|
The Labelling and Segregation of GMOs
Greenpeace
International, January 2000
One basic requirement
for an effective international agreement on biosafety will
be the ability to track genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
in case they are discovered to cause harm to biodiversity
or human health. To be able track them would require segregation
of genetically engineered (GE) crops from traditional crops
at all stages in their development and life-cycle. Segregation,
along with labelling of the GE crop, would mean that the crop
can be traced, and recalled or destroyed, if possible.
The biotechnology industry,
represented by the US-led Miami Group (1) has vociferously
opposed any wording in the Biosafety Protocol covering labelling
and segregation of GE crops. They argue that there is no difference
between GE crops and non-GE crops, and segregation is not
possible. Such arguments have failed in view of the market
realities that consumers do not want to eat GE food and that
retailers are now able to secure non-GE food for consumers.
Lack of segregation will
make it difficult for both the export and import control authorities
to ensure that no unauthorised GMOs either leave or enter
their countries. Without segregation, it would become extremely
difficult to withdraw and contain GMOs which were discovered
after their release to pose a serious risk to biodiversity
or human health.
Segregation is also a major
consumer issue because, without segregation of GMOs, it is
difficult to label foods as GE-free, a right being increasingly
demanded by consumers across the world.
However, the negotiating
text of Biosafety Protocol currently provides no language
at all, not even in draft form, for segregating GMOs.
Segregation:
is it possible?
To date, industry has
argued that it cannot segregate GE crops from non-GE crops
as this is too costly and difficult. But this argument collapses
in the face of various industry examples.
Food producers around Europe
who refuse to use genetically engineered ingredients have
so far been able to find suppliers who can guarantee conventional
soy and maize supplies. Supermarkets have even set up task
forces to search for sources of non-GE food ingredients. Multinational
food producers such as Nestlé and Unilever in countries
such as Germany and the UK have stated their commitments to
their products becoming GE free. Recently, Danone France declared
its products are produced without GE ingredients or additives
and UK food retailers Tescos and Marks &Spencer have said
that they will not accept GE ingredients in animal feed for
their GE-free meat and dairy products. Even in the US, considered
to be the home of the agro-biotech industry, producers of
baby foods – Gerber and Heinz – have recently announced that
they will not use GE ingredients in their baby food products.
And, in Canada food giant McCain announced that it will refuse
to accept GE potatoes.
Segregation is already
a reality in the case of exports from the US and Canada to
Europe in response to food producers’ requests for non-GE
soy. When grain carriers ADM and Staley were faced with lost
markets in Europe due to unapproved GE corn varieties being
mixed with other corn, they announced they would no longer
accept unapproved varieties. Within six weeks, US grain processor
ConAgra announced a joint venture with Monsanto to separate
the corn at no extra cost.
Labelling:
consumer right to GE-free food
Around the world,
consumer organisations are demanding that any food containing
GMOs should be labelled. In some countries, such as Australia,
New Zealand, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and
the 15 European Union nations, it has already begun. Japan
has decided to start labelling soon and Hong Kong is now considering
establishing a labelling regime for GE foods.
Clear labelling of GMOs
will also assist importing authorities to verify, control
and monitor imports of GMOs and products derived from them.
Unless the Biosafety Protocol explicitly provides for labelling
and segregation in its rules, seed and food suppliers will
not be able to meet the growing public demand for GE-free
food. Countries like Canada and the US do not want the Biosafety
Protocol to deal with labelling and segregation from a biosafety
perspective. If the rules are not in the Protocol, then it
will be up to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to adjudicate.
It is extremely likely that the WTO would consider labelling
and segregation requirements as an unnecessary trade barrier.
The EU stated in December
1999 that the Protocol should ensure satisfactory transparency,
monitoring and identification of GMOs to enable traceability.
It is expected that this will be understood to mean labelling
and segregation should be permitted under the Protocol.
Greenpeace
demands:
- The Biosafety
Protocol must contain provisions, which require segregation
of GMOs from non-GMOs.
- The Biosafety
Protocol must provide for clear and comprehensive labelling.
This should apply to all movements of GMOs across borders,
including seeds, animal feed and food products and their
components.
- The label
should also clearly state if the GMO or GMO-product contains
proteins from plants, animals or micro-organisms known to
initiate allergies. It should state information about the
contact details of the exporting company and competent authority
of the exporting company, the intended use of the GMO in
the importing country and recommendations for the safest
means to transport, handle and store the GMO in question.
References:
(1)
US, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay
top
/ home
|
