Cancha Libre para Europa?

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS aprobó etiquetado de transgénicos anulando amenazas de Organización Mundial de Comercio

Como un triunfo histórico luego de ¡veinte años! de activismo califican las organizaciones de consumidores de todo el mundo, la decisión del Codex Alimentarius que legitima el etiquetado de transgénicos y libra de represalias a los estados que protejan el derecho a saber qué comemos en nuestros platos. Por más de dos décadas Monsanto, Bayer, Pioneer Dupont, Dow y otras empresas que participan del CODEX impidieron acuerdos en ese sentido, protegidas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos.

...

Los gobiernos decidirán libremente si etiquetan los alimentos con OGM

La Comisión del Codex Alimentarius, el órgano responsable de emitir las normas internacionales sobre la inocuidad de los alimentos, dejó a los gobiernos la potestad de decidir si etiquetan con OGM y cómo lo hacen.

Se ha decidido que "los gobiernos son libres de decidir si y cómo etiquetan alimentos derivados de la biotecnología moderna", señaló la comisión a través de un comunicado.

Sin embargo, en caso de que un país opte por el etiquetado, éste deberá ceñirse a ciertas directivas para "evitar potenciales barreras al comercio".

La presencia de organismos genéticamente modificados en los alimentos es una cuestión polémica y en varios países de la Unión Europea su cultivo está prohibido.

...

The GMO labeling fight at the Codex Alimentarius Commission: How big a victory for consumers?

Posted July 13, 2011 by Steve Suppan

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an overlooked international body with representatives of 136 governments, about 100 food industry associations, several intergovernmental organizations, and a smattering of consumer and other nongovernmental organizations. Codex food standards are recognized by theWorld Trade Organization (WTO) as authoritative, so seemingly small matters of wording in a standard often can have major international trade consequences. The Codex has a duel (and often conflicting) mandate to protect consumer health, as well as to write standards that facilitate international trade.

A standing item of contention on the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) for two decades has been whether or not to recommend to the commission the adoption of a labeling standard for foods with genetically modified ingredients. The United States and several other exporting countries of genetically modified organisms (or “foods derived from modern biotechnology” in the Codex terminology) had opposed any labeling of GMOs as “misleading even if true.” The justification for opposition was that even though governmental adoption of any Codex standard is voluntary, the adoption of a GM labeling standard would become an unfair trade barrier. However, at a June 16 meeting, the U.S. Codex Office announced that it would not oppose the adoption of a Codex guidance on the voluntary labeling of GMOs.

On July 5, Consumers International (CI) welcomed the commission’s adoption of a text to allow voluntary labeling of GMO products. IATP likewise congratulates the commission for deciding to allow governments to inform consumers of what they are eating with less fear of WTO-authorized trade retaliation. This is no small victory for consumers. However, The Codex text did not support the mandatory labeling that CI and IATP have sought. (The final labeling text and report of the July 4–9 commission meeting have yet to be posted on the Codex web site.) Governments that choose to label genetically modified commodities or foods with GMOs will be able to justify such labeling as a risk-management tool. For example, consumers who may suffer allergic reactions to GMOs, will now have the opportunity to identify what food or foods may have triggered their reactions. Such identification may aid medical personnel to speed the recovery of food allergy patients and GMO labeling will help enable them to avoid future allergic reactions.

For the implementation of GMO labeling to avoid a WTO trade dispute over an alleged unfair trade barrier, the labeling will have to apply to both imported GMOs and domestically grown or produced GMO food products. Nevertheless, the question arises, why did the U.S. government and the agricultural biotechnology industry it has served for more than two decades decide to allow the voluntary labeling guidance to be adopted?

These reasons and more should not overshadow the victory that consumer organizations have won in gaining for consumers the right to know what they are consuming. But neither should the scope of the victory be over-estimated. The implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture have been stymied by U.S. diplomatic efforts on behalf of the biotech industry, industry “seed purity” initiatives and World Bank loan program incentives to adopt GMOs as the platform for a “Second Green Revolution.”

...

If the adoption of GMO labeling is restricted to European Union member states, which are now under huge pressure from the European Commission to end its “zero tolerance” policy for so-called “low incidence” of GMOs in nominally non-GMO imports, then the victory of the biotech industry will be sweet. Consumers will have to swallow whatever agribusiness serves up in imported commodities and food—labeling, and consumers' right to know, be damned.