GM food-labelling debate on the table for legislators
The debate over the labelling of genetically modified (GM) food will come to a head this week with Legco being asked to pass a motion calling for the introduction of a mandatory system 'as soon as possible'.
Fred Li Wah-ming, who chairs the panel on food safety and environmental hygiene, said it was proposed to phase in the system.
'We want the government to establish a genetically modified food labelling system for pre-packaged food products as soon as possible by adopting a 'voluntary first and then mandatory' approach in order to safeguard consumers' right to know and to choose,' he said.
But he expects stiff opposition from the food trade and Liberal Party legislators. Liberal Party member Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, who represents the wholesale and retail sector, will put forward an amendment removing any reference to a mandatory system and calling on the government to issue guidelines for voluntary measures.
In spite of overwhelming public support for a mandatory system, the government maintains that the labelling of GM ingredients in food products should be on a voluntary basis, although all products containing GM material would be subject to a mandatory 'safety assessment' before being distributed in Hong Kong.
Greenpeace GM campaigner Sze Pang-cheung said: 'Given that pre-packaged products already have all kinds of labelling and most producers have some kind of policy on GM food, I think the mandatory labelling should be implemented in less than a year's time.'
Connie Lau Yin-hing, who heads the Consumer Council's research and survey division, said recent tests had showed between 30 and 40 per cent of food samples contained GM food. None was labelled accordingly.
The Legco debate, to be held on Wednesday or Thursday, follows years of deliberation on the issue. Legislators have been urging the government since January 2000 to introduce a mandatory labelling system. In February 2001 the government also issued a consultation paper proposing labelling if the GM content rose above a specified threshold.
In a round of consultation in 2001, more than 90 per cent of respondents voiced support for a mandatory system, and in a recent Democratic Party survey, 62 per cent of consumers were in favour compared with 52 per cent two years ago.
But the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau presented a plan to Legco in March this year which effectively ruled out the possibility of a mandatory system, citing the 'significant' cost to the food trade and a lack of international consensus on the issue.
A government-commissioned study put the cost of mandatory labelling to the food trade at between $16 million and $91 million. But supporters say this is a drop in the ocean for a '$100 billion industry'.
On the question of consensus, Mr Li argues there is no sense in waiting for agreement to be reached by Codex - a multilateral organisation recognised as a reference body on food safety issues.
'The US and Canada, two of the largest exporters of GM food, will always try to influence Codex because they have their own agenda. We shouldn't wait - we should protect the people of Hong Kong and consumers now,' he said.
Greenpeace points out that other countries have not waited - so far, 35 have introduced mandatory labelling.
