|
|
May 20, 1998 |
|
|
TO: |
Elizabeth Campbell, U.S. Delegate |
|
FROM: |
Edward Groth III, Director, |
|
SUBJECT: |
Comments on Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labeling of Foods Obtained Through Biotechnology |
Consumers Union and Mothers and Others for a Livable Planet submit these comments to the United States for use in developing its position on document CX/FL 98/9, on the agenda at next month’s session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in Ottawa.
HEALTH PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
We note that the U.S. supports the Codex Executive Committee’s statement (ALINORM 97/3, paragraph 29) that foremost amongst those elements that clearly have to be taken into account when considering the labeling of foods in relation to production processes are "the protection of consumers’ health from any risks introduced by the production process."
Consumers Union and Mothers & Others agree with the U.S. that protection of consumers’ health is the foremost concern. We believe that labeling of foods obtained through biotechnology is needed in order to protect consumers’ health, based on the following facts:
(1) Allergic reactions to foods are somewhat idiosyncratic and not fully predictable. For sensitive individuals, they can sometimes be life-threatening. Once they are sensitized, individuals may react more strongly to subsequent exposures to the same allergen.
(2) The list of foods that are common allergens (i.e., those to which relatively large numbers of people are sensitive) is fairly short. But smaller numbers of individuals may react to a wider array of food items, and many allergists say that for practically any food, there is someone who is allergic to it. According to the report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety in 1996, an extensive literature search has revealed more than 160 foods associated with sporadic allergic reactions; and children are at greater risk for allergies than adults.
(3) Risk management must address the possible presence in foods of both known allergens and UNKNOWN allergens. When genetic engineering introduces genes into foods from organisms not previously used widely as foods, or from foods not previously known to be allergenic, there is a possibility that unknown allergens may also be introduced. Proteins are what cause most allergic reactions, and virtually every gene transfer in crops results in some protein production. Biotechnology can introduce new proteins into food crops not just from known sources of common allergens (e.g., peanuts or shellfish), but from plants of all kinds, animals, bacteria and viruses, whose allergenicity is largely unknown.
(4) We are not confident that companies know how to screen all novel foods for the presence of introduced, uncommon or unknown allergens. The report of the 1996 Joint FAO/WHO Consultation states "The consultation noted that, unfortunately, reliable animal models for the assessment of the allergenicity of genetically modified foods do not presently exist, although the development of such models is to be encouraged." Various methods of predicting allergenicity—such as the use of chemical properties of the protein, the use of amino acid databases of known allergens and/or epitope sequences—have all been shown to be fallible.
(5) If a person has an allergic reaction to a conventional food, the label of the food typically identifies all the ingredients precisely enough that the person can avoid future re-exposure to the allergen. As the 1996 consultation noted, "An individual allergic to a specific food must avoid that food, in part through careful reading of food labels."
(6) If a person has an allergic reaction to a genetically engineered food, which was caused by an allergen introduced through the genetic modifications, and the label does not disclose the genetically novel nature of the ingredient, the person would not know precisely what to avoid in order to prevent a recurrence of the allergic effect. As the 1996 consultation noted, "Such an association between a modified food and allergic reactions would in all probability be more likely to be recognized if the food was identifiable."
For example, if the genetically engineered ingredient that provoked the reaction was tomatoes, if the food’s label said only "tomatoes," and if the person had never reacted adversely to tomatoes previously, they would not recognize that these genetically modified tomatoes caused their reaction. Or, if they suspected that the cause was tomatoes, they might then conclude, erroneously, that they needed to avoid all foods containing tomatoes. In either case, the individual’s ability to manage their own risk would be hampered by labeling that did not identify the ingredient at fault precisely or clearly enough. This could very well increase the risk of subsequent exposures to the allergen.
(7) Thus, even if genetically engineered foods are inherently no more likely to provoke (rare) allergic reactions in sensitive individuals than conventional foods are, INADEQUATE LABELING can make genetically engineered foods less safe than their conventional counterparts.
(8) Consumers Union and Mothers & Others agrees with the US’s positions (a) that foods known to contain allergens should not be used as sources of genes in engineering new food varieties, and (b) that proper labeling of potential allergens is an appropriate risk-management strategy. However, we believe that the failure to label the genetically engineered nature of foods and food ingredients will result in a failure to identify those foods or ingredients accurately or adequately, and will very likely undermine the efficacy of labeling in risk management.
LABELLING THAT IS NOT DECEPTIVE, MISLEADING, OR MISBRANDED
The fundamental purpose of ingredient labeling is to inform the consumer as to what is in the foods they buy. For people subject to food allergies, that information is essential for risk management. Because of the primacy of the need to protect consumers’ health, Consumers Union and Mothers & Others believe that labeling that fails to include the material fact that an ingredient is genetically engineered and to identify the source of the introduced traits is, in a substantial way, misbranded.
"SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT" IS A VALUE JUDGMENT, NOT A SCIENTIFIC DETERMINATION
Both "substantial" and "equivalent" are vague, subjective terms; they cannot be precisely defined based on sound science. What makes one food "substantially equivalent" to another is largely a value judgment.
In the view of most consumers, genetically modified foods are fundamentally different from foods that are not genetically modified. This is not to imply that genetically modified foods are necessarily unsafe, or somehow worse, than conventional foods. In fact, genetically modified foods are often perceived by consumers to be preferable to or "better" than their conventional counterparts. But there is no doubt that consumers can and do draw distinctions based on the production processes of the foods. To sweep those very real distinctions aside and declare that genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods, based on narrow criteria that give no weight to material facts that consumers consider important, is to substitute the value judgments of regulators or Codex officials for those of consumers.
Codex (and national regulatory officials) should simply ensure that consumers have the information they need to decide what they want to buy, applying their own values to the decision.
A declaration that a food is "substantially equivalent" to other foods when that definition has a narrower meaning for regulators than the broader meaning consumers attach to the term, is itself misleading "labeling." Many food producers oppose labeling because they believe some consumers will avoid buying products of biotechnology if they are labeled as such. If the US and Codex have determined that such industry concerns outweigh the rights of consumers to know what is in the foods they eat—including the rights of the small minority of allergy-sensitive consumers for whom this may be vital health information—then that value judgment should be stated openly and explicitly, and not hidden behind a pseudo-scientific concept like "substantial equivalence."
LABELLING TO PROMOTE FAIR TRADE PRACTICES
As document CX/FL 98/8 recognizes, many countries have determined that they need to define how to label "organic" and "halal" in response to consumer demand and market conditions in their countries. Similarly, consumer demand clearly has persuaded some countries and will persuade more countries that genetically engineered foods should also be labeled. Document CX/FL 98/8 notes that "the claims for "halal" and "organic" are defined to answer a specific consumer preference. Similarly, there is clear evidence of a consumer preference in regards to labeling of foods produced through biotechnology, as evidenced by numerous surveys which we have previously provided to you and by numerous statements by organizations representing consumers. In the interest of harmonization and promoting fair trade, Codex therefore needs to define international standards for biotechnology labeling, both positive (i.e., produced through biotechnology) and negative (i.e., not produced through biotechnology). Standards that discourage or restrict labeling would not promote a fair marketplace, because the free market cannot operate effectively unless sellers are permitted to give buyers information about what is in their products.
In conclusion, Consumers Union and Mothers & Others believe that labeling of genetically engineered foods is consistent with Codex objectives and mandate and is indeed essential for reasons of consumer protection and fair trade.
Thank you for considering our comments.
[ Health ] [ Finance ] [ Food ] [ Product ] [ Other ]
[ About CU ] [ News ] [ Tips ]
[ Home ]
Please contact us at: http://www.consunion.org/contact.htm
All information ©1998 Consumers Union