— Consumers International, UK

Given the experience in developed countries in implementing various regulations about food safety, it appears that labelling of GM food is necessary. For example, in developed countries, the slaughter houses are monitored daily by inspectors, the fast-food chains that sell the hamburgers are licensed and inspected by local health departments. Yet, in the face of all these rules and regulations, children still get sick eating tainted hamburgers.

Probably, the most important justification for labelling GM foods is the consumers right to be informed. It also involves the right to choose and to make informed choices. It is true that information alone cannot guarantee safety. Yet, it facilitates understanding and the choice to buy or not to buy. Product labels perform an important social function — the communication between a seller and the consumer.

It is widely believed that GM crops can damage the environment, which threatens the consumers' right to health and sustainable environment. The demand for GM foodstuffs will ultimately determine what GM plants are planted. The mounting evidence about GM crops-related health and environmental risks provides a strong justification for mandatory labelling of GM foods. In such a situation, consumers may want to use their purchasing power to exercise a precautionary approach. This needs proper information about GM foods.

There is a growing concern among consumers about the religious and ethical principles being threatened by foods available in the market. Many consumers prefer not to use products created by transferring genetic material across species boundaries. Vegetarians voice concern about products containing animal material. Recently, the Government amended the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and made it compulsory for ice-creams to carry a label that it is vegetarian or non-vegetarian. There is a move to extend this rule to cover cosmetics and drugs.

Opposition to labelling

However, the industry engaged in producing GM food is hesitant to fix labels on its products. Their argument is that GM foodstuffs are substantially equivalent. The theory of substantial equivalence allows corporations to produce novel food products and have them treated the same way as traditional pure foods. Some years back, when food irradiation technology was introduced, the industry came out with a similar argument.

It is argued that GM foodstuff do not differ significantly from other conventional food products. Therefore, they do not require labelling. In Europe, Australia and New Zealand, GM food producers have said that they will support labelling only when the GM food is different. More particularly, they say that the GM protein or DNA should be present in the final product.

Units producing GM foods argue that they are substantially equivalent when asked to label. Yet, they themselves say that their biologically-engineered products are different and unique when seeking to patent them. Labelling would lead to escalation in the cost of GM food. The costs of testing, segregating, certifying and labelling would be imposed on all the foods in the supply chain, from producers to food retailers. It would indirectly make a consumer pay more, including those indifferent to labels. Also, the industry feels that labelling of GM food would be a barrier to trade under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement.

Contents of the label

In the background of the technology and risks involved in GM food, it is essential that the label contains more information in a consumer-friendly language. Despite efforts made at the highest fora such as Codex Alimentarious Commission (Codex), there is no consensus as to how or what should be the contents of a label for GM food.

GM product labels may be positive or negative. Positive labels are those which inform consumers that a product is genetically modified or contains GM stuff. These are compulsory labelling schemes, mostly framed by the governments. The European Union's compulsory labelling scheme falls into this category.

Negative labelling consists of `GMO-free' labels. These labels inform consumers that a GM food tuff is not genetically modified. Producers resort to negative labelling because they believe that it will boost up their sales. GM food labels may also be either process or product labels. Some experts felt that labels should contain information only about the food product itself, and not the process by which it is manufactured. A consumer has a right to information both about the process and product. The myth of "substantially equivalent'' can be broken if the process labelling is adopted.

European Commission's GMO labelling laws

The European Commission enacted the EU Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation which requires food to be labelled if:

Food must be approved and labelled before it is released into the market, and all food that consists of, or contains, GMOs must satisfy a detailed environmental risk and food safety assessment as a precondition to commercial release. The EU law applies equally to all GMO food, and does not discriminate on the basis of origin.

Style of disclosure

Assuming that labelling of GM food would be agreed upon by the industry, government and regulators, the question arises as to how should the label look like? This depends on the purpose of labelling and to whom it is intended to. Naturally it is the consumers who need labelling. The difficulty arises in a country such as India where language, culture, rate of literacy, and so on, are to be considered.

Giving poor and illiterate consumers the required information about GM food poses several difficulties. First, it is language. This may be true in other developing countries as well. Instead, the label should consist of pictures, symbols and distinct marks.

Sustained efforts have to be taken to educate consumers about the symbols used and what they mean. Even after four decades, the ISI mark of the Bureau of Indian Standards, signifying minimum required quality, has not made significant effect on the consumers.

Who is accountable?

Selling or even storing a product without sufficient information or labels is not only unethical but also illegal. Throughout the world, there exists some rule or law which provides for disclosure of information about the foodstuff being sold to the consumers. A minimum set of information is to be provided.

For instance, in India, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Packaged Commodity Rules under the Weights and Measures Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prescribe standards for disclosure of information.

If any product, particularly foodstuff and drugs are sold without the required information, it would be illegal and the manufacturer and seller are liable for fines. The object of these legislations is to protect consumers.

But the question is who would be liable in case a person suffers ill-effects after consuming GM foods? The answer depends on whether GM food itself is safe or not.

Studies have shown that GM foods may react on persons who are allergic. A person allergic to GM foods should necessarily avoid it. There are hundreds of cosmetics that are dangerous to consumers. Yet, they are sold in thousands. Knowing that smoking is injurious to health, lakhs of consumers smoke. So, who should be held responsible?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Comment on this article to BLFeedback@thehindu.co.in