The SC70D Working Group, which had been established under the auspices of South African trade metrology legislation, reviewed the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) Legal Metrology Document “Labelling Requirements For Pre-packed Products & General Requirements For The Sale Of Goods” (SADCMEL 1), before submitting it to the SADC Committee dealing with Legal Metrology. The South African legislation on legal metrology was to be based on the final SADC-approved Document.  The working group further approved the amendment to Item 10 of Annex E, “Manner Of Expressing the Quantity and Prescribed Quantities for Certain Pre-packed Products” as follows: Subject to the requirements of 5.3 and 5.7 the quantity of the products in column 2 shall be expressed as prescribed in column 3 and, when packed in consumer packages, they shall be packed in the quantities prescribed in column 4.

Mr MW (Mike) Zingel Chairman: Legal Standing Committee

If no quantity is prescribed in column 4 they may be packed in any quantity.  Any product, which is required to bear a quantity statement but is not mentioned in this table, shall bear a quantity statement expressed by number and/or in the measuring unit most suitable to inform a purchaser of its value or fitness for purpose.  Products that are not packed and are measured at the time of sale shall be sold in the measuring units or by number as prescribed in column 3.

Codex Allimentarius is the United Nations body responsible for the standardization of labelling issues on agricultural products and foodstuffs derived from genetically modified organisms.  Its outputs are governed by the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the case of agricultural products and by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the case of processed foods.  No consensus had been reached after four years of deliberation on the labelling of agricultural products and processed foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

Owing to the lack of progress on the international front, local initiatives were launched in various countries and progress at this stage was at different levels.  In South Africa the local initiative has been under the auspices of Agricultural Product Standards and Foodstuffs, Cosmetics & Disinfectants legislation driven by the Food Labelling Advisory Group (FLAG) introduced for this purpose.

A draft proposal of Regulations under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics & Disinfectants Act, 1972  (Act No. 54 of 1972) on the labelling of agricultural products and foodstuffs derived from genetically modified organisms had already been released via Government Notice No. R. 366 on 4 May 2001.

These regulations provide for compulsory labelling in cases of significant differences encountered on the GMO-derived product in respect of:

- Composition;
- Nutritional value;
- Mode of storage;
- Mode of preparation; and
- Mode of cooking.

They also stipulated specific labelling requirements in cases of the occurrence of allergens causing hypersensitivity and genes of human or animal origin.

Provision for voluntary labelling was made in certain cases provided that authenticity could be substantiated by an acknowledged identity preservation system, as well as validation by an accredited certifying authority, i.e. in cases of claims of non-genetically modified foodstuffs and/or enhanced-characteristics due to genetic modification.

The regulations did not allow for the labelling of agricultural products as “GM Free” owing to the possibility of exploitation for marketing purposes, as well as the unavoidable adventitious presence of genetically modified organisms in conventional varieties of the same species in certain cases. 

Implementation of the Regulations had been subject to the release of an acceptable South African Standard on Identity Preservation still under development.  Very little progress had been made on the latter issue, however, and only a draft proposal was issued during the period under review.  There was an apparent lack of drive for the initiative and it seemed as though many of the stakeholders only strived to protect own interests.

The general feeling was not to adopt an existing identity preservation system from another country, but to develop a truly cost effective national system.  In this regard, serious consideration was to be given to an accredited certification body for that purpose.

It was further important to note that certain role-players had, in any case, implemented their own, private systems on identity preservation during the period under review.  It was expected that further progress on these issues would be made during the next interim.