STC Number - 117
  Generate document   Go back   New search

Traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and food and feed

Maintained by: European Union
Raised by: Argentina; Canada; United States of America
Supported by: Australia
First date raised: March 2002 G/SPS/R/26 paras. 57-62
Dates subsequently raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 paras.95-96)
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 paras. 88-90)
March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33 paras. 43-47)
Number of times subsequently raised: 3
Relevant documents: G/SPS/N/EEC/149 G/SPS/N/EEC/150 G/SPS/GEN/354 G/SPS/GEN/337 G/SPS/GEN/338
Products covered:
Primary subject keyword: Food safety
Keywords: Food safety; Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); Human health; International Standards / Harmonization; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Transparency
Status: Not reported
Solution:
Date reported as resolved:

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

In March 2002, the Chairman noted that this issue was closely related to the previous matter discussed. The United States specified that the traceability requirement was to apply to all biotech food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market. The stated objective was to facilitate control of labelling claims, environmental monitoring and control of the product. Food processors would be obliged to maintain specific information at each stage of placing the product on the market, including details as to whether the product contained or was produced from biotech products. As a general rule, if a product contained ingredients consisting of biotech products or produced from biotech events, these must be identified. This included products made from but not containing biotech products, such as soybean oil. The United States believed that this proposal would be expensive to implement, but would not be enforceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives. Without an expensive identity preservation system, it was not possible to accurately identify all the biotech events which could potentially be in a shipment. This would pose a substantial burden especially on developing countries. The United States was further concerned as the measure was not targeted at health risks and covered products already approved for use within the European Communities. Traceback systems for food safety had been effectively used to recall food in the US response to health problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packages. However, the proposed traceability system would be applied across-the-board to products whose safety had already been assessed. Before adopting the measure, he urged the European Commission to assess the feasibility of applying the measure reliably and accurately; evaluate less trade restrictive means to achieve the objectives; and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal.

Australia indicated that her country had already submitted detailed written comments on this matter to the European Communities. These comments questioned the scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk assessment underpinning the EC measures. Australia also questioned whether a less trade-restrictive measure could be used, and why the traceability system for GM foods differed substantially from that for other foods.

Norway indicated his doubt as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of GMOs. Norway strongly believed that labelling and traceability were not contrary to WTO obligations. The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and the OECD guidelines. According to the Codex guidelines, food labelling should be used to avoid misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food. Consumers' distrust in food products would be greater if labelling and traceability were not required. He believed that the EC measures addressed a legitimate objective and were not excessive in relation to their purpose. The representative of Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC position regarding information to consumers.

Argentina stated that her country shared the concerns raised by other Members, and would shortly submit written comments to the European Communities. Argentina recalled that only three organizations were relevant in the context of the SPS Agreement, and was concerned about Norway's reference to the OECD.

The European Communities stated that all comments would be considered and communicated to the appropriate bodies. Current labelling requirements in the European Communities required information on ingredients included in food products; all that was added in terms of labelling was to ensure the inclusion of GM products within the general requirements. There were four objectives of traceability: (1) to recall products in case of an unforeseen problem; (2) to monitor potential risks for the environment; (3) to control the accuracy of information provided on the labelling; and (4) to inform consumers about what they ate and to avoid deceptive practices. The EC Commission considered that these four objectives were primarily related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified this proposal to the SPS Agreement only for transparency.

Canada observed that one of the stated objectives of the proposed regulation was to provide a high level of protection of human health. Canada accepted that consumers had the right to know many things, but found troublesome that these regulations focussed on products made from GM products but not on products made with GM processing aids, even when there might be traces of the processing aids left in the product. Several industries in Europe used GM processing aids. The selective focus was also troubling in that consumers did not need to be informed if products were derived from mutagenesis, another form of genetic alteration. The focus of the EC regulations was overly specific and selective. Furthermore, the mandatory nature of the traceability system created problems especially for enforcement. He noted that no international standard existed in this area; the Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and neither it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in the SPS Agreement. Canada looked forward to a scientific assessment of the needs, challenges and benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system.

In November 2002, Argentina drew attention to the 21 questions for which his country was seeking a written response from the European Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354). At this time Argentina wanted only to point out the fact that the notified version drafted by the Council did not include the amendments made by the European Parliament. Argentina enquired as to whether the latest version notified included the amendments.

The European Communities noted that they had received the questions from Argentina at a late date, and would provide answers to the questions in writing. The representative confirmed that the European Communities usually notified a draft text to the WTO to allow Members enough time to comment while the proposed regulation was being circulated in the Parliament and Council. Discussions were still underway in these two bodies and as soon as a final regulation was adopted it would be notified to the SPS Committee for information.

In April 2003, Argentina recalled that at the last Committee he had submitted specific questions to the European Communities with regard to the labeling and traceability proposed regulations. Argentina enquired as to whether the European Communities was in a position to be able to answer these questions.

The United States thanked the European Communities for the comments made in paragraph (b)86 above and stated that he looked forward to receiving the Council position on these two proposals.

The European Communities confirmed that the additional questions submitted by Argentina were being studied and that replies would be given on the basis of the new version of these two legislative proposals and not on the original versions. As such, the European Communities was in the process of finalizing its replies. He further recalled that detailed answers had already been given to many questions raised by Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338.

In March 2004, the United States noted that the EC rules on traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and on food and feed would come into effect in April 2004 but many questions and uncertainties remain. He requested that the European Communities delay implementation and enforcement of the regulations until the implementing guidance on sampling and testing was also issued.

Canada questioned the scientific justification of the regulations and expressed concern that burdensome documentation and other requirements were placed on products based upon their production method. In addition, he highlighted the ambiguity of the traceability and labelling requirements given the absence of segregation systems and of internationally accepted testing methodologies to validate the presence of genetically modified foods.

Argentina expressed concern that the regulations were discriminatory, posed unjustified restrictions to trade and would affect developing countries.

Australia shared the concerns of the United States, Canada and Argentina and requested that the European Communities consider less trade-restrictive alternatives.

The European Communities explained that EC regulation 1830/2003 had been adopted on 22 September 2003. The regulation had been notified to the SPS Committee at the request of several Members, however the European Communities believed that the measure was more appropriately categorized as a TBT issue. The regulation supported EC consumer freedom to choose or avoid products derived from biotechnology and provided a harmonized framework that encouraged efficient functioning of internal markets. The regulations also allowed the European Communities to rapidly withdraw products that presented a risk to the health of consumers, animals, and the environment.