from a press release
SACRAMENTO -- Proposals to mandate labeling of products derived through biotechnology mistakenly raise questions about food safety and contribute to global trade tensions, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Karil Kochenderfer, GMA Director, International Trade and Environmental Affairs, testified before a California Senate committee studying the implications of biotechnology on international trade. She said that proposals calling for mandatory biotech labels - such as those under consideration in California and the United States Congress - could be seen by some consumers as warning labels.
"The reality is that absent other information, a label indicating genetic modification mistakenly raises questions about the safety of biotech foods that have been reviewed and found safe by regulatory agencies worldwide," said Kochenderfer. "Even proponents of biotech labeling, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, acknowledge that a congressional mandatory labeling proposal won't work, because such a label 'would become a scare label' (CSPI's Michael Jacobson, quoted in BNA Food Safety Report, 4/19/00)."
She added that the Food and Drug Administration already has a labeling policy in place that requires labeling if products of biotechnology differ from traditional products in terms of their composition, their nutritional content, or their allergenicity.
Kochenderfer noted that implementation of mandatory labeling schemes "confounds government authorities" and raises potential barriers to international trade.
"Few, if any reliable and efficient tests exist to ascertain whether a food has been enhanced through biotechnology," said Kochenderfer. "And no scientific consensus exists as to how these tests should be consistently and uniformly applied. Tests of oils derived from biotech soy, corn and cotton routinely fail to detect genetic modification.
"Lacking such tests, companies look to documentation from grain suppliers that traditional varieties of soy, corn and other commodities have been separated or 'channeled' apart from biotech varieties. This segregation comes at significant cost to U.S. farmers and grain handlers, which is passed down to food processors, retailers and ultimately consumers without any food safety benefits."
Kochenderfer's testimony before the State Senate Committee on Finance, Investment and International Trade is available at www.gmabrands.com.:
