA (2009) ‘Never Ever 3 (NE3)’,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5066028.

185

State of play in the EU on GM-free food labelling schemes and assessment of
the need for possible harmonisation

■

USDA (2004) ‘USDA Process Verified Program’,
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3103489.

■

Vägledning Genetiskt modifierade livsmedel (GMO),
http://www.slv.se/upload/dokument/livsmedelsforetag/vagledningar/V%C3%A4gledning%20GMO.
pdf.

■

VanWechel, T., C. Wachenheim, E. Schuck and D. Lambert (2003) ‘Consumer Valuation of
Genetically Modified Foods and the Effect of Information Bias’, MRRe, Dept. of Agribus. and Appl.
Econ., North Dakota State University, Fargo, p. 513.

■

VerTerra (2010) ‘VerTerra: Dinnerware from Verified Non-GMO’,
http://www.verterra.com/press_details.php?id=243.

■

VWA (2008) ‘Genetisch gemodificeerde organismen: Resultaten en laboratoriumonderzoek 20012007’, Factsheet Voedel en Waren Autoriteit, October.

■

Welsh Government (2012) ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’,
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/plantsseedsbiotechnolo
gy/geneticallymodifiedorganisms/?lang=en.

■

West, G., B. Larue, C. Gendron and R. Lambert (2002) ‘Consumers' Valuation of Functional
Properties of Foods: Results from a Canada-Wide Survey’, Can. J. Agr. Econ., vol.50, pp.541-558.

■

Wilde, P. (2006) ‘Consumer Desire for Additional Information on Food Labels’, US Food Policy
Blogspot, http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2006/01/can-you-handle-knowledge-about-gmos.html.

■

Wong, D. (2003) ‘Genetically Modified Food Labelling’ Research and Library Services Division
Legislative Council Secretariat.

■

Wood, O.B. and C.M. Bruhn (2000) ‘Food irradiation. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association’, vol.100, pp.246-253.

■

Yingchun, D., Z. Funing, and Y. Xijun (2005) ‘GM Foods Labelling Policy and Consumer Purchase
Behaviour: A Case Study of China’,
https://www.ifama.org/events/conferences/2005/cmsdocs/1058_Paper_Final.pdf.

■

Zepeda, L., R. Douthitt and S. You (2003) ‘Consumer Risk Perceptions Toward Agricultural
Biotechnology, Self-Protection, and Food Demand: The Case of Milk in the United States’, Risk
Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 5.

186

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm)
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*)

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may

charge you).

Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

doi: 10.2875/4437

EW-01-15-481-EN-N