Biotech labeling agreement interpretations differ
July 05, 2011 | 09:04 PM | Filed in: Biotech / GMO
Consumer groups and the biotech industry are issuing different interpretations of a new Codex Alimentarius Commission agreement on biotech labeling.
Consumers International and its member organizations, including Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of _Consumer Reports_, said they were celebrating a victory because the new agreement reached in Geneva would allow countries to adopt labeling of foods for genetic modification without fear of a legal challenge in the World Trade Organization.
The Codex Alimenatarius Commission is an international organization jointly established by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization to set worldwide food safety standards. Biotech companies have maintained that foods made from genetically modified ingredients do not need to be labeled because they are not different from other foods while consumer groups have said consumers have the right to know what foods contain those ingredients.
The labeling could not be raised as a trade barrier because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade, Consumers International noted. The group also said that the agreement was possible after two decades of debate because the U.S. delegation had dropped its opposition to the GM labeling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.
“We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring,” said Michael Hansen, Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, in a news release. “This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labeled — so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction."
Edita Vilcapoma of the Peruvian consumer group ASPEC, who also represented Consumers International at the Codex meeting in Geneva, said: “Peru’s recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO. This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumer movement."
Some consumer activists had wanted the commission to endorse mandatory labeling, but it did not.
Samuel Ochieng, president emeritus of Consumers International and CEO of the Kenyan Consumer Information Network said: “While the agreement falls short of the consumer movement’s long-held demand for endorsement of mandatory GM food labeling, this is still a significant milestone for consumer rights."
But the Biotechnology Industry Organization said today in an email to The Hagstrom Report that the “the agreement is totally consistent with the U.S. position, which we support since it says no new guidelines are needed, because the guidelines for other foods apply to biotech foods as well.”
The agreement “is just a compilation of existing texts with a consideration statement that says foods derived from biotech are no different from other foods based on method of productions. It also encourages companies to be consistent with Codex guidelines," added BIO communications director Karen Batra.
BIO noted that in a news release today that the USDA Economic Research Service has released a report that shows American farmers’ use of biotech soybean and corn seed, which was already at high levels, continued to rise from 2010 to 2011.
The use of genetically modified soybeans rose from 93 to 94 percent and genetically modified corn from 86 percent to 88 percent. The use of genetically modified cotton seed fell slightly from 93 percent to 90 percent, but was higher than the 88 percent in 2009.
USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) report, “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." was released July 1, 2011.
Consumers International and its member organizations, including Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of _Consumer Reports_, said they were celebrating a victory because the new agreement reached in Geneva would allow countries to adopt labeling of foods for genetic modification without fear of a legal challenge in the World Trade Organization.
The Codex Alimenatarius Commission is an international organization jointly established by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization to set worldwide food safety standards. Biotech companies have maintained that foods made from genetically modified ingredients do not need to be labeled because they are not different from other foods while consumer groups have said consumers have the right to know what foods contain those ingredients.
The labeling could not be raised as a trade barrier because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade, Consumers International noted. The group also said that the agreement was possible after two decades of debate because the U.S. delegation had dropped its opposition to the GM labeling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.
“We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring,” said Michael Hansen, Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, in a news release. “This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labeled — so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction."
Edita Vilcapoma of the Peruvian consumer group ASPEC, who also represented Consumers International at the Codex meeting in Geneva, said: “Peru’s recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO. This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumer movement."
Some consumer activists had wanted the commission to endorse mandatory labeling, but it did not.
Samuel Ochieng, president emeritus of Consumers International and CEO of the Kenyan Consumer Information Network said: “While the agreement falls short of the consumer movement’s long-held demand for endorsement of mandatory GM food labeling, this is still a significant milestone for consumer rights."
But the Biotechnology Industry Organization said today in an email to The Hagstrom Report that the “the agreement is totally consistent with the U.S. position, which we support since it says no new guidelines are needed, because the guidelines for other foods apply to biotech foods as well.”
The agreement “is just a compilation of existing texts with a consideration statement that says foods derived from biotech are no different from other foods based on method of productions. It also encourages companies to be consistent with Codex guidelines," added BIO communications director Karen Batra.
BIO noted that in a news release today that the USDA Economic Research Service has released a report that shows American farmers’ use of biotech soybean and corn seed, which was already at high levels, continued to rise from 2010 to 2011.
The use of genetically modified soybeans rose from 93 to 94 percent and genetically modified corn from 86 percent to 88 percent. The use of genetically modified cotton seed fell slightly from 93 percent to 90 percent, but was higher than the 88 percent in 2009.
USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) report, “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S." was released July 1, 2011.
