Europeans want nothing to do with them, but in America they're selling like hotcakes: genetically modified foods. Whether it's soybeans, corn, cotton or cabbage, almost 40 million hectares of land are being used to grow genetically modified crops in the United States. That's compared to a puny 200,000 hectares here in Europe. So why the great divide? 

As much as 60% of American food contains genetically modified ingredients, everything from BBQ sauce to cornflakes. But you won't see that information on the labels. The European consumer shudders at the thought, as Harry Kuiper a food safety researcher at the University of Wageningen explains:

"The public concern in Europe about genetically modified foods comes from a general distrust in the safety of the European food supply. We have had various incidents in Europe, like the BSE crisis that started in the UK and the scandals surrounding dioxins, a very persistent chemical which ended up in food products. All these things together have resulted in a very low level of trust among European consumers in the food supply."

Green objections

The European consumer is also very sensitive to resistance from environmental organisations. These have influenced public opinion with loaded language, like the term Frankenstein food and have even succeeded in destroying experimental GM crop fields. Greenpeace is one of the biggest opponents. Spokesman Just van den Broek explains their objections:

"It's about insecticides, it's about crops that produce insecticides, producing them all day, 24 hours a day, pesticides that affect all insects in the field or in the environment. Nobody knows, for instance, what will happen to natural insect populations."

"On a social level, five big chemical companies are going to rule the world food circus, controlling key crops such as maize, soy and rice. If they are patented by these companies, many small farmers, especially in the developing world, will be concerned about their independence, about their ability to work their own agriculture."

"On the economic level, we all want to go towards a more sustainable agriculture, but this will take us towards a more chemical agriculture in which you need more insecticides and other chemicals. For us, this is therefore definitely a step in the wrong direction."

Unnecessary fear

But the fear of genetically modified food is unfair, says Rob Scholten, director of Niaba, an umbrella organisation for Dutch companies active in the field of biotechnology. "If cleared and approved by government institutions, biotech products are at least as safe as classically made products."

Whatever the truth, Brussels is taking European consumer fears seriously, and food safety issues are top of the agenda. There's been a ban on development of GM crops in Europe since 1999, and later this year even stricter food labelling laws will be introduced to protect consumers from GM ingredients. 

Europe's stance on this issue has led Washington to lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organisation. Harry Kuiper of the University of Wageningen explains why the Americans are so angry.

"We in Europe want information about the origin of the product to make sure that if the consumer wants a GMO-free product on his plate, the onus should be on the producer to prove that the product doesn't contain GMOs. So we need a kind of traceability system and oblige the producer to label food products, which contain a certain amount of GMOs. Now that is completely different from the American situations where there is no traceability or labelling requirement, which the Americans view as a hurdle for exports."

European concession

Ahead of next month's WTO meeting in Mexico, Europe has agreed to stop resisting genetically modified food - as soon as the tougher labelling laws take effect. But Harry Kuiper doubts whether this will be enough to appease Washington.

"If the Americans don't regard the issues of traceability and labelling as being important for international trade, then we have a serious problem. The only way out is that the Americans produce GMOs in a segregated way, which of course is more expensive."