 |
|
|
Wanted:
Labels for Genetically Engineered Products |
|
By Diego Cevallos*
Genetically
modified products are proliferating throughout Latin America, but
without labels identifying them as such. Environmental and health
activists are fighting to make labeling obligatory.
MEXICO CITY - Labels on foods sold in Latin
American countries don't indicate whether they contain genetically
engineered ingredients. There is legislation on the books in Brazil,
but companies aren't complying with the requirement. In Mexico the
laws on the matter are imprecise, and in Chile a new law is expected
soon.
Many of the foods consumed in the region do indeed contain transgenics,
in other words, they have been genetically modified in some way,
and science has not produced definitive answers about their possible
effects on health and the environment.
That is why defenders of consumers' rights believe labeling of foods
with genetically modified ingredients should be required.
More than 30 countries had adopted or planned legislation as of
2004 for requiring labels for transgenic products, according to
a study by the World Health Organization (WHO).
A 2003 presidential decree in Brazil requires that all foods containing
more than one percent genetically modified ingredients must bear
a "T" inside a triangle. But shoppers have yet to see this symbol
on supermarket shelves.
"We Brazilians are consuming genetically modified products without
knowing it," and the government "is irresponsibly omitting" its
duty of requiring the label, Paulo Pacini, attorney for the non-governmental
Brazilian Consumer Defense Institute, told Tierramérica.
In 2000, then-minister of health and current president-elect of
Chile, Michelle Bachelet, issued an order for obligatory labeling
of transgenics, but it was not enacted. She has pledged to resolve
the matter during her presidency, which begins Mar. 11.
A 2005 Mexican law on biosafety entails obligatory labels, to the
extent that the product involves transgenics whose nutritional content
is significantly different from other foods.
Because the nutritional value of genetically modified foods is generally
the same as conventional ffods, lawmakers are seeking to modify
the law so that labeling occurs without considering the nutritional
factor.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were developed in the 1980s
as a means to improve certain characteristics of crops, such as
appearance, color and yield, and resistance to pests or extreme
climate conditions or to specific pesticides.
The technique consists of introducing genes from another species
-- which can be plant or animal -- into the seeds.
Activists, governments, agroindustry executives and scientists are
unable to agree on whether transgenics should be labeled, but most
do agree that consumers are likely to be wary of genetically modified
foods.
In the European Union, where labeling is required, the consumer
who sees this alert tends not to buy the product. Several surveys
conducted in Latin America indicate that consumers in this region
would have a similar reaction.
In Brazil, 74 percent of those surveyed in 2001 by the Brazilian
Institute of Public Opinion and Statistics said they preferred non-transgenic
foods, while 73.9 percent of those consulted in 2004 by the Institute
Studies on Religion said GMOs "pose a risk".
And in Chile, 58.5 percent of consumers prefer foods that have not
been genetically modified, according to a survey by Ipsos polling
firm in 2005.
In Mexico, the Sigma Dos pollster found that 98 percent of the people
consulted said they distrust transgenic products and that food companies
should inform consumers about whether they use them or not.
Environmentalists and some governments, such as the Europeans, call
for the cautionary principle when it comes to cultivating and consuming
GMOs, but farmers and many scientists assure that these biotech
products are harmless and should be used more widely.
According to a 2005 WHO report, it is unlikely that transgenic foods
already on the market pose risks to humans, although, in the future,
they could carry "potential direct threats for health and development."
"There is certainty that foods derived from genetically modified
plants that are being marketed are as harmless as their conventional
counterparts. This is verified by 81 European research projects"
and the WHO, said Esteban Hopp, coordinator of the plant biotech
unit of the Argentine Institute of Biotechnology.
"Furthermore, from the more than 300 million hectares harvested
and processed for human and animal food so far, it is estimated
that globally more than 100 billion meals of high GMO content have
been consumed, without any consequences for health reported," Hopp
said in a Tierramérica interview.
But there are documented examples of potentially dangerous genetically
modified foods. In the United States, the corn variety Starlink
was withdrawn from the market in 2000 after cases of allergic reactions
by consumers were reported.
And the transgenic corn variety Mon863, produced by the U.S.-based
Monsanto, an agroindustry giant, and authorized for human consumption
in Mexico, caused health problems in rats during experiments, according
to a confidential document from Monsanto that was made public in
2005 by court order.
GMO cultivation has been expanding worldwide since 1996, when commercialization
of these seeds began. From then through last year, 471 million hectares
have been planted with transgenic crops, according to the International
Service for Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a
U.S. company that promotes transgenic crops.
The leading producers of these crops are the United States, Argentina,
Brazil and Canada, concentrated in soybeans resistant to certain
herbicides, and maize and cotton resistant to herbicides and insects.
Almost the entirety of the seeds for these crops are created and
commercialized by Monsanto.
In the international forums where the labeling question is being
discussed -- like the International Committee of Codex Alimentarius
-- the United Sates, Argentina and other countries are resoundingly
opposed to any binding international rules on labeling requirements.
In May 2005 in Malaysia, during the last meeting of Codex, an agency
of the United Nations, the labeling debate ended in a stalemate,
and the parties to the discussion only agreed to take up the matter
again in the future.
"If there are companies and governments so sure that transgenics
will not produce secondary effects in the long term, why this resistance
to labeling?" wonders Aleri Carreon, coordinator of the consumers
campaign and genetic engineering for the environmental watchdog
Greenpeace-Mexico.
According to Argentine biotech expert Hopp, "the label should provide
information to the consumer, and not fear, nor should it lead to
political discrimination" against those who sell products derived
from GMOs, he said.
For the scientist, who believes organizations like Greenpeace are
"fundamentalists" when it comes to transgenics, if the food truly
isn't safe, it shouldn't be labeled -- it should be banned.
* Diego Cevallos is an IPS correspondent.
With reporting by Marcela Valente in Argentina, Mario Osava in Brazil
and Daniela Estrada in Chile.
|
