Consumers International (CI), an international non-government organization advocating for the labeling of GM food to protect consumers interest, said in a statement that the US and four other countries were able to convince Codex to put at bay its decision and instead, continue discussing issues on the imposition of labels on GM foods.
CI said that from 55 country delegations present, 30 favored labeling of GM food while 18 have yet to make a decision. Despite the overwhelming support for labeling, the meeting ended with a decision to defer decision till later this year.
A 12-strong delegation from CI lobbied delegates to speak up for an international guideline that would protect countries with labeling of GM food from a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute and give guidance to developing countries wishing to introduce labeling legislation.
"Consumers rights to safety, to information, and to a healthy and sustainable environment are threatened by the current marketing of GMOs. The interests of biotech companies are being put before consumer interests. GM food is substantially different from non-GM food. With GM, genes can be transferred between unrelated species such as from a swine to a vegetable or from wheat to rice. The health impacts are unknown and GM food is not currently safety tested," said Samuel Ochieng, head of the CI delegation.
Currently, countries already practicing mandatory labeling are Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia and the European Union which last year introduced comprehensive labeling and traceability of GM food.
In the Codex meeting, the US, along with Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay and the Philippines, tried to terminate discussions on the GM labeling guidelines. On the other hand, countries with GM labeling who spoke against Codex guidelines included Australia and Thailand
The countries that supported talks on GM labeling at the meeting included Austria, Ireland, Finland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, United Kingdom, Poland, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, The Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, Malaysia, India, Kenya, Indonesia, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Tunisia, Senegal, Swaziland, Panama, Turkey and Ghana.
In the Philippines, proponents of GM food labeling are also having a hard time convincing policy makers and food manufacturers to make labeling of GM foods mandatory because it will translate to more expensive food products.
In an impact study conducted for the Bureau of Food and Drugs Administration (BFAD) entitled "The Cost Implications of GM Food Labeling in the Philippines," principal author Augusto de Leon said mandatory GM labeling will raise manufacturing cost by 11 percent to 12 percent. Subsequently, this will be absorbed by consumers.
De Leon said that a detailed study of the financial strength of about 70 selected food companies show that their gross margin of profit will not be able to absorb an increase in raw material and manufacturing costs. It will even be worse for the smaller companies.
"This (mandatory labeling) will have a devastating impact on the viability of corporations, unless the incidence of costs can be passed on to consumers in terms of higher selling price of finished food products," said De Leon. The other end of the equation is that farmers could also suffer in terms of lower buying price for the commodities used as raw ingredients.
To produce both GM-free and possible GM-containing products, a manufacturer will have to operate two separate production lines. This will incur added costs in the procurement of GM-free raw materials; logistical support due to segregation of production inputs and outputs; separate production runs to ensure non-commingling; compliance to government regulations and standards; distribution and retailing; human resources costs due to additional logistical and accounting support and insurance costs or risks of civil suits.
The study’s model, based on a typical Filipino food manufacturer’s cost structure, indicate that GM-free soy and corn-based food product will cost 10 percent to 12 percent more with the percentage of the raw material cost to the selling price at 30 percent, 20 percent for sales and marketing cost, manufacturing cost, 10 percent and packaging cost, one percent.
The study also revealed that a typical food manufacturer will be making a four percent profit before income tax. When the added cost of using and producing GM-free products are taken into account, the previously earned four percent profit before tax will slide into a net loss of seven percent.