by John Fagan, Ph.D. and Richard
Wolfson, Ph.D.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission,
Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) met in Ottawa from April 15-19, 1997 to discuss
issues that affect the entire world's food supply.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, often
referred to simply as Codex, is designated
by the World Trade Organization as the officially recognized
rule-making body for international trade
issues related to food. Under GATT
(the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), Codex decisions
have the clout of international law.
Officially, the mandate of Codex is to
"create a set of international standards
to guide the world's growing food industry and to protect the
health of consumers." However, in
practice, Codex is strongly influenced by industry and biotech representatives, which
often results in decisions that
benefit profit and production, at the expense of health and
nutrition.
Codex has a number of different
committees, including the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, which meets in Ottawa to
discuss labeling issues. For instance,
CCFL sets criteria for foods to be certified and labeled "organic." CCFL is also debating the
question of whether genetically engineered
foods and food ingredients need to be labeled. Other topics
include labeling of potential allergens,
and the range of health and nutritional
claims allowed on labels.
At the "organic" sessions in
April, there was concern expressed that the Codex organic guidelines should be stronger, more
precise and more well-defined.
Consequently, the guidelines did not proceed further up the
approval process and will be reconsidered
at the 1998 CCFL meeting. In 1996 the
organic subcommittee categorically excluded the use of
genetically engineered seeds and
inputs in production of organic foods for international trade. Although industry wanted to
reopen this issue at this year's
meeting, this was not allowed.
Regarding the broader category of
genetically engineered foods, the Executive
Committee of Codex presented to the CCFL a discussion paper on
the labeling of genetically engineered
foods that was highly favorable to industry
and would have forced thousands of genetically engineered foods
to be allowed on the world market,
unlabelled and mixed with other foods. This paper was the result of maneuvering by industry
during the 1996 CCFL meeting that
blocked discussion of the topic of labeling of genetically
engineered food by the labeling committee
as a whole (where the welfare of consumers
would have been taken into serious consideration) and moved the
discussion to the Executive Committee
(where industry concerns hold far greater
clout).
When this discussion paper was
considered on April 16, at the 1997 CCFL meeting, it quickly became clear that most of the
national delegations were quite
dissatisfied with the approach taken by the Executive Committee.
The Executive Committee proposed an
approach to genetically engineered foods that was based on the principle of substantial
equivalence and that would have
required labeling of only a tiny fraction of the genetically
engineered foods that will enter the
market. Virtually all delegations except
the USA, Canada, Mexico, France, and the UK expressed either
outright opposition or strong doubt
regarding the Executive Committee's discussion
paper. Prominent among these were Germany, Norway, Sweden,
India, the Netherlands, the European
Commission, Japan, Switzerland, Thailand,
Denmark, Iceland, Hungary, and Consumers International.
The basic points raised in the discussion were as follows:
(1) Most delegations felt that the Executive Committee had attempted to manipulate the discussion of this issue by purposely delaying distribution of their discussion paper until that last minute.
(2) All delegations except the five supporting the Executive Committee felt that the consumer's right to know necessitated much broader labeling of genetically engineered foods than the Executive Committee proposed in its discussion paper.
(3) Several delegations felt that regulations based strictly on the concept of substantial equivalence (as proposed by the Executive Committee) were inadequate.
(4) The general consensus was that the Executive Committee's discussion paper was not even adequate to use as a starting point for the debate on the labeling of genetically engineered foods and that a new paper should be prepared before the next meeting.
(5) The outcome was that it was resolved that an in-depth consideration of the issue would take place at the next meeting (Spring 1998) and that in the meantime comments on the topic would be accepted from all delegations and distributed well before the meeting. It was left open as to whether a new discussion paper would be prepared and, if so, by whom. There will be quite a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering on this point in the near future.
(6) So, the process, excruciatingly slow
as it is, is moving forward in a direction
that is far better for consumers than it would have seemed last
year. However, the process has been slowed
by involvement of the Executive Committee.
This benefits the biotech industry, because the continued lack
of international regulations allows
genetically engineered foods to continue
to enter the international market unlabelled and inadequately
regarding their long-term effect son human
health.
The following is a more detailed
review of the discussion that took place on April 16:
THE NETHERLANDS
1. The Netherlands supported the written comments made by the European Union and said that the written comments of the EU expressed the coordinated views of the European community as a whole. Through the work of the European Union there was now a regulation on novel foods that applies throughout the European community.
2. The delegation complained regarding the short time available for comments, due to the late submission and distribution of the Executive Committee's discussion paper.
3. They stated that the official
position of their government was that the discussion paper prepared by the Codex
Executive Committee was not adequate,
and that two points in particular need to be corrected. First,
they felt that it is important to consider
both living modified organisms and
non-living genetically modified organisms. These should be dealt
with independently. In the first
instance, living organisms should always be labeled. In the second case, foods derived from
genetically modified organisms but
not containing living organisms should be labeled if those
foods were different from the original
foods. Second, they emphasized that although
it is important to consider scientific safety issues, it is
equally important to give consumers the
opportunity to make informed choices.
If we only label on the basis of safety or health dangers the
policy will not be adequate. Consumers
needed more information.
THE UNITED KINGDOM
1. The UK sought clarification on procedures and supported what the Netherlands said on all counts.
2. The delegation raised the question of
whether the issue of genetically
engineered foods had actually entered into the official
"steps" procedure of the
Codex Food Labeling Committee. The Secretariat then explained that this particular initiative was
approved as new work by the Executive
Committee and had been assigned a high priority. The Secretariat
said that the discussion can at this time
lead to appending revisions to the
document as recommended. The Secretariat suggested that suggested
changes could be appended to the document
and the resultant document could be
recirculated at what they call "step three" of the
Codex process.
NORWAY
1. Norway was very indignant over the fact that, due to the late distribution of the Executive Committee's discussion paper, there had not been enough time for discussion at home.
2. The delegation said that this issue involves considerations of a broader nature than just food content and safety. They felt that the committee should broaden the context of food labeling. This is not just a health matter but is very much linked to consumer's right to be properly informed especially with regard to issues linked to serious ethical and environmental concerns such as genetically engineered foods.
3. The delegation said that it was the
unanimous view of the Norwegian Parliament
that this was a broader issue. The Executive Committee's discussion document was simply not satisfactory,
and should be re-drafted before
detailed discussion commenced. The delegation said that they
would have detailed comments at a
later time after discussion at home.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1. The delegation said that they had submitted comments and that there were additional points that they wanted to make at present.
2. They said that they had discovered the discussion document on the WWW only by coincidence about a month ago. Although the document said that it was circulated in February it was received only about three weeks ago through the official channels. It was very late and they were not prepared to comment in detail.
3. The delegation said that they felt very strongly that the document needed to be revised. It had serious problems. They also pointed out that the paper was anonymously authored, which they found to be objectionable.
4. The delegation said that this initiative should not go to the "step process" now and that they preferred to refrain from making comments on this document. They were not happy with the way the Secretariat had proceeded and asked not to have discussion today on the issue.
5. They said that they had provided the
Executive Committee with a copy of
the European Union Regulations on labeling novel foods and
offered their help in drafting the
text of a new discussion paper to be used for the basis of discussion in the next meeting.
UNITED STATES
1 The United States acknowledged that the draft document was very late and therefore that the US comments were only preliminary.
2. They said that they were ready to offer preliminary comments at this time, and that they wanted the discussion to proceed at this time.
3. They felt the Executive Committee's
document was good, and was generally
consistent with US labeling guidelines. It was a good starting
basis for the Codex regulation process.
JAPAN
1. Japan said that they commended the work of the Secretariat but found the document very late and that this gave no time for internal discussion of the issue back home.
2. This issue was becoming more and more important in Japan, especially consumers were requesting labeling requirements. On the other hand, industry people were worried about the outcome of discussions that might lead to labeling. The government was working internally to formulate a policy on labeling.
3. They then offered their participation to work with other delegates to formulate a new discussion paper.
4. They said their official position was
to reserve comment at this time on
the Executive Committee's discussion paper and on this issue.
CANADA
1. Canada commended the Secretariat on accomplishing such a difficult task and then went on to say the paper was a good beginning, thus supporting the US delegation's stance.
2. They have gone through consultations on this issue since 1993 and found significant support for labeling based on health, safety and composition changes.
3. They complained about the short comment period.
4. Based on their consultations with the
public much of the draft recommendations
were acceptable. More was needed in the document and they would be happy to participate in the process of
reformulating the draft.
CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL
1. Consumers International said that this issue was of fundamental concern to consumers.
2. They emphasized their concerns as being allergens, safety, and processing changes.
3. They said that they were even more concerned with the Codex process, itself. They accepted the need for internal consultation within each nation, but said that there is also a great need to move this issue forward quickly.
3. They asked for discussion on how to
move things forward most efficiently
and proposed the formulation of a working group that would put
together a discussion paper before the next
meeting. This working group would
gather the comments that will be coming in during the next few
months following the meeting. This
input would then be included in a new discussion paper that would be available well
before the next meeting, at which
detailed discussion would occur.
INDIA
1. India's main comment was that they wanted to reiterate the primary point of their written comment, which was, that any food of genetically engineered origin should be labeled. There should be no exception based on the principle of substantial equivalence or any other principle.
2. They said that they agreed with the
written comments made by the International
Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements and the Australian Gene Ethics Network that all
genetically engineered foods should be
labeled.
SWITZERLAND
1. Switzerland said that a re-draft of the Secretariat's recommendations should be prepared that responded to all concerns expressed in the comments submitted before the last meeting, as well as the concerns expressed in comments that will be submitted in the next few months. The Swiss delegation pointed out that many well thought out comments on this issue had been submitted to the Committee before the last meeting when this issue first began to be considered. These should be brought into the process as they were useful points.
2. They said labeling based on substantial equivalence was simply not adequate. It did not provide a reliable basis for distinguishing safe from risky foods.
3. They said a new discussion paper
should be drafted and they very much
wanted to progress on this issue. What was needed was a viable
discussion paper, implying that the current
one was simply not adequate.
UNITED STATES
The US delegation suggested that people
should at least review the paper before
deciding that a redrafting was needed.
NORWAY
Norway said that they favor setting up a
drafting group, and emphasized the
need to have a new draft available well before the next meeting
so that in depth discussion could
occur during the next meeting.
SWEDEN
1. Sweden said that many delegations were unhappy with the lateness of the document and brevity of time for comments.
2. They said that we need to differentiate clearly between labeling and safety.
3. They said labeling was the only way to gain the confidence of consumers. This was clear on the basis of many letters and e-mail messages to the Codex delegation from Swedish citizens.
4. The delegation said that the
discussion document in its present form
is premature and that Sweden supported the formation of a working
group that would put together a new
discussion paper.
THAILAND
1. Thailand said they supported Sweden with regard to organizing a working group to draft a new discussion document.
2. They felt very strongly that further
discussion was needed before this
initiative entered into the "step" process.
DENMARK
Denmark said that a working group was
needed and that, although the Secretariat's
work was helpful, the working group should start afresh and
formulate a new discussion paper on the
labeling issue.
CANADA
Canada said that they were concerned
that the paper was so late, but, for expediency,
why not use the Executive Committee's discussion paper to move
the issue forward. The delegate also said
that normal consultation was still
needed within each country on this issue, and questioned whether
an immediate working group was the
best way to proceed.
MEXICO
1. Mexico said they supported the American stance.
2. They wanted comments on the current
document before any working group
was formulated.
FRANCE
1. France said they supported Canada and Mexico.
2. They said they would like to see
comments on the paper as it exists now
from countries before a working group gets started.
CHAIR OF THE SESSION
1. The document was already in the "step" process. Progress here will be reported to the Executive Committee. Now comments will be requested from all countries and those comments should be arrived at through a transparent and open process.
2. A working group was not appropriate because it would exclude some countries. Alternatively the secretariat proposed to circulate the current discussion paper, and to accept comments on that paper from national delegations.
3. Rapid progress on this issue will
require consensus. They doubted whether
consensus was something that could come out of this.
SWEDEN
1. They respected the advice of the Secretariat but felt the need for a smaller group to discuss the comments and formulate a new discussion paper.
2. The expert consultation (of
scientists), convened by the Executive Committee last fall, only concerned safety. This
was not an adequate scope for
labeling because the genetically engineered food issue involved
other highly significant concerns
such as the environment, the consumer's right to know, and ethical issues.
CONSUMER INTERNATIONAL
Consumer International said that they
supported the Swedish stance and the Secretariat's
point on transparency. However, once comments were gathered
there would be a great need to set up a
working group in which a small number
of delegates would work together to consolidate comments and
structure a revised document for the next
CCFL meeting.
UNITED KINGDOM
The United Kingdom said they support the
France stance not to have a working
group. It was essential that the biotech labeling work be in a
structured debate within the plenary
session of the CCFL. They suggested that
the discussion paper as it exists could serve as the basis of
debate along with the comments that
will come in.
THE NETHERLANDS
The Netherlands said they supported the
UK and France. The whole Committee should
work together on this issue, not a smaller working group.
NORWAY
Norway said the main issue was not
whether a working group should be formed to redraft the paper, but that someone needs to
draft such a paper before the next
session to make sure progress is made in that session.
HUNGARY
Hungry made the comment that many felt
that one of the great weaknesses of the
current discussion paper was that it did not differentiate
between traditional and modern
biotechnology.
ICELAND
Iceland said that they supported
Consumers International and Norway. This issue needs to be moved forward quickly and a
substantial revision should be
completed before the next session.
THE CHAIR
The Chair concluded by saying that she
perceived a clear desire among delegates
to complete home consultations. There was also a desire among
many delegates to redraft the whole paper
before the next meeting and a desire
that a substantial part of the next meeting be devoted to this
issue. But the chair left completely open
who was going to redraft the paper
before the next meeting and even if such a paper would be put
together.
John B. Fagan, Ph.D.
Professor of Molecular Biology
Maharishi University of Management
(Maharishi International University 1971 to
1995)
1000 North Fourth Street
Fairfield, Iowa, 52557-1078
Phone(515) 472-8342
Fax (515) 472-5725
email jfagan@mum.edu