Adventitious … or just money thrown out the window?

By Jochen Koester, IMCOPA (Europe) SA, Geneva, Switzerland
www.imcopa.com – jk@imcopa.com
(This is an edited version of an article published in the March 2007 issue of FeedMagazine/KRAFTFUTTER, the world’s oldest feed publication read worldwide.)

The EU Commission recently published the final version of its Report on the Implementation of Regulation No. 1829/2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. The Report addresses industry experiences to date regarding implementation of the Regulation, which established rules for labeling GM food and feed in the European Union. This article provides a summary of the Report’s findings that are relevant to the feed industry.

As a stand-alone, 0.9% requires GMO labeling
One of the most critical conclusions of the Report focuses on issues surrounding the terms “adventitious” and “technically unavoidable” in conjunction with labeling products as containing or produced from GMOs.
While the European food industry has no difficulty applying the Regulation’s terminology, it is alarming that the animal nutrition industry appears to have adopted a different interpretation, one that may lead its members on a collision path with national authorities.

Regulation 1829/2003, known as “the GMO Labeling Regulation,” in its Article 13, stipulates when food must carry a GM label. However, Article 12 (2) provides that these labeling requirements “shall not apply to food containing material, which contains, consists of, or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0.9% of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.” Rules equivalent to this are laid down for feed in Articles 24 and 25.

Experience shows that while the 0.9% threshold has been fully recognized and understood by the commodities and raw compound feed industries, the terms “adventitious” or “technically unavoidable” are overlooked. The reality is the Regulations turn on the key words “adventitious” and “technically unavoidable,” and not on the 0.9% threshold alone.

In light of Regulation 1829/2003, as discussed in the Report, and the significant volumes of soy meal that are currently supplied to the European feed industry as “non-GMO at less than 0.9%,” it becomes clear that any premia paid for this quality level are wasted money. If a feed compounder orders soy meal “non-GMO 0.9% hard IP” from his supplier of raw materials, he expects the product to have a GMO content below the indicated threshold, for example, at 0.7% or 0.4%. This demonstrates that the buyer is aware of the GMO content in the goods he has ordered – and that any GMO content thus accepted by him cannot be adventitious.

Consequently, all those industry players operating to a threshold of 0.9% for GMO content – expecting that this will allow them to avoid a labeling obligation of their products under Regulation 1829/2003 – are violating the very Regulation with which they are trying to comply.

Less than 0.9% and adventitious
The Commission’s Report clearly re-emphasizes the two-tier character of the criteria that must be met before products are exempt from GMO labeling requirements: product must contain less than 0.9%, and evidence must be provided that whatever GM material is present is adventitious. Specifically ordering raw materials “up to 0.9%” does not qualify as adventitious.

The fact that the rampant industry practice described above has not led to more complaints from the regulatory authorities in EU Member States is only because these government organizations are under-resourced.

In its conclusion, the Commission emphasizes that “the Food and Veterinary Office of DG SANCO (FVO) will pursue its missions in Member States with the objective of evaluating on the spot the official control systems implementing the legislation on GM food and feed.”

Precautionary GMO labeling and other practices
The report also addresses other outmoded practices that continue to be used by many feed industry companies. The Report states that some companies use the statement “may contain GMOs.” Such ambiguous statements are not allowed under Regulation 1829/2003.

In addition, the Report states that some companies label feed products as GM irrespective of the information provided regarding the origin of the products.

In short, the intent of Regulation 1829/2003 is for labeling to be more precise, and the reported practices fail to provide that precision.

GM-free labeling
The Report states clearly that the Regulation does not preclude the use of GM-free labeling, if accurate and non-misleading. The Report also clarifies the implementation of GM-free labeling schemes.

Two important points are made in this clarification: First, the Commission states that “GM-free” claims can only be made in the case of products that contain raw materials that could at least conceivably contain GMOs. As a result, soy meal could be labeled GM-free, but not barley, because barley is not available in GM forms. Second, for cases of products that “can be genetically modified or not,” the Report states, “A GM-free labeling cannot be excluded a priori.” The Report adds that some Member States have even developed national rules regarding this type of labeling.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Commission’s Report clarifies three key points important to the application of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 in the feed industry.

Most importantly, it clarifies what is required to avoid labeling of products as GM. Although some industry members have operated in the past in a manner that is not compliant with the Regulation, the Report implies that the Commission will be applying pressure to Member States to step up surveillance efforts. In light of this, it behooves the industry to ensure compliance with the Regulation.

The second point raised in the report states that the industry’s practices for labeling products as containing GM material need to be more precise; “may contain” labeling is not consistent with the requirements of the Regulation, and similarly, general labeling of all product as containing GM material (whether they actually contain GM material or not) is not compliant with the Regulation.

The final point is the Report’s clarification of the status of GM-free labeling, making it clear that such labeling is a real option for the industry, which opens a broader vision regarding the marketing of GM-free feed products.

Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report 2007. (March 2007).