19th February, 2002
Hon. P. Dayaratne,
Minister of Health,
Ministry of Health,
"Suwasiripaya"
385, Baddegama Wimalawansa Mawatha,
Colombo 10.
Dear Sir,
Need To Re-Impose Interim Ban On Genetically Modified Foods
We trust that you would have received our letter of congratulation and good wishes on your appointment
as the Minister of health. We are a public interest group in the nature of a non-governmental organisation
working for the conservation of the environment through legal means.
We supported the regulations on Genetically Modified Foods, gazetted by the last government, which
have subsequently been suspended for undisclosed reasons. These regulations under the Food Act
banning the import or commercial manufacture of foods that have genetically been modified (using DNA
recombinant technology) have been indefinitely suspended, as has the parallel requirement that certain
types of imported food should carry a certificate from a competent authority from the country of origin
certifying that the food has not been genetically modified.
We are also informed that this ban recommended by the Food Advisory Committee (a statutory body
established to tender advice on these matters) will now be subjected to review by an ad hoc committee
having no statutory legitimacy.
We would respectfully point out that the suspension of the above mentioned regulation is unjustifiable,
both on scientific and legal grounds as set out below, especially since the original Regulation which was
due to come into force on May 1st of 2001 was already suspended for 4 months until September 1st to
accord with WTO requirements.
Scientific and Ethical Objections
1. The consequences of genetic modification on human health, environment and agriculture have not yet
been fully explored, and scientists from different parts of the world are continuously discovering
unexpected hazards. An example was the recent discovery by Belgian scientists of an unidentifiable
strain of DNA in the soyabean product of an American company.
2. Contrary to its supporters' views, genetic modification using DNA
recombinant technology is not an extension of natural breeding processes as it allows for the transfer of
genes between species such as animal and vegetable or even human and animal, an occurrence that will
never happen in the course of nature.
3. Vegetarians or persons under religious or cultural prohibitions not to eat a certain substance may find
they have unknowingly violated these values due to the introduction of foreign genetic material into foods
they thought were harmless.
4. Although genetic modification may be intended for some purpose extraneous to human consumption,
as in the introduction of foreign genetic material into food crops to make them pest-resistant, the genetic
mutations that result may have unforeseen effects on human consumers as well as indigenous agriculture
and the environment. The decision of the European Union to ban bt-corn is in recognition of this factor.
5. GM foods have been known to cause allergies, sometimes fatal , through products from which an
allergic reaction would not normally be anticipated. An example was the Tryptophan scandal that killed 37
people and seriously affected another 1500. As such, they could inherently be dangerous to health.
6. Widespread use of antibiotic resistant marker genes could contribute to the build-up of antibiotic
resistance.
Legal Objections
1. The pressure to do away with the ban as it appears, has been imposed on Sri Lanka by certain
developed countries whose commercial interests were affected. This is wholly unjustified because these
countries have a strict regulatory system governing the production and marketing of GM foods. An
example was the recent U.S. Federal Government investigation into Star Link corn, which reportedly
caused the Environmental Protection Agency to reject the corn as human food, on the ground that tests
conducted did not eliminate the risk of allergies.
2. The suggestion that Sri Lanka would be in breach of WTO regulations is not credible because several
WTO officials who were in Sri Lanka recently to hold workshops on the safety of GMFs and WTO
regulations had not spoken against the ban.
3. The Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 24th commission approved the first global principles on the
safety of GMFs, notably that the safety of food derived from genetically modified organisms should be
tested and approved by government prior to reaching the market.
4. Article 5(7) of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the W.T.O. itself states "In cases where
relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or Phytosanitary
measures on the basis of available pertinent information, including that from the relevant international
organizations as well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other Members. In such
circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective
assessment of risk and review the sanitary or Phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable
period of time."
5. This is in harmony with the precautionary principle set out in the Rio Declaration, which states that lack
of scientific certainty shall not by used as a reason for postponing preventive measures.
6. It is understood that the FAC had taken the measure to impose the ban only till such time as an
internationally recognized regulatory procedure relating to GM foods can be introduced. The need for
regulation was recognized even by Sri Lanka's own Chamber of Commerce, which called for restrictive
labeling, which is a measure in use in the European Union.
In all these circumstances we call upon you to re-activate the interim ban recommended by the FAC that
should have come into force on 1st September 2001. EFL is in possession of considerable scientific and
legal material on this issue and would be happy to assist your Ministry to formulate a more permanent
regulatory system.
Yours sincerely,
Ravi Algama
Chairman
Environmental Foundation