Example no.3: Briefing Note (Hardcopy Lay Out Differs From This Blog)

GM Labelling Practices in Australia

The Australian Government’s policy for labelling genetically modified (GM) food is considered adequate. The labelling of GM food is only required for consumer choice, not safety.   

BACKGROUND:

In Australia, the Food Standards Code is developed and administered by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). FSANZ is responsible for food labelling requirements, as well as regulating the use of ingredients, processing aids, colourings, minerals, additives and vitamins (FSANZ).

FSANZ is part of the Australian Government’s Health Portfolio, and is an independent statutory agency established by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ).

The enforcement and interpretation of the Code is up to each individual state or territory departments and food agencies (FSANZ).

Labelling requirements for GM food falls under Standard 1.5.2 – Foods Produced Using Gene Technology. The Standard was included in the Code in 2001.

The Code states GM food must be labelled “Genetically Modified” if:

·      A food, ingredient, additive or processing aid contains novel DNA or protein

·      Or, where genetic modification results in altered characteristics

 Exempted from labelling:

·      Products with a less than 1% cross-contamination of a GM ingredient

·      GM food items with no altered characteristics

·      Flavourings containing less than 0.01% of a GM ingredient

·      Food products derived from animals that were fed GM grain (“Australia New Zealand Food Standard”)

The Gene Technology Act 2000 makes a distinction between genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically modified (GM) products. A GMO is an organism modified by gene technology, or has inherited traits from a GMO. A GM product is derived or produced from a GMO.

FSANZ states labelling GM food is for consumer choice, not safety.  All GM food undertake independent safety tests by the manufacturers, which are then reviewed by FSANZ. Only when the food is considered safe for consumption is it allowed to be made available to the public.

The safety tests are in accordance with scientific advice from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO) and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (FSANZ).

STAKEHOLDERS:

Against changes to the labelling Standard:

·      Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC)

·      Australian National Retailers Association (ANRA)

·      Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd

·      Monsanto

·      Cargil

·      WAFarmers (Western Australian Farmers Association)

For changes to the labelling Standard:

·      Choice – Australian Consumers’ Association

·      GM Free Consumers Network

·      Greenpeace Australia Pacific

·      Public Health Association Australia (PHAA)

·      Woolworths Limited

·      Organic Federation of Australia (“An Investigation of”)

CURRENT SITUATION:

There is a clear division between stakeholders who believe the requirements for labelling GM food are appropriate, and those who want them increased. Stakeholders who want the requirements increased are under the understanding that GM products are unsafe for eating and the environment, and labelling all GM food would give them peace of mind (“An Investigation of”).

Across Australia, these stakeholders are signing petitions on Change.org and Choice to request all GM products be labelled. They are also sending proposals to change the Standard through FSANZ.

KEY ISSUES:

Issue no. 1:

Labelling GM products carries controversy. Many stakeholders, such as Greenpeace and the Public Health Association Australia, declare GM foods are unsafe. They state GM foods cannot be produced naturally without scientific help, and producers of GM crops are not being honest about the risks involved with their products.

 Choice - the Australian Consumers’ Association state there are no independent studies into the benefits or risks of GM food, and the producers of GM crops, such as Monsanto and Cargill, only release studies that support the safety of their products.

However, according to FSANZ, food scientists carefully review all submissions for GM food, and request additional data if the information is not sufficient. Only food that has passed these reviews gets approval to be released for public consumption.

Issue no.2:

Products exempt from labelling is also an issue for stakeholders. FSANZ says these foods are exempt because the characteristics or composition are the same as non-GM food.

Products derived from animals that were fed GM grain are also exempt because they are not considered a risk since the grain has been tested for safety.

CONSIDERATIONS:

The Australian Department of Health, and the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food have both conducted independant reviews into the relevancy of the GM labelling Standard.

In 2008, the WA Department of Agriculture and Food released “An Investigation of Labelling Genetically Modified Food.” In 2011, the Australian Department of Health issued the report “Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Logic.”

 The WA review decided to keep the Standard as it is, and found:

·      Consumers are interested in more information about GM products

·      53% of consumers were concerned about the safety of GM products

·      69% of the consumers wanted increased labelling of GM products

·      Producers and retailers of GM products were concerned with the cost of manufacturing if the labelling requirements were to be increased

The Australian Department of Health review also found the current Standard 1.5.2 to be sufficient, and did not require changing since FSANZ considers GM products to be safe for the public.

The United States Food and Drug Administrator (FDA) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the United Kingdom also state GM labelling is only required for consumer choice.

ANALYSIS/COMMENTS:

Changing the GM food labelling Standard would increase the cost of manufacturing and the cost of produce for consumers. It would also have a financial impact on producers as some consumers may not continue buying their products once they have been labelled “Genetically Modified” (Byrne).

OPTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

No recommendation required

CONCLUSION:

FSANZ is satisfied GM foods hold no safety concerns, and all testing is done rigorously and scientifically. Because of this, foods containing novel DNA and protein, or foods containing altered characteristics or composition are labelled; All other GM products are no different from their non-GM counterparts, so they do not require labelling. The GM food labelling Standard is appropriate and does not require altering at this time.

  

Works Cited:

Australian Government. Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial          Council. Response to the Recommendations of Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy (2011). 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.

"Australia New Zealand Food Standard Code 1.5.2: Food Produced Using Gene Technology."  Australian Government: ComLaw. N.p., 20 Dec. 2000. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

Byrne, P. "Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods." Colorado State University. N.p., Sept.        2010. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. N.p., 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.       <http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx>.

"GM Labelling." FSA: Food Standards Agency . N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.

Government of Western Australia. Department of Agriculture and Food. An Investigation of      Labelling Genetically Modified Food. 2008. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.

"Guidance for Industry." FDA: US Food and Drug Administration. N.p., 21 Feb. 2014. Web.       5 Apr. 2014.

"List of Genetically Modified Product Approvals ." Australian Government: Department of          Health. N.p., 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Oakenfull, David. "Genetically Modified Food Risks." Choice 17 Feb. 2010. Web. 3 Apr.             2014.