October 9, 1998
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
And Fisheries
Food Marketing Bureau
Office of Food Labeling
1-2-1 Kasumigaeseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8950
JAPAN
Dear Sirs/Madams:
This letter is in response to your August 27, 1998 request for public comments on proposed regulations for the labeling of genetically engineered foods.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is pleased to submit the attached comments on behalf of the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations (IACFO). IACFO is an international association of consumer organizations that work on food policy issues. The members of the IACFO are CSPI, the Food Commission UK, and the Japan Offspring Fund.
An electronic version of this correspondence was transmitted by e-mail to your office on October 8, 1998. This version is being submitted for the public record.
Sincerely,
Bruce Silverglade
Director of Legal Affairs
October 9, 1998
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
And Fisheries
Food Marketing Bureau
Office of Food Labeling
1-2-1 Kasumigaeseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8950
JAPAN
Dear Sirs/Madams:
The International Association of Consumer Food Organizations (IACFO) is pleased to submit the following comments in response to the August 27, 1998 proposed rules concerning the labeling of genetically engineered foods. IACFO strongly supports Proposal A which requires labeling of genetically engineered foods.
1. Marketplace Choice
While some consumers welcome the use of new technologies such as genetic engineering, others seek to purchase food that is produced using more traditional methods. If a food has been produced with genetically engineered ingredients, that fact should be clearly indicated on the label, just as foods that have been irradiated disclose that fact on the label.
The disclosure of such information is necessary to permit consumers to exercise free choice in the marketplace and “vote with their pocketbooks,” which is essential in a free market economy. If consumers are not given adequate information, then they cannot make informed purchasing decisions, and producers cannot respond with the types of products that consumers want to purchase. Thus by requiring labeling, the Ministry can help ensure that free market forces operate properly.1
2. Consumer Right to Know
The labeling of genetically engineered food is also necessary to fulfill what has been called the consumers’ “right to know.” The consumers’ right to information was recognized by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Guidelines for Consumer Protection. The guidelines are intended to provide “[a]ccess of consumers to adequate information to enable them to make informed choices according to individual wishes and needs.”2 The guidelines urge governments to “encourage all concerned to participate in the free flow of accurate information on all aspects of consumer products.”3
The U.N. guidelines were inspired by the pronouncement of U.S. President John F. Kennedy that consumers have “the right to be informed.” In his landmark message to Congress in March 1962, President Kennedy defined this right as not only encompassing the right of the consumer “to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful, or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, and other practices,” but also the right “to be given the facts he needs to make an informed choice.”4 Each subsequent U.S. President has endorsed this right,5 and it continues to be a major element of the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection.
Surveys show that the views of many Japanese consumers who favor labeling are consistent with the views of consumers around the world who also want labeling advising them whether food products have been genetically modified. A survey of American consumers conducted by Novartis, a Swiss-based company that is the world’s largest agribusiness, chemical, and pharmaceutical firm, found that 93% of those surveyed want genetically engineered foods to be labeled.6 That figure is consistent with survey results that show that European consumers also strongly favor labeling of genetically engineered foods.7
3. Allergenicity
Those consumers who wish to avoid purchasing genetically engineered foods may wish to do so for several reasons. For example, some consumers may have safety concerns about genetically engineered foods. It is possible, for instance, that a gene for an allergen could be transferred from one food to another food to which a consumer would not normally be allergic.8 Without proper labeling, consumers would not know whether a genetically engineered food contains an allergen.
Some segments of the food industry argue that companies can effectively screen for allergens. However, the report of the 1996 Joint FAO/WHO Consultation states
“[u]nfortunately, reliable models for the assessment of the allergenicity of genetically modified foods do not presently exist, although the development of such models is to be encouraged.”9 In light of this problem, appropriate labeling of genetically engineered foods is essential.
Other consumers have broader concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods. While there is no evidence that genetically engineered foods are unsafe, some consumers remain skeptical. For instance, many consumers may feel betrayed by their government’s handling of prior food safety problems such as E. coli contamination. With such actual food safety disasters in recent memory, many consumers are suspicious of new food technologies that governments and experts claim to be unquestionably safe.
4. Environmental Concerns
Furthermore, some consumers may be concerned about adverse effects that genetically engineered crops may have on the environment. The production of genetically engineered foods raises ecological concerns including damage caused by cross-pollination and unwanted pesticide and herbicide tolerance. For example, in 1996, cotton that was genetically engineered to contain the naturally-occurring insect toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) failed to protect against bollworms and other insect pests. This suggests that “widespread use of the Bt gene, particularly at moderate levels, might induce selection for Bt-resistant insects. Such an event would destroy the use of this toxin for sustainable agriculture systems in which it has been a mainstay.”10 There have also been reports of recombinant oilseed canola plants passing their gene for herbicide resistance to rapidly producing weeds.11
5. Ethical Concerns
Some consumers want to know for philosophical, ethical, or religious reasons whether a food product contains a genetically engineered ingredient. Consumers may object to the development and use of genetic engineering because they fear that it could be misused in the future for other purposes. Others object on more general grounds to a technology that, in theory, could eventually be applied to humans. Some people fear that genes from foods that they do not eat for religious reasons might be inserted into foods that are a regular part of their diet.
6. Labeling is Feasible
Many major producers of GMOs have agreed to abide by labeling requirements similar to those proposed by the Ministry. Novartis began labeling its genetically modified corn in 1996 and has urged its customers to label their products as coming from genetically engineered seeds. Wolfgang Samo, head of agribusiness at Novartis has stated that “[genetically enhanced products are overall superior to conventional ones. Industry should have many reasons to label them . . . . If we believe in the right to choose for consumers, the industry cannot reasonably argue against labels facilitating this choice.”12
Recently, the Monsanto Company has agreed to label genetically engineered products sold in the European Union (EU). The EU issued a regulation requiring labeling of GMOs in 1997. While Monsanto initially opposed the EU regulation, the company now states that it will comply with the requirement.
7. Conclusion
For the reasons mentioned above, we strongly urge the Japanese government to implement Proposal A requiring the labeling of genetically engineered food.
Sincerely,
Bruce Silverglade
President
References
1 Julie A. Caswell, Uses of Food Labeling Regulations, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Papers, Volume V (1997) No. 100.
2 United Nations, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, Annex Guidelines for Consumer Protection, Apr. 16, 1985, at II. (c), reprinted in, Consumer Law in the Global Economy National and International Dimensions (Iain Ramsay, ed. Dartmouth Pub. Co., Ltd. 1997) at 372.
3 Id. at 375 (III. B.21).
4 President John F. Kennedy, Message Relating to Consumers’ Protection and Interest Program (March 15, 1962) at 2.
5 For example, in his address marking National Consumer Week in 1994, President William J. Clinton recognized the importance of the consumer right to know. He stated,“What has come to be called the Consumer Bill of Rights has evolved as our marketplace has evolved. At present, it includes: ‘The Right to Information’ — the right to have full and accurate information upon which to make free and considered decisions and to be protected against false or misleading claims.” William J. Clinton, Proclamation, National Consumers Week, 1994.
6 Brian Williams, Firm’s Stance on Labeling Genetically Engineered Food Continues to Spark Debate, The Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 27, 1997, at 2C. Significantly, the survey also showed that 71% feel bioengineered food is very safe and that 73% prefer bioengineering to pesticides as a means of increasing crop production. Id. Surveys cited by certain segments of the U.S. food industry tend to show less demand among Americans for labeling of genetically engineered foods. International Food Information Council, U.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Biotechnology, (Survey conducted by Wirthlin Group Quorum) (March 1997). Survey results can be influenced by how the labeling question is posed to respondents.
7 Stefan Flothmann, Greenpeace Germany, remarks at the 1998 Ceres Conference on “Politicizing Science: What Price Public Policy?” (Georgetown University Center for Food and Nutrition Policy) (April 4, 1998).
8 Julie A. Nordlee et al., Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans, 334 New Eng. J. Med. 688-92 (1996).
9 JOINT FAO/WHO CONSULTATION, BIOTECHNOLOGY ABD FOOD SAFETY, FAO FOOD AND PAPER NO. 61 14-15 (1997).
10 See, e.g., Marion Nestle, Food Biotechnology: Labeling Will Benefit Industry As Well As Consumers, NUTRITION TODAY, Jan./Feb. 1998, at 10; Tassos Haniotis, First Secretary (Agriculture) European Commission Delegation to the U.S., speech presented at The Integrated Crop Management Conference, The Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology: Differences and Similarities in the US and EU, (Ames, Iowa) (Nov. 17-18, 1997, www.eurunion.org/news/speeches).
11 Nestle, supra note 10 at 8-9.
12 Williams, supra note 6, at 2C.
| 
