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

International regulations on genetically modified foods and the trade
barriers resulting from these will again be in the spot light next week, as
the 35th meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling kicks off in
Ottawa, Canada by Lorraine Heller .
The meeting, taking place from April 30 to May 4, forms part of an ongoing
program to create international food safety standards under the Codex
Alimentarius, a body set up by the Food and Agricultural Organization and
the World Health Organization.

Differences in international regulations of genetically modified (GM) foods
have long been the cause of strong disagreements between the United States
and the European Union. The US claims the EU's more stringent labeling
requirements violate free trade agreements, but EU member states maintain
that informed consumer choice should constitute part of free trade.

Food products sold in the US currently do not need to label the presence of
GM ingredients, unless the product has been 'substantially changed' from the
original due to the presence of these components.

This product-based labeling system varies significantly from the European
process-based labeling system.

In Europe, all GM ingredients must be labeled if these constitute a certain
percentage of the finished item. In addition, fewer varieties of GM crops
have been approved in Europe, meaning that foods containing any of these are
not permitted on the market, with or without labeling.

These more stringent regulations are largely due to lower levels of
confidence in genetic modification on the other side of the Atlantic.

The fact is that consumers within the EU are incredibly wary of GM, and that
therefore the labeling of products is an important issue for both consumes
and food makers. European GM food laws require that foods derived from GM
sources should be labeled to say 'this product contains genetically modified
organisms' or 'produced from genetically modified soy'.

In 2003, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
adopted new regulations governing the approval, marketing, labeling,
traceability and importation of food produced using biotechnology.

However, the US view is that Europe's imposed labeling of GMOs at all stages
of marketing is unnecessary as there is no scientific evidence suggesting a
negative health impact of consuming such foods.

The result: a trade stalemate, with little change expected in the near
future.

According to Mark Mansour of Foley & Lardner LLP, many US companies are
forced to resort to costly processes, such as Identity Preservation (IP), in
order to avoid GM labeling.

IP guarantees non-GM contaminated supply of crops, but as well as being an
expensive process to implement, crops grown under this method are in
relatively limited supply, and are largely found in Europe. This means that
food companies often find themselves sourcing raw materials in Europe in
order to export the goods back there. And this puts them at a trade
disadvantage, Mansour told FoodNavigator-USA.com. Other companies simply
decide not to sell in Europe, he said.

Delegates at next week's Codex labeling meeting will discuss a draft
amendment to the General Standards for Labeling of Prepackaged Foods with
respect to definitions for foods obtained through genetic modification or
genetic engineering. This draft is presently at step seven.

At step four and also up for debate are the Proposed Guidelines for the
Labeling for Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques
of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Labeling Provisions.

At the IFT conference last July, Peggy Rochette, director of international
policy at the Food Products Association (FPA) told delegates that global
agreement was a long way off.

"Commodity divisions have experienced in practical terms what this
divergence in labeling schemes means," she said.

"US soybean exports to the EU for example have decreased from $2.5bn in 1996
to $874m in 2004. However, processed food exports continue to grow. Look
closely however, and you'll see divergences. Exports of snacks and cereals -
those most likely to contain GM - are down 24 per cent in the time period."

This has all led to a great deal of conflict. The USDA has said that the
"failure of other countries to develop consistent and science-based
regulatory processes governing biotechnology has the potential to constrain
innovation."

With the general European hostility towards GM technology, a global
consensus on this issue would seem impossible. However, four global forums
for discussion are currently being used, and could represent an avenue to
some form of harmonization in the future: The Cartagena Portocol, Codex, the
International Standards Organization (ISO) and the World Trade Organization
(WTO).

A recent USDA report set out three potential scenarios for GM food in the
year 2015.

The rosy view is that biotechnology is embraced globally, along the lines of
the US's science-based approach. A second view, called 'continental
islands', sees GM food products being traded universally within continents,
but without any real global harmonization.

The third view is that 'biotech goes niche'. In other words, the barriers
that currently inhibit the global trade of GM food products, be they
regulatory or consumer-based, are never overcome.

[www.foodnavigator-usa.com]