GMO LABELLING AND TRADE PRACTICES

| | | |

GMO LABELLING AND TRADE PRACTICES

One of the next major trade fronts to open will be GMOs and food labelling. According to a recent MORI poll conducted April 18 - 22 2002 and commissioned by Greenpeace UK, public opposition to GM food is widespread in the EU. Of particular interest, 76% of respondents said the labelling of all food with GM ingredients should be made compulsory.

According to the latest Eurobarometer opinion poll, put to 16041 people in the 15 Member States, EU citizens want farm policy to ensure that agricultural products are healthy and safe. According to the poll taken in the spring of 2002, the CAP should ensure agricultural products are healthy and safe (90%), promote respect of the environment (88%), protect medium or small sized farms (81%), and help farmers to adapt their production to consumer expectations (80%).

The confidence of EU citizens in the CAP's ability to deliver safe agricultural produce has also recovered. There was an increase - from 37% (2001) to 42% - in the number of respondents who felt that the CAP ensured that agricultural produce was safe to eat. This is seen as the area in which the CAP best fulfils its objectives.

The survey revealed that lack of information on food safety continues to be a problem for consumers. Only 20% of respondents felt that they had enough information on how food is produced and treated. Clearly, these poll results carry policy implications that are likely to be cited in relation to future GMO and food labelling initiatives.

Existing EU regulations require the labelling of certain GM food products containing more than 1% of GM material. The EU has proposals on the table to extend labelling to include animal feed and all products containing and derived from GM ingredients, such as oil from GM soya beans. The European Commission proposed the new rules on labelling and tracing of GMOs on 25 July 2001. The new system meets requests by Member States Governments, the European Parliament and consumer organisations, and has been drafted in close dialogue with all stakeholders. The proposals are subject to co-decision with the European Parliament and Council and are expected to enter into force in 2003 at the latest. These rules will provide consumers with information by labelling all food and feed consisting of, containing or produced from a GMO. The labelling provisions in respect of food and feed will be reviewed after two years of operation. However, the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) has criticised the proposals on the grounds that they are not enforceable, practical or affordable. As an alternative, the FSA suggests maintaining the current labelling rules but supplementing these with the introduction of a provision of 'GM-free' labelling.

US National Trade Estimates for the period 1997 to 2001 identify a number of countries including Norway, Poland, Hungary, Korea, New Zealand, and others that have implemented or are contemplating further restrictions on GM imports. These measures include compulsory labelling. The US has indicated it has concerns with the growing move toward such restrictions on market entry.

In his February 7 2002 remarks to the Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives, USTR Zoellick noted that, "We plan a special effort around the world to address technology regulations (e.g., biotech) and science and health measures that impede farm exports and the productive development of agriculture." One specific focus of the initiative is to clarify for all in earshot that such measures are likely to constitute barriers that might unduly impair trade. More particularly, the United States will resist initiatives that present labelling as the single best solution to concerns over GMO products.

For trade implications and analysis of the Biosafety Protocol, see Food Trade and the Biosafety Protocol.

Profile Services Search Trade Analysis Updates
Contacts Trade News Policy Street Link To Us Site Search