BRUSSELS -- The European Commission is willing to propose lifting a moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified organisms, but it wants assurances first that the U.S. won't resist the strict European Union labeling rules for food containing GMOs.

David Byrne, the commissioner charged with enforcing EU food safety standards, said in an interview that he would raise the issue with the member states that have blocked new GMO crop approvals. He said he hoped for a result "sooner rather than later," but added it would be a hard sell in Europe if the U.S. continued to challenge the way the EU requires food products with GMOs to be labeled.

Mr. Byrne will seek assurances that the U.S. is willing to comply with the union's rules when he meets this week with top trade, agriculture and consumer protection officials in Washington. He will also travel to Atlanta to meet with officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to talk about combating bio-terrorism.

His trip comes as the EU reviews its policies on biotechnology, and as members of the World Trade Organization prepare for a new round of trade talks that will focus attention on agriculture, and genetically modified crops in particular.

There are currently only 21 genetically modified crops approved in the EU, vs. 40 in the U.S. The EU imposed a moratorium on additional GMO crops in 1998, because environment ministers weren't convinced EU rules could guarantee that consumers would know when they were buying products containing GMOs.

Europeans tend to view food with GMOs with suspicion. They are rattled by a series of food scares and the recent outbreak of mad-cow disease.

Current EU rules require foods containing most genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such, but don't cover highly refined oils. In July, the commission, the EU's executive branch, proposed that GMO labels also be compulsory for all products containing highly refined corn and soybean oil and soy-based lecithin -- even though there is no way to detect the presence of genetically modified content in these because foreign DNA is destroyed in the production process.

Food processors in both the U.S. and Europe oppose the commission proposal. Even the current EU rules are viewed as unnecessary by the U.S. government, which has argued the labeling is an unfair restraint on fair trade. American companies complain that labeling needlessly alarms consumers and hurts sales.

But Mr. Byrne said Europeans have a right to know exactly what they're buying. "The only way to address this is to give consumers the information they need to make a choice," he said.

The commission proposal does contain an important concession to the U.S.: Food products could be imported to the EU even if they contain small amounts of GMOs that aren't approved in the EU, though the products would still have to be labeled. On that point, according to Mr. Byrne, "there are those [in Europe] who take the view that we've already gone too far."

The commission proposal must be approved by member states and the European Parliament. The Belgian government, which holds the rotating, six-month presidency of the 15-nation EU, has said it would like to conclude discussions on the proposal by year's end.

Now that the labeling proposal is on the table, "we need to get that [the moratorium] issue moving," said Mr. Byrne. "I wouldn't be surprised if we were getting to the point [in Europe] where the tide were about to turn" on genetically modified crops, he said. But he stressed that it will be up to the U.S. to accept the need for labeling.

The only way to meet EU requirements is to separate ingredients as GM or non-GM all the way back to the farm, and few U.S. farmers have been willing to make the effort. Emmett Sefton, a farmer in Dolton City, Illinois, said it is "almost an impossibility" to keep genetically modified crops separate from their conventional counterparts. Greenpeace Canada lambasted the country's largest grocery chain and Health Minister Allan Rock on Monday for failing to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.

Greenpeace activists, long opposed to genetic engineering, hung a 30-square-meter banner at a Loblaw Cos. superstore in downtown Toronto, urging Rock and Loblaw to put "Labels on GE Food Now".

Proponents of genetically modified or genetically engineered crops say they are quicker and cheaper to grow and could help solve world hunger. Opponents charge that the health effects of such foods are not known and consumers have the right to know whether what they buy is modified.

Two weeks ago, Canada's Parliament defeated a bill to support mandatory labeling, prompting Greenpeace campaigner Pat Venditti to say that grocers, the biotech industry and the government "seem to be in bed together.

"They are taking a stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach, waiting till this all goes away. They do not have any justification for not labeling," Venditti told Reuters.

Catherine Lappe, a spokeswoman for Rock, said the health minister supports labeling despite the defeat of the mandatory labeling bill in Parliament.

"Minister (Rock) has made it very clear that he does support mandatory labeling," Lappe said. "The bill that was defeated is not the only way to get there. A number of ministers have asked (Parliament's) health committee to review this. The forum now for mandatory labeling to be considered is through the health committee."

Loblaw spokesman Geoffrey Wilson told Reuters the Canadian government has no standard yet for defining which foods are genetically modified and which are not.

He said that is why, earlier this year, Loblaw and several other Canadian grocers told suppliers to stop making claims on their labels that their products were free from modification.

"The whole agricultural food chain cannot readily segregate foods to an appropriate extent that would allow labeling at this point in time," Wilson told Reuters.

"Our position is that our government determines what food goes on our shelves, and we certainly abide by those rules."

Greenpeace said it targeted Loblaw because it is the country's largest grocer and advertises itself as a company that listens to its customers' needs.

"If that were the case, they would start at least labeling food for their customers," Venditti said, adding that a recent Greenpeace survey found that 95 percent of Canadians want mandatory labeling.

Wilson said there are extra costs for grocers to label food but added that it is premature to estimate how much.

But Venditti said that some European retailers, who are "light years ahead of Canada" in terms of labeling, have found it relatively inexpensive.

A letter written in August by big British supermarket chain J. Sainsbury Plc to Greenpeace says the British grocery giant removed genetically modified ingredients from its products and introduced labeling without any cost to the consumer.

Venditti said Sainsbury's, Tesco Plc , another British food-store chain, and French retailer Carrefour already label their foods.

"It is insane how far behind we are," he said.

Wilson said the reason European retailers are labeling and Canadians not is because Canada has stronger food safety laws and a healthier food system.

"If you did any research, you would find that in Europe anything goes. They are making genetically-modified-free claims without any backup," he said.

"We have a much healthier food system than Europe. That's why a lot of this came to pass there, and the advocacy groups took advantage of that system that was rife with issues."

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