GM labelling laws have sown seeds of confusion, says FDF
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) said new labelling laws for genetically-modified (GM) foods had badly backfired and called for a radical reassessment.
Instead of informing consumers about the origins of products derived from genetically modified organisms, the European-wide GM labelling directive, which came into force last April, has resulted in more widespread use of identity-preserved non-GM supplies to avoid hostility from activists, claimed the FDF. It said that was not sustainable in a global food market and was not the intention of the European Commission (EC).
"Either the EC needs to reassess the scope of the regulation or undertake a massive consumer education campaign to reverse the impact of media scare stories and the undermining of confidence in the safety of GM-derived food products," said the FDF, in response to a questionnaire from the EC on the labelling law and how it is implemented.
UK responses to the questionnaire have revealed widespread confusion in the industry about manufacturing techniques and whether certain products fall within the scope of the regulation, according to the UK's Food Standards Agency .
For example, food and drink produced by fermentation using a GM micro-organism (GMMO), or processing aid, such as chymosin in cheese and amylase in baked goods, are excluded. But other ingredients, including highly-refined soya oil or glucose syrup from maize starch, must be labelled, even if there is no GM detectable in the final product.
Should the EC tighten up the legislation and insist that GMMOs are labelled, up to 80% of pre-packaged goods might have to be labelled GM, said one source, which could stop retailers and manufacturers using 'non-GM' credentials as a marketing tool.
The Fermentation Products Alliance said: "Before determining whether or not labelling is required, the differences in perception of the general public regarding white technology versus green biotechnology should be taken into account."
