40) The Committee recalled that the 26th Session had forwarded to the Commission for adoption at Step 5 the Definitions related to biotechnology (section 2) and the provisions on allergens (section 4.2.2), and had returned to Step 3 for further comments the labelling requirements (section 5)[6].
41) The Delegation of the United States pointed out that there was no scientific basis to require systematic labelling of foods containing or obtained from genetically modified organisms and that only those foods which differed significantly from their conventional counterpart as regards composition, use or nutritional quality should be specifically labelled. The Delegation also stressed the difficulties of implementing systematic labelling requirements, indicated that distinctions based on the mode of production might imply that foods produced from GMOS were not safe, and expressed concern about the possibility of misleading negative labelling by competitors. This position was supported by the Observers from IFCGA, ASSINSEL and CRN who stressed that labelling of all foods produced from GMOs would be contrary to the general principles of labelling in Codex, would provide misleading information to consumers and would not be enforceable in practice.
42) The Delegation of Argentina stressed the importance of the role of science and risk analysis as a basis for decisions in Codex, and pointed out that there was no scientific basis for requesting information on the mode of production in the specific case of biotechnology, especially as this would not offer any additional guarantee concerning the safety of the food.
43) The Delegation of Germany, speaking on behalf of the member states of the European Union, indicated its clear preference for the alternative proposal based on the principle of mandatory labelling, noting however that this proposal required some amendments. The Observer from the EC indicated that, in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice, EC legislation required systematic labelling of all foods or ingredients consisting of or containing GMOs and labelling of foods and ingredients produced from GMOs but not containing them, when they were not any longer equivalent to existing foods or ingredients. The Observer stated that the notion of equivalence was currently evaluated according to the presence in foods or ingredients of DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification, and that these provisions allowed to take into account specific health problems (allergy) and ethical considerations. This position was supported by several delegations, which recalled that there was a strong demand for information on the mode of production from consumers in Europe.
44) The Delegation of Norway supported mandatory labelling of all products containing or issued from GMOs as ethical concerns of consumers related to the mode of production should be addressed, and comprehensive labelling was essential to ensure consumer confidence in food labelling in general. The Delegation supported the alternative proposal as amended by CI, but indicated that the proposal from the EC was acceptable as a second best alternative. The Delegation of Denmark expressed concern about the fact that the mode of production should be taken into account and therefore all foods containing or derived from biotechnology should be labelled.
45) Several delegations informed the Committee that consultations were ongoing in their countries on the development of a legislation addressing the labelling of genetically modified products, taking into account the views of the consumers and the industry, and the practical aspects of legislation enforcement. In reply to a question, the Secretariat informed the Committee that the Executive Committee had included in the Mid-Term Plan 1998-2002 the consideration of a general standard for foods derived from biotechnology and that the Commission would decide how to proceed with the elaboration of this standard.
46) The Observer from Consumers International, supported by the Observers from IACFO, RAFI, IFOAM recommended comprehensive and mandatory labelling of foods containing or produced directly from genetically modified organisms, in order to address health concerns, especially related to allergens, and to allow consumers to make an informed choice. This labelling should extend to foods produced from genetically modified ingredients processed to the extent that they were no longer detectable. In addition, the Observers from IFOAM, RAFI and IACFO stressed the importance of the identification of genetically modified products for organic farmers since GMOs or products thereof were not allowed in organic production systems. The Observer from IFOAM expressed concern that the terms "biotechnology" or "modern biotechnology" were misleading for consumers and indicated that "genetically engineered/modified" was more appropriate.
47) The Committee had an exchange of views on the opportunity of applying the recommendations to novel foods which were not produced through biotechnology; some delegations stressed that changes in composition, nutritional value or other characteristics of all foods should be made known to the consumers irrespective of the mode of production, while other delegations and observers supported limiting the scope of the text to foods derived from GMOs. The Committee did not come to a conclusion on this matter.
48) Several delegations pointed out that the concept of substantial equivalence was used in the context of safety assessment but was not appropriate when considering labelling issues and the Committee agreed that the word "substantial" would be deleted and consideration would be given to the term "equivalence" with a conventional food in this perspective. The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Canada to consider further how the concept of equivalence could be clarified for the purpose of labelling, which could be achieved by a working group.
Status of the Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Biotechnology
49) The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft Recommendations to Step 3 for redrafting by a Working Group[7] coordinated by the Delegation of Canada, which would prepare a revised version for circulation and consideration by the next session.
