|
It Should surprise no one that the United
States is applying pressure on India through the World Trade Organisation about
its genetically engineered (GE) food labelling requirements, stating that these
requirements are a trade barrier. India should, however, take advantage of
provisions in the WTO for non-discrimination between trading partners. Other
major trading partners of the U.S.-Japan, Canada, the European Union, and
Australia –require GE labelling.
Currently, the U.S. has a lot on its hands
with regard to GE foods, having recently announced that commercial supplies of
long grain rice have been contaminated with LLRICE 601,a variety of GE rice not
approved for human consumption. This has already had serious ramifications: the
European Commission now will test all U.S. rice imports and Japan has banned
long grain rice imports from the U.S. altogether. The Commission also expressed
unhappiness with the three week delay in being informed about the contamination
and did not share the view of the U.S. that there was no risk from the event.
While people in agribusiness and in other
circles within India often hold the U.S. up as a model of biotech regulation for
India, many civil society groups and communities across the U.S. have criticised
the federal regulatory process and oppose GE foods. They argue that at the very
least GE foods should be labeled so that consumers can make an informed choice.
The U.S. has steadfastly refused to allow this to happen.
Three federal agencies in the U.S. regulate
GE foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Oversight by
these departments is based on a hotchpotch of pre-existing statutes.
No new federal laws have been passed to
address the health or environmental safety of GE crops. Additionally, the USDA
is charged with promoting GE crops as well as regulating them. This is not a
model for India to follow.
The FDA allows companies to follow what is
referred to as a "voluntary consultation" process that does not involve a
comprehensive scientific review. The agency has, however, not used its authority
under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to require labelling of GE foods.
In fact, according to Henry Miller, chief of biotechnology regulation at the FDA
during 1979-1994:"In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly
what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."
The USDA "monitors" field trials of new GE
varieties -but applications for field-testing are never rejected. It deregulates
crops based on information given to it by the seed companies.
×Genenews
HomeØ
NextØ |
