COMMENTARY

the department of consumer affairs,

GM Labelling in India Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Civil Supplies. It proclaimed amendments
A Step Forward? to the Legal Metrology Act 2009, updating
the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodi-
ties) Rules 2011 to the Legal Metrology
Kavitha Kuruganti (Packaged Commodities) Amendment
Rules, 2012. This was a fait accompli, deli-

The department of consumer
affairs recently mandated
compulsory labelling of
packaged genetically modified
food. Though segregation and
testing to ensure compliance is
a great challenge under Indian
conditions, implementation
is not difficult because India
has only a limited number of
genetically modified imports and
only one commercially produced
domestic crop – Bt cotton. This
note provides the international
context for the new rules and the
background on previous attempts
to mandate GM labelling.
Kavitha Kuruganti (kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.
com) is with the Alliance for Sustainable and
Holistic Agriculture.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW september 15, 2012
G
enetically modified (GM) product
labelling is back in the news. The
California Proposition (or Prop)
37 (also known as the Right To Know
Genetically Engineered Food Act) is a
keenly watched fight, to be decided in a
November ballot, between well-organised
citizens’ groups which want GM food to
be labelled and the powerful American
food industry which is keen on defeating
the initiative, by pumping in tens of
thousands of dollars in its lobbying.
In July 2011, a Codex Alimentarius
agreement on GM labelling was reached
after years of negotiation, which makes
national labelling laws less vulnerable
to World Trade Organisation (WTO)
challenges. It was decided that countries
are free to decide on whether to label foods
derived from modern biotechnology.
It is reported that worldwide, around
40 countries have developed some form
of labelling requirement (mandatory as
well as voluntary) including major food
importers like the European Union (EU)
and Japan, in addition to China, Australia,
New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil, Russia,
etc. While some countries go in for label-
ling for only those commodities which
can be tested for transgenic protein traces,
others require labelling as pertaining to
the production process itself, irrespec-
tive of whether the end product has GM
protein traces or not. India however has
been floundering on this for years now,
with the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare trying to take a lead, but not
progressing much on this front.
An Unexpected Development
India recently took a small step towards
labelling of GM food. This has been a
vexatious issue in the country, cropping
up again and again in various debates
pertaining to GM technology. Suddenly,
out of the blue, a notification (GSR 427 (E))
appeared on 5 June 2012 in an Extra-
ordinary Gazette publication, issued by
vol xlviI no 37
vered without much discussion. Through
this amendment, Rule 6 got a sub-rule
(6) inserted, requiring “every package
containing genetically modified food
shall bear at the top of its principal dis-
play panel the words ‘GM’ ”, to come into
effect from 1 January 2013. Admittedly,
many groups engaging closely with the GM
issue were also caught somewhat un-
awares when this development emerged.
The notification is clearly a step out of
the inertia that the labelling issue has
been caught in. By initiating the measure
with packaged commodities, at least one
aspect of the debate has been squarely
addressed: how labelling can be imple-
mented when most consumption occurs
in open, loose fashion is an oft-heard
argument. However, by applying it to
packaged commodities to begin with,
the front-end on the retail side has been
addressed, so to speak.
This is not all though. For something
to show up as a GM or non-GM product,
the entire supply chain has to be clearly
demarcated. In that sense, the back-end is
not ready, since starting from the farmer’s
household, much mixing up and aggre-
gation occurs, not to mention contamina-
tion through biological and other means.
Segregation of GM from non-GM is a great
challenge in this country and we might
end up in a situation where all packaged
foods might have to declare themselves
GM in any case, except if they are organic!
The next challenge is to be able to
catch those who are not complying with
the statutory requirement, which means
a system of sampling and testing in des-
ignated laboratories. It appears that the
department of consumer affairs is not
equipped for such a system as of now,
even though it is not difficult to put into
place such mechanisms. Testing labs do
exist in the country.
The good news, however, is that at this
point of time, GM imports can be traced,
since particular countries and particular
15
COMMENTARY
ingredients are easily correlated to GM
contamination possibilities. With only
one GM crop approved for cultivation in
the country – Bt cotton, whose seed oil is
entering the edible oil supply chain – im-
plementation of the new notification
should not be an issue. Further, the soy-
bean oil being imported is also mixed
with GM, because India imports from GM
soy-producing countries, with the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
sanction. Any agency not labelling its
edible oil product as GM should be able
to show that no blending of cotton seed
oil or imported soy oil has taken place.
Earlier Attempts
While the new development applies to
packaged foods, the efforts to legislate
around labelling go back to 2006, when
India attempted to amend the Preven-
tion of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act of
1955 to bring in mandatory labelling
of all GM foods. At that time, a draft
of an amendment to the PFA rules were
announced through Notification 152 (E)
by the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, on 10 March 2006 (in Section
23 of the Act, with a new insertion after
Rule 37D).
The amendment stipulated that:
– a GM food, derived there from, whether it
is primary or processed or any ingredient of
food, food additives or any food product that
may contain GM material shall be compulso-
rily labelled, without any exceptions;
– the label of all package(s) of GM food(s) or
foods containing ingredients, derived from
biotechnology or bio-engineering or food ad-
ditives or any food product that may contain
GM material shall indicate that they have been
subject to genetic modification. These provi-
sions will be applicable to all such products
both imported or domestically produced; and
– the label of imported GM food or derived
there from, whether it is primary or proc-
essed or any ingredient of food, food addi-
tives or any food product that may contain
GM material shall also indicate that the
product has been cleared for marketing and
use in the country of origin so that the veri-
fication, if needed can be taken up with that
country without having to resort to testing.
The definition given to genetically
engineered (GE)/GM foods in the draft
amendment was as follows:
Genetically engineered or modified foods
means food and food ingredients composed
of or containing genetically modified or
16
engineered organisms obtained through
modern biotechnology, or food and food in-
gredients produced from but not contained
genetically modified or engineered organisms
obtained through modern biotechnology.
Another rule proposed to be inserted
clearly reinforced the need for obtaining
prior approval of the GEAC (and subject
to conditions imposed by it) before the
sale of GM food (see 48-F: Restriction on
Sale of Genetically Modified Food).
This attempted notification came about
a decade after GM foods entered the
scene in a country like the United States
(US), and four years after India officially
allowed Bt cotton. The cotton seed cake
was being fed to cattle, dairy products
from such livestock were entering the
human food chain and seed oil was enter-
ing the food chain. The features that
stood out in the draft notification included
the following:
– It was mandatory to conform to the
labelling rules without any exception;
– Primary as well as processed foods,
which might have ingredients created
out of modern biotechnology, would come
under labelling rules: living modified
organisms as well as “products thereof”
got covered;
– There would be “zero tolerance” so
to speak, when it came to labelling
requirements;
– Food additives derived from modern
biotechnology would also be covered;
– Imports would have to meet an addi-
tional requirement of showing regulatory
clearance in the country of origin.
Public feedback was collected on the
draft notification and an expert committee
constituted to consolidate the feedback
and finalise the amendment accordingly.
Discussions in the two meetings held by
the expert committee focused on segre-
gation, traceability and identity preser-
vation issues, on validating testing meth-
ods and identifying designated referral
centres for testing, etc. The committee
finalised the rules as originally drafted,
in a meeting on 24 August 2006, with in-
dustry, farmers’ and consumers’ repre-
sentatives included in the committee.1
Inaction on GM Labelling
However, any movement forward on this
labelling regime was pushed into limbo.
september 15, 2012
Speculated reasons centred around the
American comments received in the
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade
(TBT) in the WTO, on the Health Ministry’s
proposed labelling rules in addition to
the Directorate General of Foreign Trade
(DGFT) notifications, vide which impor-
tant requirements were prescribed with
respect to GM food, feed and GM organism
(GMO) imports.2 The DGFT notified the
WTO TBT on 23 May 2006, close to the
17 May 2006 notification by the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare on the
proposed PFA amendments enforcing
mandatory labelling.3
The US expressed concern that the
proposed amendment will have the “un-
intended effect of discriminating against
foods produced through modern bio-
technology or containing ingredients or
additives from such foods”. It went on to
question the scope of the 1989 “Rules for
the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and
Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/
Genetically Engineered Organisms or
Cells” notified under the Environment
(Protection) Act (EPA) in India, governing
genetically modified organisms, arguing
that “the scope is vague and appears to
be broader than any other existing regu-
latory system in the world”. It is reported
that the approval system and labelling
scheme were also subject to concern from
Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Chile.
India responded by recalling that the
GEAC had existed since 1989 and that the
measures only required a more thorough
approach to applying existing measures.4
The DGFT conditions imposed on 7 April
2006 did not change. (Only an exception
was provided to the import of soybean
oil in July 2006.) These conditions man-
dated that:
at the time of import, all consignments con-
taining products which have been subjected
to genetic modification will carry a declara-
tion stating that the product is genetically
modified. In case a consignment does not
carry such a declaration and is later found
to contain GM material, the importer is
liable to penal action under Foreign Trade
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
It is another matter that so far, not a
single case has been seen where importers
of GM containing consignments have been
caught. Foods containing GM ingredients,
imported from the US, Canada, etc – crops
vol xlviI no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

like corn, canola, soybean are grown
from GM seeds in these countries, and
there is no system of segregation – have
not been cleared by the GEAC as per its
minutes over the years, though this is
a requirement of the DGFT notification
on the subject. In at least one instance,
testing by a civil society organisation
showed lack of conformity but GEAC did
not take the complaint to its logical con-
clusion. In one other case of an applica-
tion for importing 64 kg of pickles from
Japan containing GM ingredients (corn
and soybean) for a Japanese restaurant
in Delhi, the decision was deferred and
no subsequent discussion seen in the
GEAC minutes.5
The PFA Act, along with similar statutes/
orders, got consolidated in the Food
Safety and Standards Act of 2006. All
matters related to food safety and stand-
ards were brought under a single inde-
pendent statutory authority called the
Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI). It is noteworthy that the
FSSAI has not proceeded with the final
notification and enforcement of the
labelling rules till this day.
Initially, in response to queries includ-
ing by this author, FSSAI officials said that
they were still setting up the required
institutional and organisational mecha-
nisms for enforcing the statute. Only once
it was ready would they get into a labelling
regime for GMOs and products thereof.
Thereafter, the GM foods issue within the
FSSAI got entangled with developments
related to the proposed Biotechnology
Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill.
The BRAI Bill proposed that all living
modified organisms and food derived
from them (with or without GMOs) would
come under the purview of the Biotech-
nology Regulatory Authority, though GM
labelling might continue to be under FSSAI.
The FSSAI chief executive officer’s (CEO)
report for 2010-11 clearly shows that by
July 2010, all sections of the Act were
notified, except the provision regarding
GM food in Section 22. According to the
report, in compliance of a direction of
the Supreme Court, a schedule for the
framing of regulations on GM food label-
ling was submitted to the court and a sci-
entific committee within the FSSAI was
looking into the matter.6
Economic & Political Weekly EPW september 15, 2012
Further, when the FSSAI notified its
Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and Labelling) Regulation 2011, dated
1 August 2011, it was apparent that the
regulations mysteriously covered every
aspect, including mandatory labelling of
irradiated food, but not GM foods! Inter-
estingly enough, the matter of GM foods
does not figure in the 2011 regulations
related to Prohibition and Restriction on
Sales either! Subsequent amendments to
regulations also do not touch upon GM,
despite the fact that the Food Safety and
Standards Act clearly covers GM/GE food
or food containing such ingredients.
Section (22) expressly states that:
save as otherwise provided under this Act
and regulations made thereunder, no person
shall manufacture, distribute, sell or import
any genetically modified articles of food.
Today, FSSAI has its scientific panels
and committees in place, including for
GM foods and labelling. However, the
labelling issue is still in limbo.
Labelling as a Regular Feature
The issue of labelling has been frequently
brought up in various debates in the
country, including when the fate of Bt
brinjal’s commercial approval was dis-
cussed. The moratorium decision note
of the then Minister of Environment
and Forests suggested that FSSAI would
come out with mandatory labelling in
a footnote.
It appears that labelling questions were
explored by the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Agriculture too. Recom-
mendation Para No 6.148 of the 37th
Report of the Committee on “Cultivation
of Genetically Modified Food Crops –
Prospects and Effects”, presented to the
Lok Sabha on 9 August 2012 says:7
Having found out that during the last decade
or so of Bt cotton cultivation in the country,
lacs of tonnes of cotton seed oil extracted
from Bt cotton has gotten into the food
chain, with various agencies including the
Department of Consumer Affairs, FSSAI, etc.
being oblivious of this fact, the Committee
have sought an explanation of the Department
of Consumer Affairs from the point of view
of consumer protection, consumer rights, in-
formed consumer choice, etc, immediately.
It is interesting to note that depart-
ment of consumer affairs moved deci-
sively on the matter referring to the
vol xlviI no 37
COMMENTARY
committee, even before the committee’s
report was tabled. It is also reported that
the ministry elicited the views of state
governments and received an overwhelm-
ing response in favour of the move.8
The only thing that can be said about
FSSAI not notifying the labelling rules is
that there was a lack of political will as
well as problems relating to practicability
of implementation in many cases. But as
argued in the beginning of this article,
implementation is not a major challenge
at this point of time, given that India
has a few GM imports and only one com-
mercially produced GM crop domestically.
In that sense, upholding the consumer
right to know and to informed choice is
not difficult and therefore, should not
be withheld.
Incidentally, the Cartagena Biosafety
Protocol (CBP), centred around prior in-
formed consent related to trans-boundary
trade of GMOs and products thereof, will
have its Conference of the Parties serving
as the Meeting of the Parties to the
protocol (COP-MOP) in Hyderabad next
month. India and 162 other countries
are party to the protocol as of now. It is
legitimate to expect that the central
principle of this international agreement
will be extended into national legislations
also, with clear identification requirements
put into place, and appropriate standards
developed. Article 18 of the CBP relates
to handling, transport, packaging and
identification issues vis-à-vis living modi-
fied organisms (LMOs) and is part of the
COP-MOP discussions to be taken up in
Hyderabad in October.
Notes
1 “Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Expert
Group to finalise the draft notification GSR
152 (E) dated 10 March 2006 regarding label-
ling of GM Food held on 15 February 2007
at 10.30 am in Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi”,
chaired by Shiv Lal, additional director general
and director, National Institute of Communi-
cable Diseases.
2 See DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Notifications No 2 (RE-2006/2004-2009) and
No 4 (RE-2006), 7 April 2006 and 4 May 2006,
respectively.
3 Indian authorities notified the TBT that the
amendment was “to regulate sale and import
of genetically engineered or modified foods
and food ingredients composed of or contain-
ing genetically modified or engineered organism
obtained through modern biotechnology”, with
the rationale being to “provide correct infor-
mation to consumer about the nature of food
being purchased by them for consumption”.
17
COMMENTARY
4 See “Specific Trade Concerns: The Beetles, GMOs
and Those Novel Foods Again”, “Christmas
May Come Late This Year for the SPS Committee”,
Sanitary, Phytosanitary Measures Committee,
27-28 June 2006, last accessed on 22 August 2012:
www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/sps_
june06_e.htm. See also minutes of the meeting
of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade,
18
7-9 June 2006, G/TBT/M/39, 31 July 2006,
para 9, commenting on G/TBT/N/IND/12 and
G/TBT/N/IND/17
5 GEAC, July 2009.
6 “Report of the Chief Executive Officer, FSSAI,
for the year 2010-11”, dated 27 August 2011. Last
accessed on 22 August 2012: www.fssai.gov.in/
Portals/0/Pdf/Report_of_CEO(27-08-2011).pdf
september 15, 2012
7 As reported in Lok Sabha Secretariat, press re-
lease, 9 August 2012, p 2. For the report itself, last
accessed on 22 August 2012, see: http://164.100.
47.134/lsscommittee/Agriculture/GM_Report.pdf
8 Gargi Parsai (2012), “Centre Makes Labelling of
GM Foods Mandatory”, The Hindu, 21 June. Last
accessed on 22 August 2012, http://www.the-
hindu.com/news/national/article3551679.ece
vol xlviI no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly