Comments and Correspondence
ICGMA COMMENTS ON GENERAL STANDARD FOR THE LABELING OF PREPACKAGED
FOODS
May 5, 2004
Mr. Ron Burke, Director
Bureau of Food Regulatory, International and Interagency Affairs
Health Products & Food Branch
Health Canada, Building #7, Room 2395
Tunney’s Pasture, Ottawa K1A 0L2
Canada
Mr. Burke:
The International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations
(ICGMA) is pleased to provide the following comments regarding items
to be discussed at the upcoming Codex Committee on Food Labeling
meeting in Montreal, Canada on 10-14 May, 2004.
ICGMA, a recognized international non-governmental organization
before the Codex Alimentarius Commission, represents the interests
of national and regional associations who collaborate with all sectors
of the consumer packaged goods industry. ICGMA promotes the harmonization
of scientific standards and policies concerned with health, safety,
packaging, and labeling of foods, beverages, and other consumer
packaged goods. ICGMA also works to facilitate international trade
in these sectors by eliminating or preventing artificial barriers
to trade.
Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labeling
of Prepackaged Foods (Draft Recommendations for the Labeling of
Food Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic
Engineering) (ALINORM 3/22, Appendix IV).
1. ICGMA opposes the proposed definition of “biotechnology”
in the Proposed Draft Amendment. It is inconsistent with the definition
adopted by the Codex Commission in July 2003, based on the work
of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Biotechnology.
ICGMA CCFL Comments
May 3, 2004
Page 2 of 4
The Codex Commission established the Ad Hoc Task Force to specifically
address issues for Codex on matters pertaining to biotechnology
– including how it is to be defined. The Task Force provided
a very precise definition of the term, “modern biotechnology,”
that is consistent with the definition used in the Cartagena Biosafety
Protocol. Adopting a different term for reasons of labeling would
create confusion within Codex and detract from global harmonization
efforts.
2. In addition, the term “genetically modified/engineered
organism,” as used in the labeling document is scientifically
inaccurate.
The term technically applies to all forms of genetic manipulation
that humans have been practicing on plants, animal and microorganisms
for centuries – including modern traditional plant breeding.
Use of the terms, “organism,” “genetically modified
organism” and “genetically engineered organism”
in the document also suggests that living organisms of some unusual
nature are present in food and food ingredients and, therefore,
are confusing and likely to mislead consumers. With very few exceptions
(i.e., yogurt), food does not contain organisms.
Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labeling
of Prepackaged Foods (Draft Recommendations for the Labeling of
Food Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic
Engineering) (ALINORM 3/22, Appendix IV).
At the last CCFL Meeting, the Chair appointed a Working Group to
evaluate options to better manage the ongoing discussion of the
topic in the Committee. The Working Group concluded that discussion
of the topic should continue, but no consensus was reached in response
to the Government of Canada’s proposal to split the document.
1. ICGMA strongly supports advancing mandatory labeling standards
for foods, whether developed through modern biotechnology or another
method if there is a change in the nutritional composition or if
an added component is toxic or allergenic.
Such a standard would be based on the quantifiable chemical characteristics
of the food product and not the method of production. This type
of standard is objective, based on science, verifiable and enforceable
because the chemical properties of the food can be measured, confirmed
and defended.
ICGMA CCFL Comments
May 3, 2004
Page 3 of 4
2. ICGMA strongly opposes extending mandatory labeling of products
derived from a specific process or production method, in this case
the use of modern biotechnology.
Such labeling violates the standards of being objective, verifiable
and enforceable. Real hazards are found in a product and not in
the process by which a product was made. Advancing Codex standards
outside scientific principles distracts attention from legitimate
health, safety and nutritional issues, particular for developing
countries with limited government resources, which Codex strives
to benefit and support.
3. ICGMA is reassured by the Report of the meeting of the Working
Group in Calgary that Codex continues to place priority on “protecting
the consumer with respect to health and safety concerns or misleading
information.”
We, nevertheless, are concerned about the time and resources spent
by the Working Group in Calgary -- and by extension, the Committee
-- addressing issues that, in fact, detract from these stated priorities.
4. ICGMA, therefore, supports revisiting the Government of
Canada’s proposal made in advance of the Calgary meeting to
split the document into two documents, and
a. Allow the draft standard for labeling based on consumer health
and safety to proceed in the Codex standard-setting process based
on the Committee’s stated priority and consensus, and
b. Allow the draft voluntary guidelines for labeling indicating
method of production to be discussed further within the Committee
until such a time as a consensus emerges.
5. Such an approach acknowledges the Committee’s progress
in areas where consensus exists, but also allows the Committee to
invest in a discussion of the misleading nature of mandatory process-based
labeling regimes (for products derived from modern biotechnology).
6. Moreover, such an approach will allow the Committee to address
a number of practical implementation issues associated with mandatory
process-based labeling regimes that should facilitate the standard-setting
process.
If countries are mandating process-based labeling of products derived
from modern biotechnology to enhance consumer knowledge and choice
and relatively few such products are labeled in countries that have
such regimes, clearly a Codex discussion on implementation and compliance
issues associated with such labeling is warranted.
ICGMA CCFL Comments
May 3, 2004
Page 4 of 4
7. Finally, ICGMA is concerned about the potential contradictions
raised by Codex in adopting a guideline for labeling based on process
or production methods that is inconsistent with the WTO TBT Agreement.
Codex standards are accorded significant deference under the World
Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT
Agreement). A Codex guideline, albeit a voluntary one, would conflict
with existing obligations of national governments under the WTO
TBT Agreement, specifically:
a. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement requires countries to treat
imported products no less favorably than “like” domestic
products. In deciding whether products are like (e.g., oil from
biotech corn vs. conventional corn), WTO dispute products as well
as their tariff classification. Applying these factors in the
context of biotech foods, one would conclude that a biotech food
and its conventional counterpart are “like products.”
b. Article 2.8 of the TBT Agreement encourages countries to base
measures in terms of product performance rather than design characteristics.
A Codex guideline that endorses process-based labeling would be
at odds with the WTO TBT Agreement.
Sincerely,
Karil L. Kochenderfer, Secretary
cc: Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission
Joint WHO/FAO Food Standards Programme
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100
Rome, Italy
|
