Discussions On Biotech Labelling At Codex Move Ahead At A Snail's Pace

Delegates at the meeting of the Codex Committee On Food Labelling on 6- 10 May in Halifax, Canada, made virtually no headway on the contentious issue of the labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, largely repeating previously stated positions (see BRIDGES Weekly, 8 May 2001). While making some progress on the purpose of the draft recommendations, countries remained deeply divided over the recommendations' scope. Divisions were also apparent in the debate on 'country of origin' labelling.

Regarding the purpose of the draft recommendations on GM food labelling, countries agreed to include the facilitation of "consumer choice" as one of the objectives of GM food labelling, a point advocated in particular by the EU. It should be noted that the draft recommendations simply aim to set out guidelines that countries can follow if they choose to label GM foods, but do not imply that countries that adhere to the draft recommendations are required to label all GM foods covered by them. Nevertheless, several governments tried to limit the scope of the guidelines by opposing references to foods produced with, but not containing GM organisms. The inclusion of this category was also strongly rejected by the International Association of Plant Breeders (ASSINSEL) as its implementation "would have important cost implications without benefit to consumer's health [and] would particularly affect developing countries". Labelling requirements for this type of GM foods have already led to disagreement between the US and EU over the EU's proposed labelling regulations for GM foods which also cover this category. The US argues that such requirements would be scientifically unjustified and unnecessarily trade distortive.

Divisions were also apparent on 'country of origin' labelling which several delegates argued should not be discussed in Codex at this stage, but should rather await finalisation of work in the WTO Committee on Rules of Origin, which is in the process of harmonising rules of origin to be applied by all WTO Members. Others, however, pointed out that the debate at Codex differed from that at the WTO as it was only concerned with labelling. Opponents of the discussion also pointed out that such labelling requirements would be impractical and burdensome for industry -- especially if required for different ingredients -- while not being of significant importance to consumers. In response, some stated that many NGOs had called for such labelling standards, stressing that they already existed for fruits and vegetables. As no consensus could be reached on whether to begin new work on 'country of origin' labelling, this issue will be taken up again at the next meeting of the Committee.

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is currently scheduled to meet again on 20 April to 2 May 2003.

Background

The Canada-based Codex Commission on Food Labelling is a subsidiary body of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). While Codex standards are only voluntary, the CAC is recognised by the SPS Agreement as the international organisation responsible for standard-setting related to food safety. WTO Members "shall base" their measures related to human and plant health on CAC's standards, guidelines or recommendations. Such measures "shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life of health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions" of the SPS Agreement. While Codex standards only apply to food safety, they are likely to have far wider implications on discussions in the other standard-setting bodies as well as in related fora, including other Codex Committees, the WTO and bilateral negotiations. The other two international standard-setting body recognised in the SPS Agreement are the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health and the Office International de Epizooties (OIE) for animal health and zoonoses.

For the Codex Procedure, see http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-05-02/story2.htm.

ICTSD Internal Files.