Explaining GMO Food Labelling

The policy of government is expressed in the Regulations Relating to the Labelling of Foodstuffs Obtained Through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification that were made in terms of the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972, (Act No. 54 of 1972) as published in Government Gazette No. 25908 of 16 January 2004.

These regulations require the following:

1. Mandatory:

1. A genetically modified (GM) food must be labelled as such if it differs significantly in composition, nutritional value, or mode of storage, preparation or cooking from that of the corresponding existing foodstuff.
2. The label of the genetically modified food must indicate the likelihood of allergenicity if the novel gene is derived from any of the following donor organisms: crustaceans, eggs, fish, groundnuts, milk, molluscs, soybeans, tree nuts or wheat (food safety).
3. The food must be labelled as such if a plant-derived food contains genetic material derived from a human or from an animal, or if animal-derived food contains genetic material derived from a human or from a different taxonomic animal family.

2. Voluntary

A claim relating to improved or enhanced characteristics of a genetically modified food must be validated and certified by a competent body which is accredited by the South African National Accreditation System, and the name of the certifying body must appear on the label in close proximity to the claim.

What is a GM-food?

The definition includes categories:

1. Foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
2. Foods that contain GM-genetic material/protein for example uncooked maize meal.
3. Foods obtained through genetic modification but not containing any genetic material/protein, for example glucose from processed maize. It would be almost impossible with currently available laboratory techniques to find any genetic material/protein in this category.

Products of animals that were fed on GM-feed are excluded. Studies have failed to detect foreign GM-genetic material/proteins in animal meat and milk.

The internationally labelling situation

Since 1995 there has not been any consensus amongst Codex Alimentarius member countries. In the meantime individual countries have regulated this to different degrees. European countries label all categories of GM foods/feeds whereas the US labels only improve/changed characteristics. Whether Codex would ever reach consensus remains to be seen.

Allergens.

According to the FAO information the allergens from the eight major food sources account for over 90% of food allergies associated with IgE-mediated reactions The FAO experts also estimated that food allergy affects less than 2% of the population. Therefore, regulating this matter has to be approached in a realistic way. On the other hand, no foreseen new allergens would be permitted to enter the food chain. The regulatory requirements are very stringent. New techniques are being developed to prevent this situation.

Genes from animals or humans

This requirement addresses religious or ethical considerations.

Codex Alimentarius principles

Codex prohibits claims that

• Cannot be substantiated;
• Could give rise to doubt about the safety of similar food or which could arouse or exploit fear in the consumer;
• In any way result in false, misleading, or deceptive information.

Contentious issues:

• Cost: Comprehensive, compulsory labelling of GM- could have significant cost implications. Three cost analytical studies by Australia, Canada and The Philippine Islands showed that the price of food could increase by 10% on average. This would have implication for street vendors and the majority of the population who have limited purchasing power, especially those dependent on staple food.
• Misleading practices: The more processed GM-foods are the more difficult it would be to detect and identify GM-genetic material/protein by way of diagnostic techniques. Systems to trail the GMO origin have to be implemented. This is subject to error or abuse and is expensive.
• Increased production of GM-crops since 1996. Products from GMOs may increasingly appear in the 30 000 products that contain maize and soybean ingredients. A label stating, “may contain” would be about the closest to the real situation.
• Segregating GM-foods from foods that are not GM. This is an option that would provide a choice between GM and Non-GM foods for those that want that choice. Because of the expenses involved this should be a voluntary system.

Non-GM food

Agricultural practices inevitably result in co-mingling of commodity grain. Mingling could happen on the farm, the silo and along the food chain. An accredited identity preservation system (IPS) could be either for GM grains/food or for Non-GM grains/foods or both. The South African Bureau of Standards is presently developing an IPS for Non-GM grains/food. Such a system could be utilized to facilitate export to specific markets. Voluntary IP systems already exist.

The expression GM-free is not acceptable

By “free” consumers understand completely free, in other words, a zero tolerance, which is not practically possible. Such a claim could be misleading. It is prohibited under Codex and the general South African labelling regulations to make a claim where no other food contains this specific substance. A claim such as GM-free carrots implies that all other carrots contain GM-material, which is not correct since no GM carrots are commercially grown.

More information on genetically modified organisms and legislation

a. Regulatory authorities: Department of Health (www.doh.gov.za/depart/dir_foodcontr-f.html; Department of Agriculture (www.agric.gov. za) Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
b. The South African Agency for Science and Technology Advancement www.pub.ac.za
c. International bodies: Codex Alimentarius - www.codexalimentarius.net; Food and Agricultural Organization (www.fao.org), World Health Organization (www.who.org)