Returning from negotiations with food giant Nestle in Switzerland over the labeling of genetically modified food, Shanghai resident Zhu Yanling again expressed her determination to ensure consumers' rights were respected.

The 33-year-old mother had bought the product called Nestle Nesquik - drinking chocolate - at a local Carrefour outlet on March 27 last year.

"I soon learned that the product contained genetically modified ingredients after reading a report by Greenpeace," she said. "As a consumer, my right to know the truth was infringed because there was no label on the package."

Zhu took the case to court, and sought to return the product and win compensation of 6.8 yuan (US$0.80), the price of one drink.

"The Chinese Law of Consumers Rights and Interests Protection has clearly laid down the consumers' right to know the truth," said Wu Dong, Zhu's attorney at a forum organized by Greenpeace and the East China University of Politics and Law.

Last month, Zhu and Wu flew to Switzerland together to seek talks with Nestle.

"I used to be a loyal consumer of Nestle, and I wanted the company to fulfill its responsibility to inform us of the truth," she said.

Zhu had studied in Switzerland and knew that the company had promised not to use genetically modified ingredients in its products on sale in Europe.

"Yet, in China, it is not this way, which shocked me," she said.

In China, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Public Health have issued regulations requiring the labeling of genetically modified food. The rules came into effect in 2002.

According to Ministry of Agriculture regulations, a total of 17 products categorized as soybeans, corn, rapeseed, cotton seed and tomatoes were the first that needed to be labeled.

Nestle China Ltd which had maintained a low profile in the dispute, said the product in question did not fall into any of the five categories under the Ministry of Agriculture's guidelines.

The company recently published a statement, saying that Nestle recognized that gene technology can improve food's quality and nutrition.

Legal loophole

The company also said it supported the application of the technology to food manufacturing based on desirable research.

However, Wu insisted that the company should also abide by the Chinese Law of Consumers Rights and Interests Protection.

"Also, the drink is not an agricultural or a raw agricultural product, which is the target of the regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture," he said.

The problem revealed a loophole in current Chinese laws and regulations.

"Nestle just took advantage of it," said Yang Changju, a professor from the Environment School of China's Renmin University.

Wu stressed that as a world-renowned firm, Nestle ought to shoulder some social responsibility.

"Obeying the law is the duty of every person and private companies should not violate laws," he said.

Closer inspections

However, the case became more complicated when a second test on the product late last month revealed that no genetically modified ingredients could be detected. The first examination last August had shown that such ingredients had been used.

Wu said that the two totally different results may be due to the use of two different testing methods.

"No matter what the result is, there is no denying that consumers find it difficult to know the truth about a product," Wu said.

Referring to the two opposing results, Wu Zhangzhu, China business manager for GeneScan, a leader in the field of molecular biological testing for genetically modified organisms in food, feed and agricultural raw materials, said that a test may not be that exact.

"Maybe an ingredient only accounts for less than 1 per cent of a product," he said.

"The process of obtaining and magnifying the gene is very complicated. There is a possibility that if a product contains a genetically modified ingredient, our tests may fail to spot it."

Greenpeace, also sponsor of Zhu's trip to Switzerland began research into genetically modified food available on the Chinese mainland in 2001 and had been on high alert to detect it.

"The argument over the technology applied to food still goes on," said Shi Pengxiang from Greenpeace. "Although there is no reported case of a bad effect on human beings, we cannot say the food is safe."

Shi stressed that scientists should do more research to evaluate the safety of the food and the potential risks of the wide use of GM technology.

Although labeling regulations came into force in 2002, many producers in Beijing and Shanghai did not begin to label their products until last summer when authorities in the two cities carried out large scale inspections.

Qiu Geping, a professor from the East China University of Politics and Law, said that producers should obey the law on their own initiative.

She said that if GM food was really safe, people would finally accept it.

"However, if producers try not to label, this may arouse people's doubts," she said. "This is absolutely bad and such a dishonest approach will not only affect sales and production but may damage the development of biological science."

Close

Today's Top News		Top Lifestyle News
+SOE laid off workers cut slack on taxes ( 2004-01-13) +Peaceful path to end proliferation ( 2004-01-14) +Top US military officer starts China visit ( 2004-01-13) +Party specific about fighting corruption ( 2004-01-14) +Britain's 'Dr Death' found hanged ( 2004-01-13)		+Clarity for consumers ( 2004-01-14) +Japanese sex comic book ruled obscene ( 2004-01-14) +Hot food adds spice to Hunan's economy ( 2004-01-13) +When games turn to battle ( 2004-01-14) +Keeping the beat ( 2004-01-14)