41. The Committee recalled that the Proposed Draft Recommendations considered by the last session had been circulated for comments at Step 3 and redrafted in the light of the comments received. In particular, the text included an alternative proposal referring to general labelling of foods containing GMOs and labelling of foods produced from GMOs but not containing them when they were significantly different from conventional foods.
42. The Delegation of Brazil stressed the importance of adhering to the four principles on the role of science in Codex and recalled that the safety of foods was a prerequisite to their marketing in any case; this principle had been followed very strictly in the case of genetically modified products, as the selection process was controlled more effectively than with other techniques. This position was supported by several delegations and observers, who pointed out that the principles for the labelling of such foods should be the following, as proposed in the working paper ALINORM 97/22A, Appendix VI. "When a food produced by biotechnology is not substantially equivalent to any existing food in the food supply and no conventional comparator exists, the labelling shall indicate clearly the nature of the product, its nutritional composition, its intended use and any other essential characteristic necessary to provide a clear description of the product". However, there was no justification in terms of food safety for specific labelling of foods that were substantially equivalent to conventional foods, as there was no evidence of any specific health hazards.
43. It was pointed out that the identification of significant modifications in composition were already required for novel foods which were not obtained though biotechnology but were different from conventional foods, and the Committee noted that this was consistent with existing labelling provisions that provide clear information to the consumer.
44. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that EC legislation required labelling of all foods containing GMOs and of foods produced from GMOs but not containing them when no longer equivalent to existing foods or ingredients. This was intended to ensure transparency and address consumer concerns for clear information on these products in order to make informed choices. The Observer also indicated that specific rules provide that foods which do not contain protein or DNA resulting from genetic modification are considered to be equivalent to existing foods or ingredients and shall not be subject to specific labelling requirements. Several delegations supported this position as based on scientific evaluation and expressed the view that the concept of substantial equivalence was not relevant to labelling issues; consequently they supported the alternative proposal on the labelling of foods containing or produced from GMOs in the revised text (see para. 41).
45. The Delegations of Norway and India expressed the view that the issues associated with modern biotechnology went beyond information about product characteristics, that the right of consumers to make their choice should be respected even if this meant broadening the basis for labelling requirements, and that reliable labelling was the only means to ensure consumer confidence in this area.
46. The Observer from Consumers International, supported by several delegations and observers, emphasized the extreme importance of this issue for consumers and the necessity for comprehensive labelling of genetically engineered products in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice. The Observer noted that mandatory comprehensive labelling was needed to allow consumers their fundamental right to information to choose according to their own ethical, cultural, and other personal preferences, and to provide vital health information for consumers sensitive to uncommon or unknown allergens. Substantial equivalence was strongly opposed as a basis for labelling since it involved value judgments that excluded consumer input. Consumers International opposed the terms "biotechnology" and "modern biotechnology" and favored "genetically engineered/modified" instead.
47. The Observer from IFOAM pointed out that organic producers needed to ensure that when they used substances coming from the conventional market, these did not include GMOs and related products; identification of products derived from genetic engineering was essential and consequently IFOAM supported comprehensive mandatory labelling requirements.
48. The Committee, recognizing the need to concentrate its efforts on the areas where consensus could be achieved, as proposed by the Chairperson, had an exchange of views on the definition of foods obtained through biotechnology. The Committee noted the proposals 1) to replace "new" with "modern" biotechnology, and 2) to avoid using the term " biotechnology" as it might create confusion for the consumer. Taking into account the amendments to the definition proposed by Canada and the EC, the Committee agreed on a revised definition which clarified the scope of the text. The Committee also agreed to require the labelling of allergens transferred through genetic modification, as proposed in the current text (section 4.2.2.).
Status of the Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Biotechnology
49. The Committee agreed to forward the amended Definition in square brackets and Section 4.2.2. (allergens) to Step 5 (see Appendix VII) and to return all other sections of the Proposed Draft to Step 3 for further comments and consideration by the next session (see Appendix VIII).
