Discussions About GMO Labeling
Background:
A panel of experts from the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA), Government of Japan has held discussions about GMO labeling system that will allow manufacturers to provide necessary information to consumers without compromising the feasibility of businesses, based on the verification results of food items currently subject to mandatory labeling and GMO labeling systems in overseas.
Current food items subject to mandatory GMO Labeling
*Additionally, if agricultural products other than the above 8 agricultural products are newly approved for distribution after safety review based on the Food Sanitation Act, the Food Labeling Act shall be revised according to the procedures specified in Article 4 of the Act to add the relevant add agricultural products.
Outline of issues discussed
1 Expansion of scope of ingredients subject to mandatory labeling requirements:
Can consumer's desire to know whether ingredients have been genetically modified be fulfilled?
In order to answer to consumer's right to know, "GMO" descriptions should be displayed if GMO ingredients were used
Opinions gathered: Scope of mandatory labeling should be extended to include all processed food
Labeling of all food products should be required to avoid misleading consumers
GMO labeling should be displayed if GMO ingredients are used in order to fulfill the rights of consumers to be informed.
2 Maintenance of current system:
In recent years, available labeling space has become an issue due to the advancement in individual packaging. The issue at hand is whether the current system is still appropriate considering there are information other than the mandatory requirements that should be displayed on the package.
There are limitations on the number of characters that can be printed on price labels used for foods processed in-store. In the case when more information has to be displayed, price tagging devices will have to be updated.
Opinions gathered: All items that can be detected with GMO ingredients should be labeled.
There is no dispute that it’s essential to make the display of recombinant DNA etc. detectable food items compulsory, or require the display of at least items that has a possibility of being detected for recombinant DNA etc.
From the perspective of the reliability of display, feasibility, post verification and international consistency, the school of thought applied so far should be taken as a rule.
Product reliability and false representation might become an issue since non-detectable GMO food items (especially products that are manufactured overseas or imported) cannot be verified post-modem.
Expanding the scope of mandatory labeling to include even items that cannot be detected for recombinant DNA etc. may cause demand to concentrate on non-genetically modified raw materials, resulting in a situation where the price of raw materials will rise dramatically and it becomes impossible to secure the necessary amount of raw materials, possibly causing supply to become unstable.
Hypothetically speaking, in order to incorporate social verification into the monitoring system, it would be necessary to build a system which has international consensus.
3 Others:
It is necessary to consider an overall balance in labeling from the perspective of the feasibility of food operators, the needs of society, available labeling space (priority issues) and the ease of reading.
Thoughts on the scope of ingredients subject to mandatory labeling for GMO ingredients going forward
In the case when the scope of ingredients such to mandatory labeling is expanded, the scope of providing information that may contribute to consumers' voluntary and rational selection of products will be expanded.
1 Mandatory labeling items are increasing beyond what was prescribed during the introduction of the GMO labeling sytem (in 1999).(With effect from Sep 1, 2017, the new Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) system for processed food will commence.)
2 There is a trend towards decreasing packaging size due to increased demand for individually packaged products.
[Source: http://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/food_labeling/other/pdf/genetically_modified_food_170926_0003.pdf]
Opinions from Expert Panel:
1 Expansion of scope of ingredients subject to mandatory labeling requirements:
CAA expert panel:
Scope of ingredients subject to mandatory GMO labeling should be expanded.
Food operators panel:
This issue should be considered keeping the feasibility of food operators in mind.
2 Labeling Method - Enable consumers to identify "GMO" and "Non-segregated GMO" products easily:
CAA expert panel:
The display of "Non-segregated GMO" is difficult to understand.
Food operators panel:
Food operators are receiving a lot of inquiries on the meaning of "Non-segregated GMO" products.
3 Labeling Method - Requirements for "Non-GMO" Display
CAA expert panel:
Even though there are only up to 5% of genetically modified ingredients among agricultural products, it is necessary to improve labeling since it may be misleading for consumers if "Non-GMO" display is allowed.
There were views that the criterion of unintentional inclusion should be lowered.
Food operators panel:
Food operators are of the opinion that it would be difficult to lower the criterion for unintentional inclusion from a stable supply and cost perspective.
Other related articles: