Country Regulation Labeling
Latin America Yes/No Brazil: Yes, if the product contains more than 1% of GMO ingredient it must be label.
Mexico: No regulated
Uruguay: No regulated
Australia Yes Yes: Mandatory labeling
Canada Yes No: Voluntary labeling
India Yes Yes. All the GMO´s must be approved by the government (GEAC).
Japan Yes Yes: Mandatory and voluntaryaccording with the ITEM. Threshold level 5%.
South Africa Yes No: Voluntary labeling
United States Yes No
European Union Yes Yes. Threshold level 0.9%.
UK Yes Yes Threshold level 0.9%.
The genetic engineering is one of the most important hardware to provide a technological impulse to the agricultural and cattle industry, from their production up to their transportation and distribution, sinceit is translated in an increase in the volumes of production, major useful life (conservation), increase of the nutritional quality and protection to the environment.
At the moment the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the normative instrument more important at international level,
Regulating the movement of organisms genetically modified out of the limits, while other institutions such asthe Codex Alimentarius provide standards food safety and the World Trade Organization exerts influence on trade in GM crops.
Once a country has signed the regulations and international treaties (agreement), it must define a regulative internal framework to establish their national policies. Although there are countries such as United States that determine their national policies independently,without be ratifying in international agreements as the Cartagena Protocol, as mentioned earlier.
Although personally I do not doubt the safety and reliability of the transgenic foods that are currently in the market, and the protocols developed by countries and industries which led in this branch they seek to protect the consumer (human or animal) and the environment, it is a reality that mostGMO products that are commercialized have been developed by companies who seek a profitable business, so this marks the good intentions of greater generation food that would allow knock down the hunger that exists in the world, being idealistic vision that is the only thing that causes a greater mistrust in the introduction of this type of crops in developing countries.
Currently one of thebiggest problems with this type of food is the exports of genetically modified crops from United States to Europe. The European Union has established the precautionary principle as a basis of the positions - generating risk of genetically modified foods. This principle indicates that new technology cannot be implemented until it’s prove that really will not cause harm to the human health, animaland environment; the requests for obtaining the appropriate permissions remain pending until they proofs that the new food is safe.
I believe that it is possible to establish some damage hypothetical cases in the evaluation of the products in order to grant the permission, and the food transgenic would stay without being able to be registered and used, in which this precautionary principle istaking us to a deadlock; this problem can be worsen more when there’s observed pressure of the sectors that request not only the labeling of food GMO (which is compulsory for Europe), but also labeling the meat from animals that have been fed by GMO, for what it might be assumed that the GMO food for animals will be tested by Europe in addition to meet the labeling of the final product (meat).
Asopposed to this principle, United States believes that the precautionary principle constitute a barrier to the technology and trade, although this country can use the same precautionary principle focused in other aspects, for example: declaration of additives on labels. Based on the request of Europe to verify that the GMO food are safe, USA and Canada have shown that they could not find any...