Press Releases

Legislative Council Motion debate on Labelling System of Genetically-modified Foods

The following is the speech by Secretary for Environment and Food, Mrs Lily Yam, in response to the motion debate "Labelling System of Genetically-modified Foods" at the Legislative Council Meeting on 5 Jan 2000 (Wednesday):

Madam President,

First of all, I would like to thank Honourable Members for expressing their views on many aspects of the motion debate. The subject of Genetically-modified foods (GMF) is a new one which is gaining public attention. It is also controversial. I hope this debate will generate a more in-depth study and discussion on GMF in our community.

Food Safety - Principles and Main Points

Before discussing the problem of GMF, I would like to briefly outline the principles of the current food safety policy and its implementation:

First, the objective of the policy is to ensure that foods available on the market for human consumption are wholesome. Section 54 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (PHMSO) provides that food manufacturers or sellers have the legal obligation to ensure that all kinds of foods prepared or sold are fit for human consumption. To ensure that the Ordinance is complied with, the Department of Health has all along been sampling and testing different foods (especially high-risk items)when they are imported or introduced into the market. With the establishment of the new structure, this work has been taken over by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). However, whether or not a food item is safe, especially whether or not it causes allergy, depends very much on the individual. At present, there is no scientific method to prove that any particular food is "absolutely safe" and "absolutely harmless". We assess whether a certain food is fit for human consumption on the basis of our accumulated experience. Unless we find that a food product contains an ingredient which may harm human health, we will regard it as safe.

Second, in terms of implementation, the FEHD and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) are stepping up food surveillance at various points of the food chain (including food manufacturing, importing, slaughtering, transportation, wholesaling, retailing and cooking). The FEHD also encourages the food business to adopt the "Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point" system and carry out focused surveillance of food manufacturing as a preventive measure. The FEHD also provides the public with more information on food safety.

Food Labelling System

As for the current food labelling system, according to the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, pre-packaged food for sale should be labelled in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. The ingredients, durability, names and addresses of manufacturers or packers, as well as special conditions for storage or instructions for use should be listed. The FEHD ensures that food labelling is in compliance with the provisions of the Regulations through publicity, giving advice to the food business and sampling and testing food items available on the market.

GMF

GMF, the subject of today's motion debate, has aroused public attention only in recent months. In fact, human beings have for centuries been altering the genetic make-up of crops by methods such as cross-breeding, to increase the yield, to enhance the resistance of crops to diseases or to improve product quality. With the development of biotechnology in recent years, human beings have mastered more sophisticated technology to extract specific genes from some living organisms and then copy and transplant them into crops so as to alter certain characteristics of the crops; or even alter the characteristics of some foods, by increasing or improving certain substances in the foods to enhance their nutritional value.

The subject of GMF has generated considerable disputes in foreign countries and in Hong Kong recently. Some organizations are worried that GMF may have adverse effects on the environment and the ecology in the long run. Some organizations and individuals even query the safety of GMF. Several Members have just reflected the views of these organizations. I have to stress that there has so far been no scientific or medical evidence that foods produced with genetic modification technology are inherently hazardous or pose any threats to the health of human beings. As far as we know, GMF available on the international market today have all undergone stringent pre-market safety assessments by the regulatory authorities of their places of origin. These precautionary measures are endorsed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of the United Nations (UN). Just now the Honourable Dr Tang has cited some examples regarding the safety of GMF. To avoid arousing public panic, I would like to make some clarifications concerning these individual incidents with the information obtained by the experts and medical professionals of the FEHD who have looked closely into these incidents.

First, let me address the incident concerning contaminated L-tryptophan. Investigation after the incident has indicated that the toxicity of the L-tryptophan was caused by contamination by other by-products in the course of production. It has no direct relationship with genetic modification. Second, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that the use of rBST growth hormone to stimulate milk production of cows poses any threats to the health of human beings. The use of rBST is prohibited in the European Union (EU) and Canada not because of its impact on the health of human beings, but because of concern for animal welfare. Third, the problem regarding the detection of allergenic substances when Brazil nut genes were transplanted into soya beans was identified in the course of experimentation. The experiment was discontinued accordingly and the product has not been introduced into the market. This incident shows exactly that the stringent requirements adopted in the process of experimentation can indeed reduce the risks of GMF. Finally, there is so far no medical and laboratory evidence to suggest that antibiotic-resistant marker genes may produce germs that are resistant to antibiotics and foreign countries are gradually moving towards using other marker genes in place of antibiotic-resistant marker genes. Nevertheless, in view of the short history of GMF production by means of biotechnology, the long-term effects of these foods are not entirely known yet. Genetic modification may also pass on allergenic substances, which may affect a small number of individuals who are allergic to certain foods. In view of these, the Administration has all along been paying close attention to the development of GMF.

GMF Labelling

As for GMF labelling, different foreign countries have different approaches. Some countries are of the view that consumers have the right to know, and a labelling system will enable them to decide whether to buy foods containing GM substances. Yet, there are variations in the implementation of labelling systems in different countries. The EU imposed a comprehensive mandatory GMF labelling system in September 1998. Recently, consideration has been given to setting a de minimis treshold and exempting foods containing less than 1% of GM material from GM labelling. However, some regard this approach as too lenient. In Australia and New Zealand, it has been decided that a comprehensive GMF labelling system should be established, but the actual implementation plans are yet to be drawn up.

On the other hand, some countries are of the view that GMF should be regarded as safe if they have already passed the pre-market safety assessments by the regulatory authorities of their places of origin. Besides, there is no scientific evidence to support that GMF are inherently harmful. Thus labelling will only be required for GMF that differ substantially from their conventional counterparts in terms of composition, nutrition or use. This is the view of the United States and Canada.

Due to the different views, the issue of GMF labelling is still under deliberation by international organizations (such as the FAO, WHO and OECD). A consensus is yet to be reached.

In the case of Asian countries and territories, only Japan and South Korea have decided to go for GMF labelling. For Japan, labelling of 28 food items (which include mainly corn and soya bean products) will be required from April 2001. Edible oils and sauces will be exempted because the GM substances cannot be detected. Labelling will also be required for GMF which are substantially different from conventional products. South Korea will require the labelling of GM corn, soya bean and bean sprout form March 2001. Other Asian countries and territories are still considering the issue and have yet to decide whether a labelling system should be implemented.

Issues to Consider in Setting up a Labelling System

I have to point out that in considering whether a GMF labelling system should be set up in Hong Kong, we should take into account different international opinions, practices and experiences as well as study in depth the practical issues including the scope and standard of such a system, how to test GM compositions, how to set up a sampling and enforcement mechanism, the resources required, costs to be borne by the trade in complying with the labelling requirement, and whether the costs will be passed onto consumers.

Concerning these practical issues, I would like to give a brief account of the factors that we have to consider:

The first factor to consider is how to define the scope and standard for regulating GMF. As I have mentioned earlier, at present, different countries have different regulations and standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is in the process of formulating an internationally recognized standard, but it is unlikely to be in force before 2003.

The second factor is also very important and that is how to effectively detect the presence of GM ingredients in foods. The existing testing methods cannot identify all food items produced with genetic modification technology. For example, we cannot identify whether highly refined food products like edible oils, sugars and sauces have been produced from GM raw materials. Hong Kong relies on imports for most of its food products and ingredients for food manufacturing. As most countries have not yet implemented a comprehensive GMF labelling system, in most circumstances, the importers cannot count on any documentation issued by the suppliers or the regulatory authorities of the places of origin to ascertain whether the imported food items or ingredients contain GM substances. If food traders are required by law to conduct tests on their own, there will not only be a problem regarding the accuracy of the test results, but also an increase in operating costs for the trade, which may eventually be reflected in the prices of the products. Although I understand that Members have great expectations of the new Bureau, I must not try to win Members' applause by pledging to immediately legislate for the setting up of a labelling system. Legislating is undoubtedly the simple part, but enforcement will be very difficult. If we introduce legislation to set up a labelling system without being sure about how to enforce it, the system will be meaningless.

Generally speaking, pre-packaged food items have to undergo many processing procedures and they consist of numerous ingredients. Some of the more common GM agricultural products, such as soya beans, corn and tomatoes, can be used to make different kinds of food items, ingredients and food additives. According to our rough estimate, there are over 6 000 kinds of food items on the market that contain soya beans, corn or tomatoes. If comprehensive and stringent tests have to be conducted to ascertain whether these food items contain GM substances, the FEHD will require a large amount of extra manpower and resources. At present, the new Department is engaged in other pressing issues, such as stepping up surveillance on high-risk food items. It is a great challenge to deploy resources effectively so that due attention is paid to all our tasks.

The Way Forward

Today is the third working day since the establishment of the Environment and Food Bureau. One of the important tasks of the new Bureau is to review the existing food safety policy, and to see how improvements can be made. The issue of GMF labelling has been the subject of growing public concern. Although there is no scientific or medical evidence to prove that GM foods are harmful to the human body, I agree that we do have to actively consider how to provide consumers with more information regarding GMF so that they can make an informed choice. The Administration will therefore study in depth the feasibility of setting up a GMF labelling system in a rational, pragmatic and prudent manner. At present, we are studying in detail and analyzing the practices of other countries, as well as their effectiveness and difficulties encountered during implementation. Later on, we will consult the Advisory Council on Food and Environmental Hygiene which will soon be set up on the issues involved. Members of the Council will include academics and experts in the medical and food research fields, representatives from the food business and members of the public. We will also keep the relevant Legco Panels informed of the progress of the study. While we are studying the feasibility of introducing legislation to set up a labelling system, the Honourable Howard YOUNG's suggestion that food manufacturers be encouraged to label GMF items also appears to be a possible approach.

At present, there are still considerable misconceptions in the community about GMF. I agree that we have to increase the public's knowledge about GMF. The FEHD will include GMF as a topic in their public education efforts so that the public will not blindly accept erroneous information about GMF.

Thank you Madam President.

END/Wednesday, January 5, 2000