Is new GM labelling threshold too high?
SOURCE: LEXISNEXIS LEGAL UPDATE
New rules on labelling and tracing GM foods have introduced rigorous safeguards to alleviate public concern and represent a major shift in the GM labelling regime from detectability to traceability. But is the labelling threshold too high? Vincent Brown, partner at Semple Fraser, discusses the issue with Lucy Hickman…
The European Commission has adopted implementing rules which set out how biotech companies can apply for product approval on genetically modified food and feed. The rules implement last year’s Regulation on GM food which lays down procedures and provisions for the assessment, authorisation, supervision and labelling of GM food and feed.
Semple Fraser partner, Vincent Brown says:
"Its objective is to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, environment and consumers’ interests in relation to GM food and feed, through the introduction of a centralised assessment procedure for the approval of GM food and feed to be carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It also introduces new labelling rules for GM animal feed and extends the range of GM food ingredients requiring to be labelled."
Before any genetically modified organism or product can be sold in the EU, it has to pass an approval system in which the safety for humans, animals and the environment is assessed.
Says Brown:
"With the issue of approvals being shrouded by disagreement over the last few years, evidenced by the current moratorium on approvals of many new biotech products, the need for such a centralised regulatory body was clear. This sets up for the first time, a specific authorisation and labelling regime for GM feed and builds on previous measures regarding foodstuffs.
"The regulation makes provision for a more efficient authorisation procedure through the adoption of a what has been referred to as the ‘one door one key’ approach, where a single application for authorisation can now cover environmental release and clearance for use as a food and feed."
He says that key to the whole system of GM approvals is consumer confidence and in this respect, the new rules on labelling and tracing GM foods have introduced rigorous safeguards that should alleviate public concern.
"These mark a major shift in the GM labelling regime from detectability to traceability which could have a major impact at all levels of the manufacturing process. Producers and buyers must store all data about the origin, composition and sale of GM products for a five-year period, which is seen by many as the toughest GM food regulations anywhere in the world."
He says the most controversial aspects of the new rules surround the inextricably linked Traceability and Labelling Regulations. Many feel that despite these new labelling laws, and the stringent regime to be overcome to obtain an approval in the first place, once on the market, shoppers will not get a GM-free choice of product.
"While the new EU labelling regulations mean any food containing a GM ingredient or derivative in amounts more than 0.9% will have to be labelled as "This product contains genetically modified organisms", including for the first time GM animal feed, the threshold of 0.9% still allows for accidental contamination.
"This means GM ingredients could still end up in processed foods without having to be labelled. It is also felt the threshold is too high as it is possible to detect GM content of as little as 0.1%. Accidental contamination of up to 0.5%of a GM ingredient not approved in the EU will also be legitimate before it has to be labelled."
He says a further drawback is that animal products (like milk, meat and eggs) from animals fed GM feed still don’t have to be labelled, leaving consumers with no choice of whether they wish to steer clear of such products or not.
He says that input from environmental lawyers at this stage would primarily be of an advisory nature in the procedures of seeking approval. He adds however, that breaching the Regulations is a criminal offence, with proposed penalties including imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine up to £5000 for failure to comply with specific requirements, including labelling. Two years’ prison and or a fine up to £5000, is also proposed for placing food on the market without, or in contravention of an authorisation under the Food and Feed Regulation.
He adds:
"Currently there still exists a crucial weakness in the regime, in that there is no international liability regime for damage caused by GM releases.However, at a recent meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, agreement was reached on a framework for an international liability regime. A Working Group on liability with a strong and clear mandate to complete the international rules and procedures for liability and redress by 2007 has also been created. Once the new centralised approval regime becomes established, with greater numbers of GMOs inevitably being developed and obtaining approval, the issue of liability will come more to the fore should mistakes happen."
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: VINCENT BROWN