BRUSSELS -- The European Parliament is bracing for a food fight over a measure that would order that any food containing any amount of a genetically modified ingredient be labeled.

Environmentalists and consumer groups are clamoring for a clampdown. Food processors, biotechnology companies and the U.S. government are lobbying against the measure. Parliament's vote Wednesday, following an open debate Tuesday likely will mark the start of what may be a long row between environmentalists and business interests.

The European Union already has a tough labeling rule, requiring food containing more than 1% of a genetically modified ingredient to have a label telling consumers about the genetically modified content. Because of the rule, many supermarkets don't sell any products with genetically modified contents, fearing a backlash from consumers and environmental groups who call such products "Frankenfoods."

Last month, Parliament's environment committee handed the environmentalist camp a preliminary victory by voting narrowly to require labeling if even 0.5% of any food product contains genetically modified ingredients, and to ban the sale of any products containing biotech ingredients not yet approved for commercialization within the EU. The committee also voted to require labeling of products derived from genetically modified ingredients even if those aren't detectable in the final product, as is the case with highly refined oils and sugars, and meat and dairy products from livestock fed on biotech animal feed.

The European Consumers' Organization, Europe's main consumer lobby group, called on the Parliament to implement "proper labeling" to assure consumer confidence in the food supply. Environmentalist group Friends of the Earth urged members of the EU assembly to confirm the committee vote.

Producers of biotech seeds and enzymes, along with some of Europe's biggest food companies and the U.S. government, want Parliament to reverse the committee decision and restrict labeling to products in which biotech ingredients actually can be detected. They tout scientific evidence that biotech foods aren't only safe to eat, but potentially even safer than conventional foods, as well as better for the environment because they result in sharp reductions in the use of pesticides and tilling, which causes soil erosion.

"The lower the threshold you set, the more difficult it becomes" to keep foods free of genetically modified ingredients, says Simon Barber, director of the plant biotechnology unit at EuropaBio, the main biotech lobby group in Europe.

While it is scientifically possible to detect even trace residues of biotech ingredients in a processed food product, the environment committee's proposals go too far, he says, saying that current EU rules allow up to 5% conventional ingredients in organic foods as well as the presence of corn in a shipment of soybeans. "Without a requirement to label things you can't detect they wouldn't need the labeling directive at all."

Lobbyists from Unilever NV, Nestle SA, Kraft Foods Inc. and other food processors say labels would stigmatize their products and confuse consumers, leading to boycotts or negative publicity campaigns from environmental activists.

The U.S. government has threatened to contest any restrictive new EU rules in the World Trade Organization as a technical barrier to trade.

Richard Phipps, principal research fellow in the agriculture department of the University of Reading in the U.K., says that genetically modified crops are both safer and better for the environment than their detractors care to admit. "When people say there are no consumer benefits from this first generation of GM crops that's absolute rubbish," he says.

Lower levels of toxins that result from pest infestations "should be of interest to a lot of people," he says.

Moreover, in an article published in the Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, Mr. Phipps concluded that the growing use of biotech crops outside Europe already resulted in dramatic reductions in the use of pesticides and diesel fuel. If the same practices were adopted in Europe, he estimated, the result would be a savings of 14 million kilograms of pesticides, 20 million liters of diesel fuel and 73,000 tons of emissions of fossil fuels, which are thought to contribute to global warming.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **