GM labelling: are there any winners?

'Impractical and unenforceable,'​ is how the European food and drink association, the CIAA, last week condemned the new EU legislation on the labelling of genetically modified organisms in food. An ambitious step for Europe, the new GMO rules are some of the toughest, if not the​ toughest, in the world.

Largely hailed as a victory for the consumer, jubilation in the food industry is far from evident. Genetic modification is one of the thorniest issues of our century, and by all accounts, is set to continue. While supporters hail the science as a means to feed the world and to solve nutritional problems, critics warn that we are ignorant as to the potential harm splicing and dicing with DNA will cause to the human body.

As a supplier of sustenance to the bellies of the people, the food industry is left in a sticky and delicate situation. In Europe, food manufacturers accustomed to the vociferous anti-GMO backlash from consumers, are already reticent about using genetically modified ingredients, fearful of the impact on sales.

Last week, at a meeting of the agriculture council, and following Commission proposals earlier this year, European ministers reached a political agreement establishing an EU system to regulate the placing on the market and labelling of food and feed products derived from GMOs. One key, controversial aspect of the draft law is the proposal that all GM goods be labelled - even highly processed products like oils in which genetic modification cannot be detected because the DNA or protein has been destroyed.

" GM derivatives, and labelling of, are the​ issue,"​ Dr Geraldine Schofield, technical adviser at Unilever​ and chairperson of the GM Issues group at the Food and Drink Federation​ told FoodNavigator.com.

"Although many manufacturers have already carried out Identity Preservation, (if you can detect, you must label) or indeed chosen to stop using a particular ingredient, the GM derivative labelling is an area of difficulty. Take starch hydrolates,"​ she continued. "Coming from maize, we do not know for certain if the product is genetically modified or not because this information is not currently tracked. Manufacturers will have to go through the ingredients list of their products and extend the paper trail further."​

One key, and arguably valid, criticism to the new draft law is that extending the paper trail will leave the system wide open to fraud. "At the end of the day, because there is no analytical test to say that a product is GM-free, a product could be sold as non-GM, when in fact the opposite is the case."​

Food industry bodies across Europe had lobbied, to little avail, the European Commission and the Parliament to amend this aspect of the proposal.

"The fact that certificates and a paper trail could lead to unfair competition is an inevitable worry,"​ said Dr Schofield. "If you can't detect an ingredient, why would you use it? Although no responsible company would do so, some others may be tempted,"​ she added.

And what about the impact on the suppliers? "Many of them will have to increase the paper trail and they will clearly have the pressure on them to do so, but commodities that experience multiple processing are very difficult to trace,"​ commented Dr Schofield.

So, as the stringent regulations reach their conclusion, is this really a vote for the consumer? " Yes,"​ said Dr Schofield, "because the law is providing them with the information that they are demanding. But the problems are clearly the practical and technical difficulties. In addition, there is the risk that the consumer may well be misled. The complexities behind the labelling rules means that confusion could arise.​

On the one hand, certain food ingredients containing GM material below a threshold for adventitious presence will not have to be labelled and on the other hand, certain GM derived products not​ containing GM material would have to be labelled. "​

In fact, such are the complexities behind the regulations that the UK Food and Drink Federation is currently formulating a battle plan for its members. " We are considering the guidance and how to understand the regulations. Once completed, the FDF will publish the information which will be widely read by the industry, "​ commented Dr Schofield. "But clearly SME's will totally rely on the suppliers for the right information,"​ she added.

Politicians at a European and national level created the legislation. But now enforcement passes to the food safety authorities, with the UK Food Standards Agency and its European partners involved in the gargantuan task of ensuring the rules are met. So yes, the new rules are a victory for the consumer, but strong legislation without enforcement quickly becomes weak. The food industry has voiced its fears, let's hope the politicians are right.

And what of the price? Will the new changes, new demands and extra work translate as price rises for the consumer? Only time will tell.