The Consumer Protection Bill and labelling of genetically modified organisms

The Consumer Protection Bill, tabled in Parliament on the 16th September 2008, includes a clause which provides for the mandatory labelling of all foods that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). Section 24(6) of the Bill reads:
“Any person who produces, supplies, imports or packages any prescribed goods must display on, or in association with the packaging of those goods, a notice in the prescribed manner and form that discloses the presence of any genetically modified ingredients or components of those in accordance with applicable regulations.”

Currently, labelling of GMO’s is voluntary with mandatory labelling requirements only in the instance of extreme modification. It is evident that this Bill could impact on producers, suppliers, importers and packagers and place an enlarged onus on them to ensure that foodstuffs and other prescribed goods which may contain GMO’s are correctly labelled.

Section 24(6) has been incorporated into the Consumer Protection Bill after demand that GMO’s be labelled to enable the consumer to make an informed decision. Initially, this clause was included in the draft, but was later removed after concerns were raised, by the Department of Agriculture, regarding the cost implications and technical expertise required to implement and enforce it. After public debate, it was finally decided by the Department of Trade and Industry to re-insert the clause. An opposition has subsequently been raised in a request to reopen the consultation process in this regard.

One concern that has been raised with regard to this section is the message that this Bill, once implemented, will portray to the public. The GMO Act of 1997 mirrors the SA Government’s policy to support the development of GM foods, and stringent labelling requirements may be seen as somewhat contradictory and not in favour of the development of GM foods in South Africa.

The Consumer Protection Bill holds in it its preamble that it is necessary to “protect the interests of all consumers”, and to “improve access to, and the quality of, information that is necessary so that consumers are to make informed choices…” It is clear that consumer choice will be enhanced by labelling foods that may contain GMO’s; however, implementation will not be an easy task.

GMO Labelling will require strictly managed and segregated industry channels all the way from the farm to the consumer, which is not simple as GMO’s are not all neatly aligned in the fruit and vegetable aisle thereby merely requiring a simple separation. Implementation of this provision has the ability to prove costly in both time and money. The most common genetically modified crops in South Africa include maize, soy, and canola. These crops are processed into various food products and are not merely available to consumers in their raw state. Maize, for example, is refined into sugars and starches and then used in the manufacture of a number of food products. GMO’s thus may be included in cake batter, sauces, cereals, breads, oils, syrups and many more processed products. The labelling requirement would require that products containing maize products must indicate whether or not they may contain GMO’s. In order to do this, complete segregation will be required from the seed phase through to the final packaged product stage. In addition, there will have to be a certain amount of traceability in every stage of the refinery and production line to allow the consumer to be informed of the various stages of the supply chain and whether or not these stages involved or included GMO’s. The finer details will become clearer when the minister promulgates regulations under the Consumer Protection Act in due course.

International positions vary; the EU, along with Australia, New Zealand, Japan and others has implemented mandatory labelling programmes (Regulation No. 1829/2003) with regards to GMO food and feed. On the other hand, the US and Canada have instead opted for a voluntary labelling programme thereby allowing companies to elect whether or not to include an indication of whether or not the food contains or is derived from GMO’s. Although the EU officially recognises that approved genetically modified foods are as safe as conventional foods, the mandatory labelling is justified solely by the desire to allow people to make a full and informed choice. However, the Regulation has effectively removed all foods derived from biotechnology or containing GMO’s from the market because food companies find it too expensive to label their products. With these opposing policies and regulations, it becomes clear how differing labelling policies can have rather serious effects relating to the international trade markets. Furthermore, if the EU considers it too costly to ensure GMO foods are labelled as such, is South Africa really in a position to apply mandatory labelling provisions?

In as much as the Bill is proposed to increase consumer awareness and the information that is made available to consumers, all relevant factors (those considered here as well as many others) must be carefully considered to ensure the effective implementation and management of the proposed section, without the incurrence of detrimental costs.

Alison Baker
Candidate Attorney
alison-b@adamsadams.co.za