FED: Ministers chew over genetic labelling laws
AAP 15.12.98 07:47
Copyright 1998 The Australian Associated Press. Redistribution
unauthorised.
By Katrina Willis
CANBERRA, Dec 15 AAP - For years public health officials have
been telling Australians to be more aware about what they eat.
Food labelling laws have been boosted to require a raft of
details so that those who care to can check the contents listed
on packaging.
But Australian health ministers now are considering what on the
face of it appears a change of direction when it comes to
genetically modified food.
All genetically modified food will have to be tested and approved
by the national food authority and all food which is
significantly modified will have to be labelled under a ruling
the ministers made last July.
But the rules for food deemed "substantially
equivalent" to its conventional counterparts are to be
decided this week when ministers consider a recommendation
against labelling.
The prospect of not requiring labelling follows industry lobbying
and the possibility of action before the World Trade Organisation
(WTO).
Those against labelling argue the genetic alteration makes no
significant change to the food's composition, that it would be
very difficult to regulate, and would cause trade difficulties.
Proponents of labelling argue that consumers should have the
opportunity to choose whether to buy such products, and that
there is uncertainty about the long-term implications, noting
disagreement among scientists.
They also point to the labelling requirements of European Union
countries which Australian exporters would need to meet.
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council meets on
Thursday to reconsider the matter after deferring a decision last
July to examine international developments.
But the international situation is far from clear.
The EU requires labelling of all genetically modified food but
recently changed its rules to develop a list of exemptions for
certain processed products.
Even with this change the EU rules have a stronger consumer focus
than those in the US and Canada which do not require labelling of
substantially equivalent food.
Japan is still considering the matter.
The international food standards body Codex has prepared a draft
standard but has not been able to reach agreement on labelling of
substantially equivalent food and a decision is unlikely before
June 2001.
The issue could be determined before the WTO disputes panel.
The US and Canada have taken action against the EU standard,
claiming it constitutes a technical barrier to trade.
Australian opponents of labelling substantially equivalent food
point to this WTO action in support of their contention that
labelling could harm Australian trade.
But supporters of labelling argue that consumer rights to
information should not be considered a trade barrier, and that
failing to label all genetically modified food would cause
difficulties for exports to Europe.
Genetic technology alters the genetic properties of organisms to
achieve certain outcomes. In some cases, genes from one organism
are introduced to another to change characteristics.
Scientists in Australia have been working for years on genetic
manipulation of plants: from growing cotton resistant to pests to
blue carnations.
The regulatory body overseeing trials, the Genetic Manipulation
Advisory Committee, assessed 399 proposals for trials last
financial year.
Millions of hectares overseas are planted to modified cotton,
canola, maize and soybeans, according to GMAC's latest annual
report.
Applications for approval to import and sell six products from US
company Monsanto, including pest-resistant cotton, will be before
the ministers on Thursday.
Proponents of genetically modified plants point to benefits from
reduced chemical use, better nutritional value, elimination of
allergens, extension of shelf life, improved appearance of foods,
and greater, faster output.
Those wary of the technology say the long-term consequences for
people and the environment are unknown.
They point to the history of early assurances for other products
like DDT and thalidomide that later proved harmful. At the very
least, they say, people should have the information to choose.
The food and agribusiness industries seek to allay people's
concerns.
Monsanto acknowledged in nationwide advertising in Britain
earlier this year that people were uneasy about the technology
after Prince Charles expressed his opposition to genetically
altered food.
If Australian industry groups pushing for no labelling of
substantially equivalent food win the lobbying battle on Thursday
they still have the public to convince.
The peak national body, the Australian Food Council, today cited
public misunderstanding as the impetus for establishing a panel
of independent scientists to vet information it relies upon to
make its claims about the safety of new technology food.
AAP kaw/jg/jnb