[MUNICH] The European Commission is preparing to restart the approval process for commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) crops, a year before the existing de facto ban on such approvals expires.

Approvals stopped in October 1998, after public confidence in GM crops collapsed across Europe. Individual states can block new approvals, and the refusal of six nations — France, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Austria and Luxembourg — to cooperate in the granting of European Union (EU) licences brought the process to a halt. Only five GM crops — three varieties of maize (corn) and two of rape — are currently licensed by the EU, against a total of 53 approved worldwide.

The EU tried to end the impasse this February by adopting stricter and more transparent rules for the use of GM crops. These require biotech firms to carry out risk assessment and long-term surveillance of their crops' effects on human health and the environment (see Nature 409, 967–968; 2001). Further amendments on labelling and long-term traceability were added in July.

But this directive will only come into force in October 2002. In a bid to resume approvals before then, commission officials plan to ask EU member states to approve new licences on the basis of voluntary commitments from the applicants, similar in scope to the compulsory ones featured in the directive.

If the new guidelines are agreed, the approval procedures could be resumed by the end of the year, says David Byrne, head of the commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate.

Member states backing the moratorium have reacted cautiously. "If the EU can guarantee the safety standards listed in the new directive, an early start is conceivable," says Alexander Haslberger, head of biotechnology at Austria's social-security ministry, which regulates the country's GM crops.

But even the new directive is unlikely to end Europe's fierce debate over the acceptability of GM crops. Environmental groups are still calling for a complete ban. Meanwhile, some US firms argue that the rules on labelling and risk assessment amount to trade restrictions, and have called for them to be challenged under World Trade Organization rules.

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