CODEX: WORK ON LABELLING OF BIOTECH FOOD TO CONTINUE
Bridges Trade BioRes
Vol. 7 No. 10, 25 May 2007

Delegates at the 35th session of Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) held from 30 April to 4 May in Ottawa, Canada, agreed to establish a working group to continue work on Draft Guidelines for the labelling of biotech food and food ingredients. Discussions were based on a report prepared by a working group reviewing countries' experiences with mandatory and voluntary biotech labelling to help provide guidance for the development of the Draft Guidelines. Although major biotech producers continued to argue that negotiations should be discontinued -- partially owing to their concern over the issue of mandatory labelling in any potential WTO dispute -- many countries continued to support the development of standards to provide guidance to governments in establishing regulations in this area. In their final decisions, delegates agreed to hold a working group meeting in January 2008 to examine the rationale for adopting, or not adopting, a particular labelling approach, and on the strategies used in communicating information on biotech food and food ingredients to the public.
Different labelling approaches
At the last CCFL meeting in May 2006 (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 19 May 2006, <http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-05-19/story3.htm>http://www.ictsd.org/biores/06-05-19/story3.htm), delegates agreed to hold a working group meeting on the issue of the Draft Guidelines in Oslo, Norway in February 2007. Co-chaired by Argentina, Ghana and Norway, the working group identified seven approaches to the labelling of biotech foods in a report, and considered the rationale for members' application of each approach.
The first approach, adopted by the EU, requires the mandatory biotech labelling of all foods consisting of, containing, or produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It includes highly processed goods and oils, and applies to both locally produced and imported foods. Issues of safety and nutrition, as well as consumers' right to make an informed choice, provide the main rationale behind this approach. It is the only approach that allows consumers to choose according to the method of production (i.e. between biotech and non-biotech foods).
The second approach, adopted by New Zealand and Australia, only requires labelling when biotech material is detected in the final food through analytical methods. The main rationale behind this approach is to allow consumers to purchase food based on its actual content, rather than the process by which it was produced. Therefore, highly processed foods and oils would no longer be labelled with regard to GMO content.
The US has adopted two approaches: regulations include a requirement of labelling to specify the significant difference in terms of composition, nutritional change and use of foods from its conventional counterparts, and GM products that are found to have undergone a change in composition, nutrition, toxicity or allegenicity. The former approach refers to the need to label nutritional changes or health hazards in foods. The latter approach does not inform about the method of production and does not require the words "genetically modified" on the label.
Another approach, adopted by Canada, involves voluntary labelling of foods that are, or are not, products of genetic modification. It gives the agri-food industry the flexibility to label products in response to potential market demand for biotech labelling information. The approach, adopted by Argentina, does not require special labelling for bioengineered foods as a class of foods. Argentina argues that there is no evidence showing that bioengineered foods would present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.
Finally, the last approach covers members that currently have labelling requirements under development. These include most developing countries.
"Friends of Mandatory Labelling" make their case
In the discussions at the CCFL meeting, several delegations recalled that foods derived through genetic modification have to undergo a pre-market safety assessment in order to protect consumers' health, and therefore argued that the request for mandatory biotech labelling was not a food safety issue, but an issue related to consumer information. Some delegations expressed the view that labelling also was related to food safety in view of potential risks to consumers' health. An observer from the 49th Parallel Biotechnology Consortium -- a multi-national NGO -- noted that a large proportion of biotech foods being sold have not been subject to any governmental safety assessments, and therefore labelling helped consumers make their own decisions about health and safety.
Many delegations, including the EU and African, Latin American and Asia countries such as Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Barbados, Brazil, Ecuador, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, supported further work on biotech food labelling in the CCFL, in view of its importance for consumers and in order to provide guidance to governments in establishing regulations in this area. Many delegations pointed out that it was especially important as many developing countries relied on Codex recommendations to develop their national policy or regulations. Some delegations recalled that the Committee had received a specific mandate from the Commission in this respect in 1991. Several delegations underlined that the consumer's right to know and to make informed choices was an essential element of biotech labelling. Some further pointed out that the work on biotech labelling was consistent with the mandate of Codex. Barbados, supported by Ireland, stated that Codex should not abdicate its responsibility to provide appropriate guidance on biotech labelling.
Major biotech producers oppose mandatory labelling
Major biotech producers, including the US along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, expressed the view that mandatory method of production labelling of GM foods was not justified on the grounds of food safety or fair trade practices, and that the consumer's right to know was not one of the objectives of Codex. These delegations pointed out that governments can request mandatory labelling in their national legislation if it fulfilled a legitimate objective, but that it should not be imposed on all countries at the international level. According to sources, problems in reaching consensus on mandatory labelling stem from producer country concerns over their implications in any potential WTO dispute. Countries such as the US expressed the view that they supported mandatory labelling of GM foods only to address a food safety or public health issue such as allergenicity, or where there was a substantial change in the composition or nutritional value of the food.
Civil society organisations Consumers Union (CU) and Consumers International (CI) stressed that by arguing against the consumer's right to know, producer countries argued against a fundamental and basic principle. In their view, the consumer's right to know is fundamental to Codex standards and to the promotion of fair practices in trade. The two consumer groups stressed that GM foods should be allowed to succeed or fail based on their merits in the marketplace.
The US, along with Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the Philippines and New Zealand, argued that, due to members' fundamental differences over the labelling approaches, scant progress would be made in the near future. Therefore, they proposed to discontinue work. Several delegations had proposed that members develop overarching principles that would be consistent with all approaches to GM food. The US, however, felt there was no need to develop new guidelines, as current labelling texts contained a number of provisions that could be used by governments for the purpose of addressing the labelling of GM foods. The US did volunteer to prepare a background paper that would identify such provisions, especially in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged foods and the General Guidelines on Claims. The text will contribute to the discussion by the next working group.
Members agree to continue work
In their final decision, delegates agreed to establish a three-days working group to examine the rationale for adopting or not adopting a particular labelling approach, as well as the strategies to communicate information to the public on GM foods and food ingredients. The working group will also analyse whether current Codex labelling texts supply sufficient guidance on the labelling of foods derived from genetic modification. The report will be considered by Codex members in advance of the next session of the CCFL. The working group will meet in Ghana in January 2008.
The Committee agreed that the timeframe for the completion of Draft Guidelines for the labelling of biotech foods and food ingredients was four years.
Background
While Codex standards are only voluntary, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is recognised by the SPS Agreement as the international organisation responsible for standard-setting related to food safety. WTO Members "shall base" their measures related to human and plant health on Codex's standards, guidelines or recommendations. Such measures "shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life of health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions" of the SPS Agreement. The other two international standard-setting body recognised in the SPS Agreement are the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health and the Office International de Epizooties (OIE) for animal health.Additional information:
Report of the Thirty-Fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling available at <http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?lang=en>
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?lang=en
Report of the CCFL Working Group on Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained Through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering,
<http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-05-25/report_working-group_
CCFL_0207.pdf>http://www.ictsd.org/
biores/07-05-25/report_working-group_CCFL_0207.pdf

ICTSD reporting.

Web Link: http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-05-25/