Food > Biotechnology >Labelling 

Codex Alimentarius Commission

What is the Codex Alimentarius Commission?

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the international body established in 1962 which administers the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Food Standards Programme. The purpose of the Programme is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade; to promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations; to determine priorities and initiate and guide the preparation of draft standards; to finalize standards and after acceptance by governments publish them either as regional or world-wide standards.

What is Canada's role with respect to labelling under the Codex Alimentarius Commission?

The Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) is one of the committees of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Canada chairs the CCFL. This committee is charged with considering international food labelling issues, drafting labelling provisions applicable to all foods and amending them if necessary, and endorsing provisions on labelling prepared by the Codex Committees drafting standards, codes of practice and guidelines. In addition, the Committee is assigned by the commission to study problems with labelling and advertising of food, with emphasis on claims and misleading descriptions. Codex member countries have been requested to consider their national positions with respect to food labelling matters, including the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology, for further discussion at the next CCFL meeting in Ottawa, from May 1-5, 2006.

Are Codex members only from government?

Many international organizations are present and can participate in discussions as observers but have no member voting rights. Some of these are the Consumers International Union, International Dairy Federation, International Federation of Grocery Manufacturers Associations, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Canadians are also represented in some of these international organizations.

What has happened at Codex re: labelling of food products biotechnology?

1994

At the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) meeting on October 24-28, 1994, member countries initially discussed the issue of the labelling of genetically engineered foods and considered a discussion paper prepared by the United States on the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology. During these discussions, views were generally split among countries favouring mandatory labelling only for the introduction of any potential health or safety concerns to food products, and those countries advocating that labelling be required under all circumstances. All countries were asked to develop a more definitive national position for discussion at the CCFL meeting in Ottawa in May 1996.

1996

At this meeting, some delegations and observers called for the mandatory and comprehensive labellingof all products prepared with the aid of genetic engineering. The position of these delegations and observers was that consumers desire to make choices based on a variety of considerations that include the origin and method of development of a product, agronomic practices, as well as personal values.

Some delegations and observers stressed that labelling should address the specific concerns of safety (including potential allergenicity), nutrition and food composition, all of which could be subject to scientific study and evaluation, and that labelling should be considered on a case by case basis in view of these considerations. The provision of consumer information, other than that required for the purposes of safety, nutrition and food composition, could be considered by means other than labelling.

Other delegations, including the European Union, stated that the situation in their countries was still under review and that taking a position on the matter would be premature.

The Government of Canada, reported on consultations and discussions that had been held in Canada on this matter and indicated that its position regarding the labelling of foods derived through genetic engineering remained under development.

As there was again no consensus among member countries on the labelling of these foods, the CCFL agreed to seek guidance from the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission on how guidelines respecting the labelling of such foods might be written. The Executive Committee agreed to have the Codex Secretariat prepare a document for the consideration of member countries at the next session.

1997

At the 25th session of the CCFL held April 15-18, 1997, in Ottawa, the background discussion document, Recommendations for the Labelling of Food Obtained Through Biotechnology (Feb. 27, 1997), containinggeneral labelling recommendations, was introduced and received preliminary discussion. The document proposed that foods that are no longer equivalent based on composition, nutritional value or intended use be labelled. Approaches to address allergens were also included.

Many delegations indicated that they did not have the time to review the document in detail in order toestablish their national policy. The CCFL agreed that as a first step, formal member government comments would be solicited in order to identify the issues to be addressed and provide direction for the work of the committee.

1998

In February 1998, the CCFL Secretariat released a revision to its February 1997 document based on the formal comment received from member governments. This revised document was discussed at the meeting of the CCFL in Ottawa, May 26-29, 1998.

The main components of the revised document remained the same as the 1997 document proposing labelling for foods that are no longer equivalent based on composition, nutritional value or intended use. It also gave the opportunity to provide comments on the concept that all foods that are or contain genetically modified organism be labelled.

The CCFL held an open, constructive discussion, which gave participants the opportunity to share theirviews on the latest proposal. Good progress was made in refining a definition of "products obtained through biotechnology" and on mandatory labelling for the presence of allergens.

Less progress was made in discussions on mandatory labelling for products that were not equivalent compositionally, nutritionally or in their intended use. A number of European countries and India expressed a preference for mandatory labelling of all foods from biotechnology, indicating that mandatory labelling for non-equivalent products only was not sufficient.

Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Peru and Brazil supported labelling based on safety, composition, intended use and nutrition, consistent with their national laws on labelling. Japan indicated that it was awaiting a decision of a government committee currently studying the question.

1999

A revised document incorporating ideas expressed at the 1998 CCFL meeting was releasedfor discussion at the April 27-30, 1999, meeting, but no further agreement was reached with respect to the labelling of foods obtained through biotechnology that are equivalent nutritionally, compositionally and in terms of their use. As a result, a Working Group was established to try to improve the text over the course of year. Twenty-three countries, nine international NGOs and the European Union agreed to be part of the Working Group. A smaller subset of this Working Group (Australia, Brazil, Canada, the E.U., Germany, Japan and the United States), the "Drafting Group", met November 3-5, 1999, provided updated text to the larger Working Group for further comment.

2000

At the May 9-12 meeting of the CCFL, two options for the labelling of biotechnology-derived foods, were under consideration: Option 1, mandatory labelling based on changes with regard to a food's safety, composition, nutritional value, or intended use; and Option 2, mandatory labelling as detailed in Option 1, plus mandatory labelling based on the method of production. Consensus was not reached on either of the options. Therefore, the CCFL agreed to merge the options into a single draft Codex Guideline document and to take into account a number of questions related to the implementation of the labelling of biotechnology-derived foods.

Canada had chaired the previous year's Working Group, which was successful in clarifying the two labelling options. Canada agreed again to chair the new Working Group created to explore the Guideline approach. Thailand and India were added as members of the smaller "Drafting Group", which met at the end of October 2000.

Other significant progress was made in that requirements for mandatory labelling for critical allergens was achieved, and final approval was sought from the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2001. Agreement was also reached to move a number of critical definitions to Step 6 of the 8-step Codex approval process.

2001

The "Drafting Group" met again in February 2001, to further develop a Codex Guideline in which the two Options for labelling are blended.

A revised text based on comments received from the Working Group was presented toCodex member countries for considerations at the 2001 CCFL meeting held May 1-4 in Ottawa. The CCFL was unsuccessful in further advancing the health and safety provisions in the guideline at this meeting because of time constraints. The CCFL was however,successful in having negative labelling considered for further discussion, including the review of a paper drafted by Austraila and South Africa.

Agreement was also achieved on a clear set of definitions that was put forward for adoption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. These definitions are consistent with those established under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Codex Task Force on Food Biotechnology, and as a result, member countries will be able to use common terminology in any subsequent discussions.

At the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Geneva (July 2-7, 2001), mandatory labelling of allergens in foods derived from biotechnology, as proposed by the CCFL, was adopted as an amendment to the general food labelling standard, however, the definitions proposed were returned further comment.

2002

At the May 6-10, 2002 meeting, the CCFL discussed the draft guidelines at length and minor positive changes were made to the text. However, the CCFL was not able to advance the health and safety-related labelling provisions of the draft guideline to the next step of the Codex approval process.

Some delegations were resistant to moving this text forward, as it would de-link health-and safety-related labelling from method of production labelling.

Consensus was not reached on the draft Guidelines and the CCFL agreed to consider the draft Guidelines as its next session in Ottawa, April 28 to May 2, 2003.

2003

From April 28 to May 2, 2003, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) met in Ottawa, and considered issues relating to draft Guidelines on the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology.

Prior to the CCFL meeting, Canada submitted a discussion paper, which described an approach to facilitate progress within CCFL on those key elements where there is international consensus.

It should be noted that this agenda item, including Canada's paper, was not discussed at the CCFL meeting. Instead, the Chair of CCFL proposed the creation of a Working Group, which was endorsed by CCFL. The working group was tasked to develop options for the management of this agenda item, for consideration at the 2004 CCFL meeting in Montreal, May 10-14.

The Working Group established included Argentina, Australia, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, the United States and the European Community.

Canada hosted the Working Group meeting from October 28-30, 2003, in Calgary. At the meeting, there was considerable interest in maintaining a single proposed draft guideline document with a mandatory component and other optional provisions. However, there was no consensus among Working Group members on how to address the issues related to "optional" labelling. The final meeting report was presented at this year's CCFL meeting in Montreal, which took place from May 10 to 14, 2004.

2004

At the Montreal meeting, Canada led a group of interested delegations, at the Chair's request, to develop a draft project plan for a proposed ad hoc working group that would carry out work between the 2004 and 2005 meetings. After some discussion, formation of the working group was rejected. As a result, the CCFL chair, Dr. Anne MacKenzie, indicated that the committee would return to discussing the specific text, as currently drafted, at next year's meeting in Sabah, Malaysia, from May 9 to 13, 2005.

2005

At the meeting in Malaysia, the Delegation of the European Community (EC), as well as other delegations, accepted principles expressed in the Canadian position. The Committee agreed to restructuring the guidelines to include two levels of labelling: (1) for mandatory labelling provisions relevant to changes in product composition, nutrient content, presence of an allergen, and end use and (2) for voluntary labelling provisions relevant to method of production.

The Committee decided to establish an "electronic" working group to reconstruct the guidelines, taking into account all the written comments received and the discussions during the 33rd Session. The working group is to be led by Canada, with the participation of several other delegations and non-government organizations (Argentina, Australia, Austria, European Community, Brazil, Ghana, Germany, Guatemala, india, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S., BIO and Consumers International).