These reports are about allowing people the choice whether or not to eat GM food. The only way to do that is with an effective labelling and traceability scheme that will tell consumers exactly what they want to know - whether the food or feed has been produced using GMOs. That means labelling foods and feed that contain GMOs or that have been produced from GMOs so that when people pick up a packet or tin in the shop they can see if that is a GMO product or not.

The same effect would not be achieved with a GM free label. Apart from the difficulty of ensuring products are 100% GM free, why should we put all of the responsibility, expense and inconvenience onto those who don't use GMOs? That would push up the price of GM free goods and put them out of the reach of many consumers.

Those who use GMOs should have the legal obligation to label and to take all steps necessary to avoid contaminating conventional or organic produce. Talking about thresholds for adventitious or accidental contamination, but then making those who do not use GMOs responsible for meeting those thresholds contradicts the polluter pays principle.

We should reject any threshold for unauthorised GMOs which should not be allowed to reach the market. Even with approved GMOs we should accept only the lowest achievable tolerance level. This means that the most recent state of science and technology will be taken into account.

I know from the response from Wales that consumers are extremely concerned about this issue and are strongly in favour of the traceability and labelling of GM food and animal feed as are major voluntary organisations, consumer organisations and supermarkets

I hope that Parliament will adopt a stringent scheme to give them real choice and the confidence they demand.

Jill Evans ASE/MEP