www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

The labelling of genetically modified (GM) goods within Malaysia has come
further under the spotlight this week as the industry remains torn between
its proposed bio-safety laws and free trade agreements between the US by
Neil Merrett.
Under section 61 of Malaysia's proposed bio-safety bill, any GM products
sold in the country would face mandatory labelling, a notion unpopular with
some US biotech companies.

The issue highlights globally divided opinion regarding the use of GM
products within the food chain.

The passing of the bill could also significantly affect Malaysia's food
industry by setting back free trade talks with the US government, which has
long opposed any plans to label GM products.

In order to push through with trade talks, the US may try to pressure
Malaysia to drop section 61 in the bill dealing with GM labelling.

North Malaysia's rice farmers in particular are unhappy with the US stance,
suggesting that failure to impose labelling could see biotech companies
flood the market with GM products and eat into their domestic markets.

Their stance was backed by the president of the Consumers Association of
Penang, S. M. Mohamed Idris.

''Such demands are unreasonable and if they are agreed to it would mean that
the health and environmental concerns of Malaysians will be pushed aside for
the benefit of foreign companies selling food containing GM [produce],'' he
said in a statement.

Publicly at least, the Malaysian government also appears keen to establish
mandatory GM labelling in a drive to legitimise its own biotechnology
sector. Government's labelling proposal is also backed by some rival
politicians in the country.

Lim Kit Siang, opposition party leader, wrote in his online blog that
Malaysia should fall in line with other countries in opposing objections to
GM labelling.

"Many countries (such as Japan, China and many European countries, and even
Australia which signed an FTA with the US) already require mandatory
labelling," he wrote last month.

"This is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
which states that 'technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive
than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective'."

US business lobbies refute these claims, suggesting that mandatory labelling
could suggest to consumers that the product was inferior or should be
avoided for safety reasons.

They fear that labelling requirements could undoing the work of the biotech
industry and associated organisations in promoting the potential benefits of
using GM crops and ingredients in food processing.

The biotech industry is determined to push the message of the positive
affects GM use could bring to agriculture and food processing.

For example, drought resistant crops is seen as a key development for the
growth of the GM industry, according to the International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).

The industry organisation predicts that the drought resistant genes, which
expected to be available for commercial use by around 2011, will
significantly reduce the effects of low rainfall on grain production.

These claims have failed to sway the opinions of environmental groups
though.

Groups, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, continue to oppose
any use of GM crops on the grounds that the long term health effects remain
unknown and could pose a risk to both consumers and the environment.

[www.ap-foodtechnology.com]