T R A N S I T I O N S
by Steven Sprinkel
26 April 1999
Codex Report
At the end of April, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) met in
Ottawa, Canada. The most important issues on the Codex agenda this year were
the guidelines for mandatory Labeling of Foods Obtained through Biotechnology
and guidelines for Organically Produced Foods.
The CCFL is one regulatory branch of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. An
organization that uses Latin to describe itself may need a bit of
explanation, although ACRES has been reporting since 1995 on the work of this
international commission empowered through the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization and World Health Organization to develop trade harmonization for
peculiar and not so extraordinary things we eat. As food continues to be more
industrially specialized and processed, even milk, fish sticks, and organic
apples need clarification.
In trade negotiation we observe that occasionally apples are not always
apples because politics is capable of the slight-of-hand required to turn
them into oranges. Or even bananas. Some of the discussions were
mind-numbingly, sometimes purposefully, obscure. What will it all mean? The
World Trade Organization will increasingly use Codex as its baseline in
settling trade disputes. The WTO operates under the General Agreement on
Trade and Tariffs ( GATT), AKA, The Uruguay Round.
The Codex Committee is composed of member countries, represented formally by
government officials, for example, the US Food and Drug Administration, the
USDA National Organic Program and the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service. In
addition to the US representatives, among the most outspoken authorities at
the Ottawa organic meeting were the European Community, Sweden, France,
Argentina, and Canada. In this unusual regulatory framework non-governmental
organizations like the Rural Advancement Foundation International ( RAFI),
Consumers International and the International Federation of Organic Farming
Movements (IFOAM) also were authorized to speak and affect outcomes.
The US delegation also includes private sector representatives, chosen
because of their expertise in the given field under discussion. This year the
Organic Farmers Marketing Association, The Organic Trade Association, and
Coleman Natural Products advised the official US delegation. Consensus is the
goal, and is achieved by much discussion. The meeting brings together a
fascinating mix of parties, exposing the representative from the
International Food Additives Council and the International Dairy Federation
to the perspectives raised by the Consumer’s Union, the Japan Offspring Fund
and organic farmers from coastal France like IFOAM President Herve La
Prairie. Much education and networking occurs outside the cavernous
Government Conference Centre.
The specific details of some organic standards proved difficult to harmonize
to the satisfaction of all the participants. The ironies are literally
amazing. The United States’ general trade position usually tends to support
the laissez-faire needs of multinational corporations, but in the organic
realm it is the USDA requesting a more absolutist definition for organic
livestock production. Some European countries, for example, prefer exemptions
on the requirement for 100% organic livestock feeds and seek five-year
conversion periods.
Meanwhile, in the general Codex background, the specter of the politically
powerful US-based biotechnology industry looms, insisting that there be no
guidelines whatsoever for labeling genetically engineered foods. Therefore,
the US position on organic production was the more consumer-friendly
perspective.
USDA National Organic Program Director Keith Jones and Jim Riddle,
representing IFOAM’s International Accreditation Services as well as the
Independent Organic Inspectors Association, debated the livestock section
with some success, using the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 as
precedent for their arguments.
Much improvement was made on the general materials criteria for organic
production, and though the livestock standards were not moved forward towards
authorization, harmonization was advanced by the Organic Working Group,
which deliberated for three full days before the official meeting, drafting
and redrafting texts. However, aquaculture and apiculture were not included
in the Codex organic livestock document. Concomitantly, these same production
sectors have yet to be fully addressed by the National Organic Standards
Board, which meets again in June.
Some may ask: " What sort of work is called progress ?" One answer would be
that it seems now that the term " nature identical" may not be used in the
final text of the Codex organic production guidelines. "Nature identical" is
the term used to identify a manufactured product or production in-put that
has an analog in nature: it could be isolated artificially by humans, for
example, carbon dioxide. Eventually, "nature identical" fell out of favor to
some who thought that it is absurd to imply that something is identical to
nature, that it opened the door to the use of synthetics in organic
production, and that in the era of genetic engineering, "nature identical"
seems to have too much in common with "substantially equivalent", the
terminology upon which anti-labeling forces base their arguments. Therefore,
few organic adherents want much to do with "nature identical" any further.
Deciphering the multiwoven texts ( I brought back around 15 pounds of new
paper from Ottawa) can be awesomely stupifying; there is no logical entry
point except at the beginning, but there is not enough space here to preamble
the discussion. Form doesn't count as much as substance/content, but without
it every brilliance would get dusted by the machine. Halloo Monsanto dot com!
At times, the Codex organic participants seemed to be writing an
International Extension Service Organic Production Manual. Frank Massong,
representing Food Canada, repeatedly voiced concern that the proposed
language was " prescriptive and paternalistic" in its approach. One tough nut
that is at least half-cracked will be the assurance that organic livestock
production does not imitate the factory-farming model, characterized by
feedlots filled with cattle miles from where their feed is grown.. This
standard of production will be among the most difficult to employ in the
National Organic Program as well as internationally. Perhaps the most vexing
aspect has more to do with taste and marketability than holistic production.
Will consumers eat grass-fed beef because it is organic, although their taste
buds are accustomed to a product finished on grain for 3-4 months prior to
slaughter?
The enforcement and trade aspects of Codex that are of utmost importance to
producers and consumers: " What will it mean for domestic production and
marketing? Does a weak international standard drag down a strong national
standard?"
Yes, international standards will have a negative affect on imports if
Italian-made pasta includes eggs from chickens not fed 100% organic feed, and
100% organic feed is mandated in the US. It will also have a negative affect
on exports, if European countries, or Korea and Japan, allow conventional
grain in livestock production when Canada, the US and Australia might benefit
from shipping organic livestock feeds in order to fulfill a stricter standard.
A better answer than that can be found by asking the ultimate question:
Should organic production be considered a Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary ( SPS)
concern or an issue that should be dealt with as a Technical Barrier to Trade
(TBT)? This question’s answer guides sovereign nations as well as the World
Trade Organization.
You may logically believe that organic farming has everything to do with
health and the environment, which falls under the heading of a Sanitary and
Phyto-Sanitary measure, but organic production standards have been designed
so that Organic is perceived as a system of production. Organic is a system
that is self-defined, and while keyed to parallel testing systems ( EPA Class
3 inerts for example) Organic exists outside the realm of measures such as
the US Food Quality Protection Act.
At this point we have to defer to the politics involved: regulators don’t
want to authorize products that indicate something is wrong with the rest of
the food supply. Long ago governments refused to treat organic farming and
its products as a health issue, prompting the creation of laws and standards
which infer health and environmental protection only as a standard for this
production system.
Therefore, if Organic is going to be discussed within the context of
Technical Barriers to Trade, it is important that international production
standards be equivalent to the National Organic Program or one can be sure
that there will be barriers to trade when cheese from French cows or goats
not fed 100% organic feed hits the dock in New York City.
Labeling Genetically Modified Organisms
Twenty-three member countries and a number of International Non-Governmental
Organizations (INGOs) were named in Ottawa, Canada to a Working Group on
Biotechnology by Codex Committee Chair Anne MacKenzie of Canada. MacKenzie
originally asked for the Working Group to be chaired by either
representatives of the US, the European Community, or Canada. Robert Lake,
the US Delegate, deferred the chairmanship to Canada in a gesture
demonstrating that the leadership of the Working Group should be held by a
more neutral Codex member. This was also agreed to by the EC representative.
The "Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labeling of Foods Obtained
Through Biotechnology" remains at Step 3 in the Codex Committee procedure.
Final implementation of labeling requirements are at least 4 years away,
since Step 8 is regarded as the final authoritative action. Limited activity
by INGO supporters of comprehensive labeling focused on moving the procedure
immediately to Step 6 to emphasize the severity of the issues raised by
consumers regarding ethics, the environment and allergenicity. However, this
initiative was not brought to the floor.
The Biotechnology Working Group will labor more intensively on developing
labeling criteria for foods derived from Biotechnology. One of its first
tasks will be determining the appropriate definition of foods derived from
this production and processing technology. The April 28 morning meeting, with
hundreds of delegates in attendance, identified that " foods derived from
genetic engineering" may be a more appropriate term to employ than " foods
derived from Biotechnology". Other proposed terms included " modern
Biotechnology" and " Genetically modified foods". More comprehensive
definitions and real-market descriptions of the products need to be created.
According to a number of INGO attendees, the statements from member countries
demonstrated an increased awareness of the concerns of consumers and the
scientific community in comparison to the conceptualizations made at last
year's Codex Committee meeting. It was also noted by Chairperson MacKenzie
that, whereas 25% of members showed significant interest in comprehensive
labeling in 1998, this year a clear majority of member countries now support
labeling of one sort or another.
One significant differentiation concerns those countries who have altered
their position and now support labeling, but asked that pre-processed
products such as sugar and oils be excluded from the labeling provisions.
Owing to the fact that the greatest acreage planted to genetically modified
foods is in oil products such as canola, soy and corn, and to a certain
extent cotton these exclusions will therefore be ineffective in providing
comprehensive labeling. The sugar angle primes the pump for GMO cane as well
as beet sugar.
Another issue that remained unclear in the realm of definitions is whether it
would be more effective to alter the Codex title so that the labeling
initiative would include "foods derived from, containing, or processed with
genetically modified organisms".
The formation of a Working Group potentially allows for more rapid
development of labeling criteria and more intensive communication between the
membership.
The Market: Four Years Ahead of Regulators
While the world-wide food regulatory establishment agreed to work more
intensively in the coming year, the Market has been dropping one bombshell
after another on the Biotech sector in response to consumer demands. When the
big retailers in Europe agree to use GE-free products in their own
store-branded products the effects are felt on the other side of the
Atlantic. Archer Daniels Midland decreed that their corn handling facilities
would be GE-free and the news sent seed suppliers and corn growers looking
for alternatives.
After Unilever, the world's largest food manufacturing company announced it
was phasing out GE/GMO products, Nestle, another of the world's biggest food
companies, announced that it was phasing out GM products as fast as possible.
Thereafter it was Cadbury who followed suit.
Meanwhile,Tesco, Britain's largest supermarket chain, said it would remove GM
ingredients from its store- brand foods, joining Sainsbury, Safeway ( UK),
Asda and Somerfield.
Marketing gurus may be fond of saying that "consumers design the product" in
our current era, but they may not know how far reaching that notion has
become. Delivering authenticity is not as easy as merely slapping a sticker
on the bag of "shade-grown coffee" or claiming that " no animal testing used"
on a bottle of foreign-made shampoo. Layers of private as well as public
oversight mean to maintain a measure of respectability, if not legitimacy,
when producers place products before consumers that are calculated to satisfy
environmental, social and health concerns, even when those concerns are not
mandated by legislation. One concern that some regulators voice is that each
new regulatory mandate seeks to provide oversight on aspects that are already
being looked after.
Of course, its obvious that the whole world is dancing around one big
delusion: the way we live is wrecking the planet, not to mention our own
health. If the EPA and the FDA were protecting the environment and human
health up to the standards that consumers expect, there would be little
reason for products making claims that infer that the rest of the competition
is substandard. Politically we ignore the reality of corporate dominance and
stand ready with plenty of Band-Aids and pain-killers, unwilling to pull the
plug on chemicals. All the chemicals, no matter if they are herbicides,
fuels, food processing aids, manufacturing derivatives and by-products or
nuclear waste, should be called out for broadly public, responsible
review-with changes brought forth..
By coincidence, the cutting edge of consumer protection now identifies that
it isn’t individual chemicals like BHA or Lindane that are of most grievous
concern, but instead the evil soup we are exposed to when numerous pollutants
are combined in the blood stream.
GMO Crop Insurance Initiative for Organic Farmers
As reported in March, I wrote a tidy letter to USDA Farm Service Agency’s
Risk Management division. Here is their reply. To cope with the lack of
italics for this email the duplicate text serves to highlight.
Dear Mr. Sprinkel:
This is in further response to your March 11th e-mail inquiry to the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) which is administered by the Risk
Management Agency (RMA).
In your message, you expressed concern about the contamination of certified
organically produced crops by accidental pollination from genetically
modified organism (GMO) crops. You asked for assistance in determining how
organic producers may obtain Federal crop insurance for GMO contamination.
You stated that a valuable shipment of organically produced corn chips was
refused in the marketplace in the European community after genetic analysis
identified that the product contained GMO. In addition, you mention the
importance of this issue and timing of the Department of Agriculture's
authorization for an interim certified organic meat label.
RMA program specialists have carefully reviewed your request. Unfortunately,
however, RMA is unable to provide insurance coverage for the risk that you
present, as FCIC is authorized under section 508(a)(1) of the Federal Crop
Insurance Act only to insure against "... drought, flood, or other natural
disaster ..."
In essence, the situation that you describe with GMO contamination is akin to
pollution damage, where one person permits a noxious substance to be
discharged at one location and this substance does harm to a person or
property at another location. Thus, this type of damage is not covered by
FCIC as it is man-made rather than a natural disaster.
In essence, the situation that you describe with GMO contamination is akin to
pollution damage, where one person permits a noxious substance to be
discharged at one location and this substance does harm to a person or
property at another location. Thus, this type of damage is not covered by
FCIC as it is man-made rather than a natural disaster.
We regret we could not provide you with a more favorable response. Thank you
again for your interest in the Federal crop insurance program. If you need
further information, please let us know."
Well, I guess at least one branch of USDA is willing to say that " GMO
contamination is akin to pollution damage." As reported in last month’s
issue: a "manageable risk is an insurable risk", and if GE proponents
continue to say that GE agriculture is a manageable risk we should ask to see
copies of their insurance policies. By the way, the next GMO issue observed
lifting from the fog is a proposed ban on conventional livestock products
from animals that consume GMO feeds.
Next? Manure.
-30-
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail