Financial Times

New labelling and approval of GM food laws
Don’t frighten the public- business community
As the government prepares to present regulations approving the import, sale and labelling of genetically modified (GM) food, the country’s business community pleaded for laws to be framed in a way that it wouldn’t scare off the public on GM food consumption.

“The laws should be drafted in a way that allows the consumer to make an informed choice ... not scare them off. We are not opposed to regulations as long as it’s reasonable and practical,” noted Delano Dias, member of the GM Food Interest Group of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC).

This is the second attempt to present regulations relating to GM food after the business community cried ‘foul” in May 2001 when the rules were introduced without much discussion and had to be quickly suspended for further review. The Health Ministry’s Food Advisory Committee (FAC) announced a ban on the import of GM foods in May 2001.

Under this 21 types of food were to be banned in Sri Lanka, the first country in the region to resort to such a move. This included some Soya products, tomatoes, beat sugar and some yeasts. Environmentalists at that time said this was temporarily suspended due to pressure from the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Australia, New Zealand and the US government.
The latest attempt to introduce these regulations, which would allow approved imports and ensures labelling of GM products, was discussed at a briefing session last Friday on GM food organized by the CCC.

Dias said assurances of food safety on labelling, etc should not be perceived as a warning but as information. “People generally think GM means poison. We should provide knowledge and information to consumers … not create a monster with these regulations,” he said, adding: “otherwise the regulations will fail.” However, Dias’ presentation which reflected a general business community viewpoint showed that the private sector is not opposed to regulating the import of GM food, unlike their outcry when the ban was enforced in 2001.

He said it was up to scientists to present the facts relating to the new technology and declare whether it is good or bad. Dias said the business community is not averse to regulation and noted that a competent authority should be set up to authorize and regulate bio-engineered foods. “We will support laws that are workable and acceptable to all.” He also raised an interesting point that if a consumer insists on having a GM product, his or her rights shouldn’t be excluded from the proposed legislation.

Prof. Athula Perera, National Coordinator of the National Biosafety Framework Development Project of the Environment Ministry, explained in detail about genes and its connection to man and food.

He said with the new technology scientists could produce blue roses or change the colour of a flower to any size, shape or any combination. Bio-technology has transformed the way strawberries are made. For example, scientists transplanted the gene of a fish that lives under ice in the ocean to help grow strawberries during the winter.

He said bio-technology has a wide range of applications in the food industry.
Prof. Perera, saying he was neither supporting nor opposing GM technology, noted that some risks to human health include toxic effects or whether GM proteins can cause new allergies and could GM crops affect another crop.

“No one has real answers to this because no long term research has been done.” He said under the new regulations one would need a permit to import GM food. For example if soya bean plants are imported, that product would be sent to the Agriculture Department which in turns sets up a committee to assess the risk, etc. If there is no proven harm, an import certificate is given.

Back to Business