Thailand goes down tricky path of GM labelling

by Marwaan Macan-Markar

Bangkok, 29 Aug 2001 (IPS) -- As it inches its way toward labelling food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Thailand is grappling with the tricky questions of language and information that should appear on such labels.

For consumer rights advocates and environmentalists, the need of the hour is “complete transparency,” which means that labels should appear on any food product that contains any trace of genetically modified ingredients.

“The people have a right to know what they are eating,” said Saree Aongsumwang, secretary-general of Thailand’s Confederation of Consumer Organisations (CCO).  “They have a right choose food that is safe, and that can be assured if all products with GMOs are identified.”

“The food industry needs to be honest about their products,” added Jiragorn Gajaseni, who heads the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian wing of Greenpeace, the global environmental lobby.

Besides, she said, “If the manufacturers are confident about the safety of their products, they should back the idea of labels for all food that contain GMOs.”

But the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has been assigned the task of conceiving the national policy on GMOs in food products within the year, thinks otherwise.

In a draft of a GMO policy paper that it has made public, the FDA has recommended that Thailand follow in the footsteps of Japan, which has adopted a mandatory labelling policy for food that has more than 5% genetically modified ingredients.

“We have looked into the Japanese policy and feel there are merits in it as a model for us,” said an expert on food standards at the FDA, who requested anonymity. “Food producers will have to carry labels if their products have ingredients with more than five percent GMOs.”

However, the expert admits, the last word has still to be written on this policy. On 5 September, the FDA will hold the first of its public hearings on GMO labelling. “We need to gather more information from consumers, activists and the industry before making our final recommendations,” he added.

Greenpeace and the CCO will be among the groups present at the Bangkok hearing to question the FDA’s draft policy.

“The FDA’s idea of five percent is a mistake, for it denies the Thai people from knowing the GMOs that have contaminated their food,” charged Jiragorn.

Besides, Jiragorn says he is worried given the pressure that he says the FDA has come under from the food industry and foreign governments. “Its current position reveals a bias towards the food industry and countries producing GM foods, like the United States.”

So far, Nestle, the world’s largest food company, and the US embassy here say they support the Thai government’s moves toward GMO labelling.

“We welcome the initiative by the FDA to come up with a constructive solution to the current discussion on GM-derived food ingredients,” a statement by Nestle to IPS noted, adding that it will “strictly adhere to the regulations that are now being developed by the Thai authorities.”

The US embassy, which the pro-GMO labelling lobby says is against labelling and has been pressuring developing-country governments against it, also said it favours the FDA’s initiative.

“Every country has the right to make its own laws and to implement such regulation,” Joseph Yun, counsellor for economic affairs at the US embassy, said in an interview. “We hope that it would be based on science.”

“What about the consumers who do not want any trace of GMOs in their food?” asked Auaiporn Suthonthanyakorn, a Greenpeace campaigner. “Some of the food products contain GMOs that may not be to the liking of Buddhists (most Thais are Buddhists) or may be avoided by people for other cultural reasons. The FDA needs to respect them.”

According to Rene Vellve of the non-governmental organisation Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), Thai authorities should be unequivocal in their labelling policy by distinguishing between foods that have GMOs and those that do not.

“No one can say whether a 5% threshold is safer than a 1% threshold or a 0.001% threshold. Either a product contains genetically modified substances or it does not, full stop. That’s what the labels ought to indicate,” said Vellve, who is based in Manila.

This, she adds, is in light of the various ways in which people can react after consuming food with GMOs. The risks for consumers can include “hypersensitivity, toxicity, allergies, increased antibiotic resistance, lower nutritional quality and possible mutagenic effects,” she explained.

Thai consumers are aware of this and are demanding a stronger labelling system, says Witoon Lianchamroon, who heads the Thai Network on Biodiversity and Community Rights (BIOTHAI). “This right is even guaranteed in our new (1997) constitution.”

Such awareness is reflected in the results of two surveys conducted here. In 1993, a survey commissioned by CCO in Bangkok revealed that only 25% of some 300 consumers in the Thai capital were aware of GMOs.

At the beginning of this year, however, a survey commissioned by BIOTHAI among 334 Bangkok consumers revealed that 91% were aware of GMOs and “82% wanted mandatory labelling.”

According to Auaiporn, Greenpeace has been receiving daily telephone calls from mothers since it launched a nationwide awareness campaign in April about GMO labelling. “Mothers are among the regular callers. They often ask which foods contain GMOs and which they have to avoid,” she explained.

That campaign came in the wake of a study that Greenpeace and the local environment group Green Net had commissioned on 10 April, showing the range of food items available here that contain GMOs.

Based on laboratory tests done in Hong Kong, the report, ‘Genetic Engineering:

The Hidden Ingredient in Thai Food’ said that one in four food items sold in Thailand contained genetically engineered ingredients like soy or corn.

On that occasion, Greenpeace and Green Net named seven products that contain GMOs. They included Nestle’s Baby Cerelac, Unilever’s Knorr instant cream of corn soup, Nissin’s duck-flavoured cup noodles, Vita-Tofu soybean curd, Good Times instant cereal beverage and Pringles potato chips.

Most of the manufacturers of these food products denied having GMO ingredients.

“These GE ingredients were not labelled on the packaging, so Thai consumers have no way of knowing what they are eating,” the report by the environment groups said. “The outcome of these tests reveals shocking double standards by global food companies. These companies promise not to use GE food in Europe and Japan but are secretly selling GE food in Thailand.”

In a statement reacting to that report, Nestle had said, “There is only one standard for Nestle products, the standard that is used all over the world.”

“From all these processes, quality selection, examining raw material, production processes that are used globally and the quality and nutrition testing, we care about safety most,” the statement added. “We are confident that the safety of ingredients derived locally from such crops is assured through this evaluation process and are confident that they do not constitute a health risk.”

In the days ahead of its decision on GMO labelling, Jiragorn says the FDA must see the Thai consumer’s rights as its foremost priority: “The consumer needs to know all foods that are contaminated by GMOs.” – SUNS4958

[c] 2001, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user subscriptions please contact: suns@igc.org