GMO Labelling Regulations Conference 25 July 2014 Presenter: Mr. Andisa Potwana Director: Consumer Law and Policy The Department of Trade and Industry
BACKGRO GROUND D • The Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008 (the CPA) became fully effective on 1 April 2011 • The CPA regulations were published on 1 April 2011 under Government Gazette Notice 34180 • Regulation 7 of the CPA regulates labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and was promulgated pursuant to the section 24 (6) • Implementation of the GMO labelling regulations remains a challenge
BACKGROUND CONTINUED … • In 2012, the National Consumer Commission (the NCC) formed a task team to assist it with the enforcement of the regulations ( DST, DOH, DAFF & THE DTI) • The task team identified the main issue as being the use of the word “organisms” in the regulations • the dti advised the Minister to amend the regulations • The proposed amendments were published in the Government Gazette under Notice 824 of 2012
INTROD RODUC UCTION TION • The mandate of the dti is to assist consumers by making them aware of the contents of goods so that they can make informed choices • Sister departments have a mandate and expertise to deal with issues of safety and health • Stakeholders were previously consulted widely • The conference will focus ONLY ON LABELLING of goods that contain genetically modified ingredients or components
SECTION 24 (6) OF THE CPA Section 24 (6) of the CPA provides that: “ 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 genetically modified ingredients or components of those goods in accordance with applicable regulations” .
SECTION 24 (6) OF THE CPA CONTINUED The main elements of section (24) 1. Any person who produces, supplies, imports or packages • Producer? Importer? Packager? 2. any prescribed goods • Which goods must be prescribed ?
SECTION 24 (6) OF THE CPA CONTINUED 3. must display on, or in association with the packaging of those goods a notice in the prescribed manner and form • Size and legibility of the notice? Food scare? Food Security? 4. that discloses the presence of genetically modified ingredients or components of those goods in accordance with applicable regulations ” • Threshold issues? International Standards?
ORIGINAL REGULATION 7 & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • Regulation 7 applies to goods approved for commercialisation by the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms established in terms of section 3 of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act,15 of 1997. • The proposed amendments suggest that the regulations should apply to “all” goods that contain genetically modified ingredients or components
ORIGINAL REGULATION 7 & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS • Regulation 7 (3) refers to “organisms” • The proposed amendments suggest that organisms should be substituted by “ingredients or components” • The amendment Regulation 7 (4) simply changes to adopt the language of the Act i.e. “displayed on, or in association with the packaging of those goods”
OTHER ISSUES 1. The thresholds • 1% compulsory labelling • 1% to 5% optional labelling • 5% compulsory labelling The use of “ scientifically impractical or not feasible 2. to test” and “may contain” in regulation 7 (8) 3. The use of “derived from” in regulation & (9)
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Stakeholder Comments / Inputs Proposal(s) put forward We note that the Consumer Protection Act is clear If an ingredient contains 5 % or more that it is the ingredients of products that must be GM content, it must be labelled as “genetically labelled in terms of Genetically Modified Organisms containing modified ingredients. ” (GMO) We advise that the regulations already provide a legally sound description of “prescribed goods” in regulation (3) and that no further action needs to be taken by the Minister in this regard. Unless there is monitoring and enforcement of the We strongly recommend that the law, producers will unlawfully label products “may wording “or not feasible” in the draft contain GM components or ingredients, taking into regulation (8) be deleted as it is unclear account that almost 80% of all maize grown and what the definition of feasible is. 98% of all soya grown in South Africa is GM.
Stakeholder Comments / Inputs Proposal(s) put forward We assert that a 5% threshold triggering We recommend that the threshold should be positive GM labelling is misleading and set at 0.9% as this is the intentionally accepted confusing to consumers and therefore level and what our food exporters comply with, does not implement the stated objectives when exporting processed maize products of CPA. especially to the EU. We recommend that a “content - based” labelling We note that the Codex Alimentarius has highlighted the need for further research to system of labelling should be considered instead of a “content - based” system. be carried out on the potential allergernicity of GMOs in food products. In this case, a threshold 5% is not good enough; even a threshold of 0.9% is problematic in terms of possible allergens. We note that food companies are already GM labelling is no different and its required to label their products to provide implementation will not significantly impact on consumer information and choice. the cost of food.
Stakeholder Comments / Inputs Proposal(s) put forward We are concerned that labelling is only We recommend that a positive GM labelling triggered where there is 5% or more should be triggered at 0.9% as GM content is GM content. This has no scientific detectable at this level, is consistent with the basis, is misleading to consumers and threshold level set for export and provides is inconsistent with the threshold set by accurate and meaningful information for the DTI for the export of goods. consumers. Products that contain between 1 and The absence of a positive GM labelling 5% GM content do not need to labelled misleads consumers into believing that such as containing GM, despite the fact that products do not contain detectable GM this content is scientifically detectable ingredients or components, when in fact they do. A threshold of 5% is unnecessarily and We ask why one standard is set for export and unreasonably high, sanctioning high another is set for local citizens? levels of contamination. It is inconsistent with the threshold set by DAFF for export shipments with non- GM status, which is set at 0.9%.
Stakeholder Comments / Inputs Proposal(s) put forward South Africa is the only country that In order to assist in properly monitoring the has allowed the genetic modification of impact of consuming GM foods and also to its staple food. Millions of South allow individuals that may have developed Africans are eating GM maize daily, in an allergic response to such foods to avoid a semi-processed. This is unheard of them, it would be wise to follow the example anywhere in the world. of the European Union, Brazil and China and implement a “process - based” labelling “content –based” system instead of a system. There is inconsistency in what may and If those wishing to label NOT GM can test may not be labelled as containing GM at 0.9%, there is no reason that those who content. are required to label as CONTAINING GM content should not be required to do so at 0.9%. “not feasible” We recommend that the words “or not The definition of is feasible” unclear be deleted from this sub regulation. 14
Stakeholder Comments / Inputs Proposal(s) put forward For purposed of section 24(6) of the Act, and Retailer would like clarity if the 5% refers subject to subregulation (4) and (6) this to 5% of the total ingredients in the regulation applies to all goods that contain product or 5% of the specific ingredient. 5% or more genetically modified ingredients, irrespective of whether such manufacturing occurred in the Republic or elsewhere and / or to marketing material in respect of such goods Any good to which subregulation (3) applies Please clarify what is a conspicuous and may not be produced, supplied, imported or easily legible manner and size, specify packaged unless a notice meets the minimum letter size and position e.g. back requirements of section 22 of the Act is of pack of label, etc. displayed on, or in association with the packaging of those goods in a conspicuous and easily legible manner and size without stating, without change that the good contains genetically modified ingredients. 15
Recommend
More recommend
