Split Codex puts off ok for synthetic beef hormone

by Chakravarthi Raghavan

Geneva, 13 July -- The Codex Alimentarius Commission at its recent meeting in Rome has put aside for the present efforts to agree on a standard for BST, a genetically- engineered synthetic hormone used to raise beef cattle, WHO/FAO officials announced here Tuesday.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a joint body of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization sets standard for food safety and health, and its standards are considered to be the "best available" scientific evidence.

The codex alimentaire standards are the benchmarks now for the WTO agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreements. At the time the WTO agreements were concluded, with codex (and the ISO) as reference points, most negotiators were led to believe these standards are adopted by consensus. It has come as a shock to them that Codex (and ISO) adopt standards by vote.

The codex standards of the maximum permissible levels of hormone use for beef cattle (and the residues left in beef), based on socalled prescribed dosage and good veterinary practices, have become an element in the current US-EC dispute over beef hormones.

The codex has so far agreed on use of some "natural hormones", but at its recent meeting in Rome decided not to go ahead and set the standards for a genetically engineered hormone, used in the US and some developing countries. It will be taken up by codex only when there is sufficient consensus on this.

The Commission decided to put this issue aside due to lack of consensus. And while it generally votes on these matters, the vote would have been too narrow, and "it would not have been in the interests of the Commission to take a decision by vote when there is no overwhelming consensus," Gerry Moy, acting coordinator of the food safety program of the WHO said in reply to questions at a press conference.

Moy, and his colleague, John Hermann, in explaining the several layers of the decision-making at Codex Alimentaire, laid stress on the food safety issues being decided by the JEFCA, the joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee on Food Additives.

This committee, Moy said, consists of independent experts from academic and other institutions, took decisions only by consensus, and thus above reproach.

Asked about the academic institutions having contracts with corporations, Moy and Hermann argued that there is a procedure for declaration of conflict of interest, and the scientists concerned do not take part in the actual decision-making.

It was not however clear from the answers whether the scientists from institutions linked with corporations do not participate in the meetings at all, or participate and express their views, but refrain from the actual decision.

Hermann and Moy also said that the safe limits of hormone residue set by codex in respect of the natural hormones were based on farmers using prescribed dosages and best veterinary practice, but said it was for governments to ensure these are observed.

Asked how this could be achieved in an era where deregulation and budget cutting was leading to laxer regulatory supervision, and whether the WHO and FAO realised that in sum it is their own credibility that is now at stake in the eyes of the public, Moy and Hermann referred to the new task force initiatives as aimed at dealing with some of these concerns, including consumer concerns.

At the Rome meeting, the Codex also adopted new international guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of organic food.

Moy said that partly as a result of the scares about genetic food, more and more consumers want "organic" food, but there is no way now to know whether the food sold under the "organic" label is so.

Organic food is now $9 billion industry in the United States.

The new guidelines define the nature of organic food production and prevent claims that could mislead consumers about the quality of the product or the way it was produced.

In the light of recent controversies over a range of products -- from beef-hormone to genetically engineered crops and their products in the food chain -- the entire system of codex alimantaire itself has come under challenge from a range of public interest NGOs and consumer groups.

And most recent disclosures, as a result of litigation and "discovery of documents" before trial, in the US relating to the US Food and Drug Administration approvals of Monsanto and other genetically modified corn and products, have aroused even more concerns.

The documents show that department's own scientists raised serious questions about the "safety" of clearing these GMO products without adequate testing on them for toxicity and other criteria, basing the approval on "substantial equivalence" of these products with natural products consumed by people.

Moy agreed on the need for careful study, nothing that the genetically modified tomato for longer shelf-life had to be used from the point of safety about the effects of the addition or deletion of the enzyme concerned.

The theory of "substantial equivalence" first enunciated in an OECD group decision in the mid-80s, and used by the Codex Alimantaire and others in clearing products for food safety has come to be challenged as an "unscientific" basis.

A number of molecular biologists and genetic scientists have argued that the characteristics and qualities and effects of the food may change as a result not only of the extraneous gene introduced from one species into another, but even the site on a DNA chain in which the introduced genome is lodged, and the mutations and variations that can ensue. Questions have also been raised over the anti-biotic and virus strains introduced as markers in genetic engineering.

Moy agreed that in the light of public controversies, and even consumer views and resistance, a number of these questions have to be studied, this would one of the things to be studied by the task force on biotech products.

While he cited some of the recent initiatives to meet public concerns, including the G-7 at their Cologne summit, asking a OECD Committee to address these questions, Moy agreed with a questioner that the OECD body might not be sufficient to address questions of public confidence.

The questioner pointed out that very recently, the OECD "research" programme had come out with a view that there is no evidence that "labour market flexibility" (i.e. reducing protection for workers in their jobs and security) creates more employment.

But the OECD secretariat head announced that this was only research view, but the "policy conclusion" and "recommendation" for introducing labour market flexibility remained.

The questioner asked how one could be satisfied that in bio-tech and food safety issues at the OECD, the interests of the corporation would not prevail over public interest.

Moy earlier announced the decisions of the FAO/WHO body (at its meeting in Rome 28 June to 3 July) to set up separate task forces to study and report on some of the controversial issues agitating public and consumers -- including bio-technology and safety of products with GMOs, and animal feeding.

The task force on food derived from bio-technology is to hold its first meeting in Japan in 2000 and complete its work in four years.

It has to develop standards, guidelines or recommendations for foods derived from bio-technology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology, on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis, and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices.

The task force is to submit a preliminary report in 2001, a mid- term report by 2002, and a full report in 2001.

The task force is to elaborate standards, guidelines or other principles as appropriate for foods derived from bio-technology; to coordinate and closely collaborate, as necessary, with appropriate Codex Committees within their mandate relating to foods derived from biotechnology; and to take full account of existing work carried out by national authorities, FAO, WHO, other international organizations and relevant fora.

In response to the recent European crisis in dioxin-contaminated animal products, the Codex meeting has set up another task force to accelerate adoption of a draft code of practice on good animal feeding.

This task force, to hold its meeting in Denmark, has a four-year time frame to complete its work, with a preliminary report in 2001 and a final report in 2003. The task force is to complete and extend the work already done by the relevant Codes Committees on the Draft Code of Practice for Good Animal Feeding; and address other aspects important for food safety,such as problems related to toxic substances, pathogens, microbial resistance, new technologies, storage and control measures.

A third, ad hoc task force, is to set standards on fruit and vegetable juices and related products, and to revise and update the methods of analysis and sampling for these products. (SUNS4476)

The above article first appeared in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) of which Chakravarthi Raghavan is the Chief Editor.

[c] 1999, 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 >