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.

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