Clipping of news on Brazilian Culture, Law and Citizenship
08/30/2012
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
Although feature food industry, TRF's 1st Region judged mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically modified organisms, regardless of the percentage
The TRF (Federal Court) 1st Region judged as mandatory labeling of foods that have GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Although the Union and Abia (Brazilian Association of Food Industries) appeal against a previous decision of 2007 on Thursday (16/8) was published decision of the Fifth Chamber of the Federal Court of the 1st Region denying the appeal, ie, confirming required information on the label of all products containing genetically modified ingredients, no matter what its percentage.
The defendants argued that in view of the validity of Decree No. 4.608/2003, which states that for the labeling would be necessary to have an upper limit of 1% of GMOs in the product, the action would have lost the reason for its existence. But the justices disagreed with this understanding as the request by federal prosecutors Idec and was full of information, ie, without limiting the percentage of GMOs. Therefore, any product containing GMOs in its composition should inform it in its packaging.
"This decision is extremely important to consumers, because only with the full information in the product labeling, without any quantitative restrictions, they can use the right to choose whether or not to consume a food containing GMOs," said the lawyer Idec, Mariana Alves. "The consumer holds the right to information and the decision not only honor the provisions of the CDC (Consumer Protection Code) but also enhances the protection of life and health of the consumer."
Understand
In November 2007, it was deemed favorable to the consumer a lawsuit filed by Idec has determined that the Union authorize the sale of any food with GMOs since they were informed on the label the presence of these ingredients, in respect of the basic right to information under CDC. The Union would also be required to monitor compliance with the decision, including the collection of product nonconformity.
The Union and Abia then appealed to Federal Court (Federal Court) 1st Region requesting retirement decision - appeal rejected published this week. This decision is not yet final, fitting resources to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.
Source: Extra Online
Our news are removed entirely from the sites of our partners. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typos.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.