Codex rejects GM labelling of foods

Consumers International, a federation of some 235 consumer organisations in 109 countries, is deeply concerned that consumers world-wide will find themselves unable to make clear choices on whether or not they want to buy genetically modified (GM) food.

The issue came to a head on 27 May when the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Codex Committee on Food Labelling, met in Canada and failed to agree to mandatory labelling of GM food. Codex did propose labelling for food containing known allergens, but consumer groups criticised this decision as it only provides the 'illusion of progress'. 
    One proposal before this standards-setting committee stated: "all foods that are or contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) shall be labelled." Consumers International fully supports this statement.
    However the proposal continues with a reference to labelling of foods that are produced from GMOs but do not contain them. This proposal suggests that labels are necessary only if "an adequate analysis demonstrates that the foods differ from equivalent conventional foods."
    This would mean for example sugar produced from genetically engineered sugar cane would fall into this category. "This statement is totally unacceptable," according to Leen Petré of Consumers International.
    She cites numerous surveys from Europe, North America and Australia which show that even if consumers are not against eating genetically modified food products, the vast majority clearly want such food to be labelled.
    Leen Petré concluded: "All too often when Codex makes decisions about the information consumers should have, the desires of the consumers themselves are left out of the decision-making process. Consumers International, along with hundreds of like-minded groups, strongly urge Codex to listen to the views of consumers who are demanding their basic right-the right to information."

For more information: Consumers International, 24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK, Fax +44 (0)171 354 0607.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 40, June 1998, page 7]