8. Labelling

When people began to realise they were eating genetically engineered food without their knowledge or consent, there were immediate calls for mandatory segregation and labelling.(1) In May 1998, however, Codex Alimentarius, the UN body responsible for establishing international rules on food policy, rejected these demands in favour of a much more limited labelling regime that suited the food and genetic engineering industries.(2)

The concept of 'substantial equivalence' was used to argue that genetically engineered food was 'equivalent' to food produced by any other means, and that labelling would therefore be discriminatory and constitute an illegal trade barrier. Biotech companies were afraid that a labelling system would give consumers the ability to boycott GE products, and also concerned that segregation would need to be introduced in order to implement labelling schemes.

In 1998 the EU, having been under sustained pressure from the public, introduced a partial labelling scheme which covered transgenic soybeans and maize. Most processed food in Europe contains soya and maize ingredients, the majority of which are derivatives, such as soya oil, lecithin and corn (maize) syrup. Yet these derivatives were excluded from the new labelling scheme, because the industry argued that most of the genetically engineered DNA would be destroyed when food is processed. Surveys have found that even so, most people want the right to know if the method of production used for food they are eating involves genetic engineering, and they may have ethical reasons or environmental concerns that make them want to avoid it.

In April 2000, the EU extended the labelling legislation to include additives and flavourings that have been genetically engineered or produced from GE organisms. However, as with the soybeans and maize, GE additives and flavourings are excluded from the labelling scheme if they do not contain DNA that is detectable in the end product.(3)

Despite the fact that the labelling regime introduced in Europe was widely criticised and regarded as inadequate, the United States government was adamant that there should be no labelling or segregation whatsoever. "We will not tolerate segregation," said US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. "We will not be pushed into allowing political science to govern these decisions. The stakes for the world are simply too high.(4) We will lead the fight against those who represent what I believe is a know-nothing position on these issues we will not allow passion to trump reason on this issue."(5)

US Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky estimated that the EU proposal for segregating and labelling genetically engineered food could disrupt $4-5 billion in annual US agricultural exports.(6) And there is evidence that the United States government has been applying pressure on other countries to reject labelling regulations. A New Zealand cabinet document from 19th February '98, for example, showed that the US had threatened to pull out of a potential free-trade agreement with the New Zealand government because of its plans to test and label GE food. The document stated that "The United States have told us that such an approach could impact negatively on the bilateral trade relationship and potentially end any chance of a New Zealand - United States Free Trade Agreement."(7)

In spite of threats such as this, growing public concern about genetic engineering has forced more and more governments to introduce labelling schemes that cover GE ingredients. By May 2001, the countries that had pledged to introduce some form of manadatory labelling systems included Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, the Czech Republic, all 15 countries of the EU, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand.(8)

- Although organic farms are increasingly under threat of contamination from GE crops, eating organic produce is still the most certain way of avoiding GE food. In the spring of '98, the US Department of Agriculture put forward legislation which would have compromised this, proposing that GE food could be labelled as 'organic'. In spite of heavy lobbying by the biotech industry, the USDA was forced to drop its plans after receiving an unprecedented 275,000 letters of complaint.(9)
 

References

1. Consumers International, which called upon Codex for mandatory labelling, represents 235 consumer organisations in 109 countries.
2. Consumers International (28 May 1998) International Committee Rejects Consumer Call for Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food. Press release http://193.128.6.150/consumers//news/pressreleases/codex270598.h tml (as of April 2001)
3. European Commission regulation 50/2000 of 10 January 2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms.
4. Environment News Service, London (20 June 1997) www.envirolink.org/environews/ens/ (as of April 2001)
5. Leila Corcoran, Reuters, Washington (17 July 1997) <www.geocities.com/Athens/1527/egypt.html> (as of April 2001)
6. Reuters, Washington (19 June 1997) US warns EU not to impede farm trade over biotech
7. Cabinet Minutes from the New Zealand Government (19 February 1998). Reported in a feature article in UK newspaper the Independent on Sunday on the 22nd of November '98.
8. USDA FAS GAIN Report  #AS9026 (4 June 1999) Australia and genetically modified Organisms 1999.
USDA GAIN report #EZ0020 (29 December 2000) Czech republic Biotechnology new law comes into Force January 1, 2001.
South China Morning Post (1 April 2000) GM Food Labelling Policies Imminent.
Israel to adopt GMO labeling, <http://www.oryza.com/global/genetic/index.shtml> (as of April 2001)
USDA GAIN report #JA0128 (8 November 2000) Agricultural  biotechnology in Japan 2000.
USDA GAIN report #KS1009 (2 March 2001) Republic of Korea Biotechnology Enforcement of  Biotech labelling for unprocessed commodities 2001.
Reuters (31 March 2000) Mexican Senate passes bill on genetic food labels.
Polish News Bulletin (25 April 2000) New Regulations for Genetically Modified Foods. p. 19.
USDA GAIN report #RS9057 (24 November 1999) Russian federation Food and Agricultural Import regulations and standards - Russian biotech labelling law - 1999.
USDA GAIN report #SA0021 (18 December 2000) Saudi Arabia Biotechnolgy - Saudi Arabia Bans Imports of GMO Animal Products, revises GMO labelling & Extends Grace period.
Swiss Federal Health Office (14 June 2000) Deklarationslimite für gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel. Press release; SR 916.307 Verordnung über die Produktion und das Inverkehrbringen von Futtermitteln. Art. 23 Deklaration gentechnisch veränderter FuttermittelUSDA FAS attaché report (4 December 2000) Taiwan - Bioengineered Food Labeling Proposal.
9. Ronnie Cummins (8 November 1998) S.O.S. Save Organic Standards! Round Two. Food Bytes No. 14, <http://www.purefood.org/Organic/foodByt14.htm> (as of April 2001)
 
 

next I food intro