Sections 2: Definition of Terms and Section 4: Mandatory Labelling of Prepackaged Food
30) The Committee recalled that the 23rd Session of the Commission had adopted the proposed draft amendment to Section 2 and 4 at Step 5 and that the draft amendment had been circulated for government comments at Step 6. It also noted that the Working Group, coordinated by the delegation of Canada, proposed revisions to the Section 2 in connection with its deliberation on Section 5. The text prepared by the Working Group was presented to the Committee as CX/FL 00/6.
31) After an exchange of opinions, the Committee decided not to use the term “modern biotechnology” as the term covers a broad range of techniques, not only genetic modification and genetic engineering that were the primary focus of the discussion in the Committee. It agreed to replace the words “food and food ingredients obtained through modern biotechnology” with the words “food and food ingredients obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification/ genetic engineering” throughout Section 2 and in the Title. The Committee further agreed to remove the square brackets enclosing the words “obtained through gene technology”.
32) The Committee agreed to remove the brackets around the two references to cell fusion, as the text had been further clarified in view of the government comments submitted and the final text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
33) Concerning the use of the words “genetically modified/engineered organism”, many delegations and observer organizations supported the use of the word “modified” as they believed that consumers were more familiar with “modified” than “engineered”, while other delegations preferred the word “engineered” since it was currently used in their countries. The Committee decided to leave both words in the Section taking into account the different situations in different countries and to remove the square brackets.
34) Regarding the definition of “no longer equivalent /differs significantly”, many delegations noted that this paragraph was closely related to the provisions set forth in Section 5 and therefore it was premature to decide on the necessity and the exact wording of the definition before the Committee had discussed Section 5. Some delegations and observers proposed to delete this paragraph since they supported comprehensive labelling of all foods obtained through gene technology irrespective of the differences with corresponding foods or ingredients. Other delegations and observer organizations supported the inclusion of the paragraph because specific labelling would be required for foods and ingredients that were significantly different. The Committee agreed to leave the proposed text of the paragraph as it was in square brackets.
35) Several delegations pointed out that the need for individual definitions in Section 2 depended on the provisions of Section 5, and that discussion on both Sections should be closely interrelated and should proceed in parallel in the Step Procedure.
36) The Committee noted that no comments had been received at Step 6 on Section 4.2.2 concerning the declaration of allergens transferred from any of the products listed in Section 4.2.1.4, and agreed that it should be advanced to Step 8 for inclusion in the General Standard as a new section.
Status of the Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods - Sections 2 and 4)
37) The Committee agreed to advance the draft amendment to Section 4.2.2 to Step 8 for adoption at the 24th Session of the Commission (Appendix III).
38) The Committee agreed that the draft amendment to Section 2, as amended at the present session, should be returned to Step 6 for government comments (Appendix V).
Section 5: Additional Mandatory Labelling
39) The Committee noted that the Working Group established at the last session under the chairmanship of Canada had presented a revised proposed draft amendment to Section 5, which contained two options for consideration (CX/FL 00/6). The first option requires labelling when products obtained through biotechnology differ significantly from the corresponding food as regards composition, nutritional value, or intended use. The second option requires the declaration of the method of production for foods and ingredients composed of or containing genetically modified/engineered organisms, or food or food ingredients produced from but not containing GMO/GEOs if they contain protein or DNA resulting from gene technology or differ significantly from the corresponding food. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Chair of the Working Group, Mr. G. Reasbeck, and the members of the Working Group for their constructive work in clarifying complex issues to facilitate discussion at the current session.
40) Several delegations and observer organizations supported Option 1 in document CX/FL 00/6 with the view that the information on the change of composition, nutritional value, or intended use was the most important element for consumer information, rather than the method of production.
41) Many other delegations and observer organizations supported Option 2 in the document, which required the declaration of the method of production under certain conditions because this approach would provide better information to the consumers and allow the possibility to make an informed choice.
42) Several delegations expressed the view that the requirement for mandatory labelling was essential throughout the food chain. The Observer from IFOAM pointed out that laboratory analysis should only be carried out in addition to product flow analysis and process oriented labelling, such as already existed for organically produced foods.
43) The Delegation of the United States, supported by some delegations and observers, stressed the need to address all the implications of labelling of foods derived from biotechnology as regards enforcement, methodology, economic cost, and consumer perception, and proposed that the Committee, with assistance of the Working Group, should consider these aspects carefully before taking a decision on mandatory labelling provisions. It was also pointed out that developing countries would face technical difficulties in implementing provisions for the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology.
44) As regards the threshold levels indicated in Option 2, several delegations pointed out that analytical methods should be considered by the Codex Committee on Method of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS). It was noted that the ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology had decided to discuss this issue at its next Session in March 2001. The Committee recognized the importance of close collaboration among Codex bodies and decided to ask the CCMAS to study the analytical methods for the detection or identification of food and food ingredients derived from biotechnology. The Chairman of the CCMAS, Dr. Biacs (Hungary) informed the Committee that CCMAS would be ready to discuss the matter at its next Session in February 2001, taking into account the work already being done by various organizations in this area. A Circular Letter would invite governments and international organizations to submit relevant material to that Committee. It was also noted that the Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology would consider a discussion paper prepared by France on the issue of traceability.
45) The Delegations of Norway and India, supported by other delegations and observer organizations (CI, RAFI, IACFO), expressed the view that of all food and food ingredients produced by means of genetic engineering should be labelled, that labelling should be mandatory, and that the Committee should continue its consideration of this proposal. Labelling should be required whether or not the product had different properties or characteristics compared to conventional foods and/or contained protein or DNA resulting from gene technology. The Delegations stressed that only this approach would ensure consumer confidence in new products and new technologies. The Delegation of India informed the Committee that India was currently in the process of enacting new legislation based on this approach.
46) The Delegation of Japan proposed that the ideas described in Option 2 could be developed as a separate guideline, like in the case of the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods, rather than as an amendment to the mandatory labelling section of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The Delegation indicated that the provisions in Option 2 included a broad spectrum of aspects, such as threshold levels and the mode of declaration as well as examples for labelling, and that the proposed approach would allow for flexibility in the application of these concepts in national legislation by Member countries This proposal was supported by several delegations.
47) The Committee noted that many Member countries were currently reviewing their national legislation on the labelling of foods obtained through biotechnology to ensure better information for consumers and that it was important for the Committee to continue its progress on this matter to achieve international harmonization.
48) The Committee, recognizing the diversity of opinions among Member countries, decided to return the proposed draft amendment to Step 3. It was also agreed that the Working Group, coordinated by Canada, would continue its deliberations and combine Options 1 and 2, in the light of the proposal from Japan on the development of guidelines, and consider the proposal from Norway and India for comprehensive labelling. The Working Group would also consider all key issues related to labelling discussed by the Plenary Session including, as appropriate, the questions raised by the United States and others.
Status of the Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Proposed Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods - Section 5)
49) The Committee agreed to return the text to Step 3 for redrafting by the Working Group, which would prepare a revised version for circulation and consideration by the next session.
