The forthcoming steps by the Commission on GM products in Europe are outlined 

in a paper put forward by the institution's president and six other commissioners, 

which is to be adopted today. 

According to the document, the Commission will take steps to authorise several 

products that have been neither approved nor rejected by a sufficient number of member 

states – such as GM oilseed rape and maize.

Existing legislation allows the Commission to go ahead with the authorisation 

procedure if a threshold of votes by member states against the proposal is not 

obtained. 

The Commission argues that member states have so far abstained from taking a clear position, leaving it up to the Brussels executive to make unpopular decisions.
However, several environment organisations oppose the plans to introduce new GM products without necessary European legislation to protect the consumers - as well as conventional and organic crops - from contamination.

Meanwhile, the EU is facing an on-going trade dispute in the World Trade Organisation, initiated by the US, Argentina and Canada in 2003, due to its failure to apply its own regulatory regime on GMOs.
 
The Commission’s paper points out that the EU food market of GM labelled food remains limited, while the genetically modified products are more accepted in the feed sector.

It mentions a rising number of highly restrictive national or regional measures on the cultivation of GMOs, and a network of twenty European "GMO-free" regions, mainly in Spain, France, Germany, Greece and the UK.

There is a new regulatory framework for placing new GM products on the EU markets, but member states are reluctant to implement it by taking decisions on specific products.

Also, several of the Commission's recommendations on the rules adopted in the individual countries "have not been taken into account", according to the paper.

Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Italy and Denmark are those member states most strongly opposed to new GMOs being introduced in Europe. But opposition is mounting in the new member states, as well.

"There was a great miscalculation in Brussels about the countries from eastern and central Europe. As strong US allies in other issues, they were expected to be also pro-GMO, but the opposite has been the case," said Mauro Albrizio, Vice-president of the European Environmental Bureau.

On the other hand, the UK, Netherlands and Finland are on the pro-GMO side of the argument, and usually vote in favour of new products to be authorised.

Polls show that around 70 per cent of Europeans are against the GMOs.
 
A number of environmental groups have rebuffed the Commission’s position, suggesting Brussels should not press ahead with the new GMOs without properly enforced rules for preventing contamination at place.

"The document is a great disappointment for us as it does not make any suggestions on how to fill in the legal loopholes for preventing some countries contaminating the agricultural areas of the others by growing the GMOs," said Geert Ritsema of Friends of Europe.

He suggested that different standards in different countries cause huge costs for the conventional and organic farmers, as they are left alone to prevent contamination.

The Commission argues that there is currently not enough support for new pan-European rules.

But according to Eric Gall of Greenpeace, the Commission's position is influenced by pressure from the WTO, the US and lobby groups.

"We have seen evidence of real American pressure in various member states, with letters to Greek and Austrian embassies threatening US sanctions if the countries go ahead with anti-GMO steps. But it is up to the European Commission not to bow to such pressure," said Mr Gall.