May 17, 2000 / The Toronto Star / Stuart Laidlaw, Toronto Star Business Reporter
Food labelling standards being developed by a joint industry-government committee will, according to this story, allow companies to use those labels to argue the case for genetically modified foods, documents obtained by The Star show. But, the story says, companies that do not use genetically modified, or GM, ingredients would not be restricted from saying anything that might make their food sound superior to food that has been genetically modified. "The statement should not give an erroneous impression about the composition and quality" of the food, the minutes from the committee's January meeting read in a section outlining the principles to be applied to genetically modified-free labels. Such products could also not be labelled GM-free if there are no genetically modified alternatives on the market, unless the label also explains the basis of the claim. For example, a food maker switching from corn oil to sunflower oil to avoid genetically modified corn could not label its food GM-free even though, the story says, it actually is unless it said that all sunflower oil is GM-free. Environmental and health food organizations have refused to take part.
Details of the labelling principles are contained in the minutes of closed door meetings of the Canadian General Standards Board obtained through the Access to Information Act by Ken Rubin, an Ottawa area organic farmer and public interest researcher. The committee has been meeting since November to come up with a standard for voluntary labelling for foods containing GM ingredients, and still has several meetings to go before it makes its final proposals.
The story says that the group is meeting at the request of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and is chaired by Lee Anne Murphy of the Consumers Association of Canada. Both groups support the use of GM foods.
The other groups taking part in the talks include industry, consumer and farm group representatives as well as government bureaucrats. In all, about 70 people are involved in the talks. Environmental and health food organizations have refused to take part, saying labels should be mandatory on genetically modified food. The labelling issue has been one of the main points of contention in the debate over genetically modified foods, with environmentalists saying there should be no problem with labelling if the food companies have nothing to hide. The food companies, meanwhile, say there is no need to label all GM foods because there is no substantial difference between them and non-GM foods. They also say labels alone cannot explain the issue to consumers and too often sound like a warning. Labelling will likely be one of the many issues discussed at an agricultural biotechnology conference next month in Toronto that will focus mainly on the science and business of GM foods. So far, members of the labelling committee, who have met three times since their first session in November, have agreed on the general principles of what such labels should include.
According to minutes from the committee's meeting last Jan. 10 and 11, the committee wants labels on GM foods to indicate: that a product or ingredient has been obtained through genetic modification; what the genetic modifications entail; why the modifications were introduced; and an additional source of information relating in particular to the methodology used in the genetic modification, such as a toll-free number, a Web site, brochures or in-store bulletins. According to the minutes, the "main discussion" on these points was over whether the listed principles should be guidelines or requirements.
Committee members agreed that the principles should be considered mandatory requirements for the wording of the voluntary labels. One of the committee's three working groups was asked to discuss whether the labelling standards should be applied to finished grocery products or simply to individual ingredients. Another working group was charged with the task of deciding what information to provide consumers who call a toll-free line. The minutes do not indicate who would administer the line. The working groups of between 13 and 17 people meet more often than the over-all group, either in person or through conference calls.
(posted without permission)
