49) The Committee recalled that the Draft Amendment (Definitions) had been adopted at Step 5 by the 23rd Session of the Commission and considered by the last session of the CCFL, which had made a number of amendments and returned the text to Step 6 for further comments.
50) The Delegation of Argentina, supported by the Delegation of Brazil, proposed to replace the current definition with the definition of “modern biotechnology” in order to be consistent with the decision of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force, which had agreed to use the definition of the Cartagena Protocol. These delegations also pointed out that the Definitions should be at the same Step as the rest of the text to facilitate discussion. The Chairperson recalled that the Draft Definitions had been adopted by the Commission at Step 5 in 1999 and that this decision could not be changed by the Committee.
51) The Delegation of Norway, while recognizing the need for consistency in Codex, stressed the need to consider definitions for the purposes of food labelling and in relation to the indications that would actually be used in the label. The Delegation indicated that the result of a search on the internet demonstrated clearly that the references to “Genetic modification\genetic engineering” (combined) outnumbered more than 30 times the references to “modern biotechnology” as related to foods, and that these terms were more widely used. The Delegation of India proposed to replace the current text with a reference to “genetically modified foods and food ingredients and products derived therefrom” as it was more easily understood by consumers.
52) The Committee had an extensive discussion on the need to retain the definition of “genetic modification/genetic engineering” or to replace it with a definition of “modern biotechnology”. Several delegations stressed the need for consistency throughout Codex and with the Cartagena Protocol and supported the reference to “modern biotechnology”. Several other delegations and observers stressed the need to retain a definition for labelling purposes that would correspond to the terms commonly used and understood by consumers worldwide, and to the regulations established by several countries. The Delegation of the United States also noted that it would be difficult to find a term that would be acceptable globally. Several delegations also pointed out that the Cartagena Protocol referred to living modified organisms, and that the terminology currently used in the text would therefore be consistent with the Protocol.
53) The Delegation of Ireland expressed the view that the replacement of “genetically modified\engineered” by the term “modern biotechnology” would confuse consumers and recommended retention of the current terminology. The Observer form Consumers International stated that following consultations with its members worldwide, the terms “genetically modified\engineered” were acceptable, but “modern biotechnology” was not an acceptable term. The Delegations of India and Nigeria supported the views expressed by Ireland and CI.
54) The Observer from IFOAM, supported by the Observer from RAFI, expressed the view that consistency should be achieved with the existing definition of genetically engineered/modified organisms in the Guidelines for the Production Processing Marketing and Labelling of Organically Produced Foods and expressed concern with the adoption of a new definition which could affect current provisions for organically produced foods. The Secretariat indicated that since the Guidelines were an adopted text, its provisions were not affected by the development of another Codex text with a different scope; the definition in the Guidelines had been adopted for the specific purpose of defining the “organic” claim while the text under discussion concerned general labelling requirements.
55) The Delegation of Argentina requested that the terms “derived from certain techniques..” should replace “obtained from certain techniques..” for a more precise Scope definition. The Committee decided to refer to “obtained through\derived from” in the Spanish version of the text.
56) The Committee also discussed the reference to “no longer equivalent/differs significantly”. The Delegation of Malaysia proposed to retain the current text without square brackets as both terms were acceptable and to refer to “techniques” instead of “technologies” to ensure consistency throughout the text. Several delegations proposed to retain only “no longer equivalent”. The Delegation of India proposed to use the term “not equivalent” as it provided clear information for the consumer. Other delegations indicated that the notion of equivalence was not clearly defined and open to various interpretations, and supported the term “differs significantly” as this was more precise from a scientific perspective.
57) Following the proposal of the Delegation of the Netherlands, the Committee agreed to delete this definition as it did not appear necessary, and agreed that it would address the use of these terms further while considering labelling requirements, including the Scope, sections 3.1 and 6.1 (Label declarations).
58) The Committee considered a compromise text for the Definitions proposed by the Delegation of Canada, and further amended after discussion in a small drafting group (Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Senegal, Sweden, United States, Consumers International, International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations), as follows: the definitions in the current text were retained and clarified and the definition of “modern biotechnology” was added, in order to take into account the different approaches taken by member countries as regards the definitions under consideration in the CCFL.
59) The Delegation of India, supported by the Observer from IBFAN, expressed the view that modern biotechnology was not defined clearly and should not be included, and that the text agreed at the last session should be retained unchanged. The Observer from IFOAM, supported by the Delegation of India, proposed that “modern biotechnology” be mentioned only in a footnote for clarification purposes and that it should not be used in the labelling. The Observer from IBFAN supported this view and stated that the use of “modern biotechnology” could be construed as promotional.
60) The Delegation of Nigeria expressed its objection to the revised text as the use of “modern biotechnology” should be restricted to use at the national level in those countries where it was allowed, but should not be used at the international level, and the process of genetic modification should always be declared in the label, especially in view of adverse effects that might originate from intermediate products. The Committee noted that a number of examples of label declarations were contained in section 6 of the Proposed Draft Guidelines.
61) Many delegations and observers supported the revised text as a compromise, in order to achieve significant progress on the important issues under consideration, with the understanding that the labelling requirements would be discussed in the text under consideration in Agenda 5b, and the Committee agreed that the Draft Definitions should be forwarded to Step 8 for final adoption.
62) The Delegations of Austria, Germany and Switzerland indicated that they could generally support the compromise text, but they needed more time in order to reach a final decision, and they might be able to do so before the Commission met.
63) The Delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica and the United States expressed their reservation on the revised Definitions as member countries needed more time to consider the text; without prejudging of its content, they proposed that it should be returned for further comments and consideration at the next session. The Delegation of the United States noted that continued separation of the Definitions from the Guidelines could complicate the work of the Committee.
Status of the Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods): Definitions
64) The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Amendment to Step 8 for adoption by the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (see Appendix IV).
