Term of Reference 1

Prepare a review of GM food labelling legislation or regulation internationally (proposed and existing), with particular focus on the EU, USA, Canada and APEC countries.

It is our understanding that the EU will soon require labelling of foods that are currently not covered by GM labelling laws in Australia and New Zealand. It is our further understanding that the new EU laws include the labelling of additives and animal feed, and a traceability system for ingredients derived from GM plants when DNA or protein is not able to be identified in the ingredient.

Term of Reference 2

Compare the current Australian/New Zealand requirements for GM food labelling with the requirements of countries listed in (1).

As a result of on-going consumer pressure, there has been a trend for GM food labelling to be strengthened internationally over the last few years. The new labelling system in the EU is part of the continuing trend and goes much further than Australia’s. Survey results have repeatedly found that consumers want thorough labelling of GM foods (see appendices). Having now seen the new EU labelling laws, Australian consumers are unlikely to settle for anything less in Australia, and Australian governments and food industries should expect considerable consumer agitation for equivalent labelling laws here. Due to this pressure, we expect that Australia will eventually obtain equivalent labelling laws. The choice appears to be whether Australia adopts them now or after what may be a messy consumer-led fight that could harm confidence in the food supply, food regulators and food industries.

Because the EU is one of Australia’s major trading partners, many of Australia’s food producers and manufacturers will be required to effectively comply with this labelling system in order to export foods or ingredients to the EU. For these producers and manufacturers, an equivalent labelling and trace-back system in Australia will impose no extra costs. The establishment in Australia of a system equivalent to the EU’s will give Australia equal labelling and trace-back provisions to the world’s best practice. This will provide Australia with an export advantage over other countries. Furthermore, the results of FSANZ’s “Australian Pilot Survey of GM Food Labelling of Corn and Soy Food Products” confirms that many Australian manufacturers already have trace-back-type systems in place for potential GM ingredients.

In addition, a major aim of the FSANZ is to protect public health and safety. Any investigation into the possible consequences of GM food on public health would require an investigation linking any disease with the consumption of GM foods. This is almost impossible with our current labelling laws. We therefore recommend an adoption of the EU’s labelling laws with extensions described below so that FSANZ can best fulfil its public health and safety role for GM foods. To recommend otherwise would allow questions to be asked about FSANZ’s public health and safety credibility. This is particularly the case as a WHO/FAO document* has stated that there may be long-term sequelae from eating GM foods, there should be post market surveillance of GM foods and that traceability and labelling of GM foods and food ingredients are problems that should be addressed (pg 9 of the report).

Summary Point 1.

We therefore support the adoption of labelling laws in Australia similar to the EU’s with extensions, so that foods containing the following are all labelled in Australia: products from animals fed on GM feed (eg honey, meat, milk and eggs), highly refined products (eg oils and starches), food prepared at point of sale, processing aids and food additives using GM microbes, and GM flavours.

Term of Reference 3

Examine consumer attitudes in relation to the labelling and acceptance of GM foods, where they have been publicly reported in Australia/New Zealand and those countries listed in (1).

We have provided two publicly-reported investigations (one was published in Australasian Biotechnology) on consumer attitudes as appendices. It is clear from these reports that that there is considerable consumer concern about GM foods and that people want clear labelling. We also request that FSANZ take into account the submission on consumer attitudes by the Australian Consumers Association, as this is the main group representing consumers in Australia. This organisation could therefore be regarded as the organisation with a great deal of expertise in the area.

Food manufacturers are fully aware that 100% of their market is willing to eat non-GM foods, whereas a significant proportion of the market prefers to avoid GM foods. Consequently, it is in manufacturers’ interests to avoid GM ingredients. Therefore, proper labelling and traceability (as described in Term of Reference 2) will facilitate food manufacturers’ efforts to increase sales in both domestic and export markets.

Summary Point 2.

We therefore submit that there is significant evidence of considerable consumer concern about GM foods, that consumers want more thorough labelling in Australia than they have at present and that labelling as described in Summary Point 1 will go much further towards meeting consumer requirements than current labelling.

Term of Reference 4

Summarise developments in the Codex Alimentarius in respect of a standard for the labelling of GM food.

The Codex developments further reflect the continuing trend towards the tightening of GM food labelling laws, principally as a result of consumer pressure.

Term of Reference 5

Prepare in association with New Zealand Food Safety Authority and Australian State and Territory authorities a summary of implementation of the GM food labelling standard in Australia and New Zealand and report on compliance and enforcement with the Standard to date.

FSANZ has recently conducted a small survey of certain GM foods, principally those containing corn and soy and we have obtained a copy of the full report titled “Australian Pilot Survey of GM Food Labelling of Corn and Soy Food Products”. One reason for the survey was to determine compliance with the GM food labelling provisions of the standard (page 5 of the report).

We have the following concerns about this survey:

· No real rationale was given as to how potato products failed to make category I and hence were not surveyed.

· No rationale was given as to why certain products of a given GM food were sampled and others were not. For example, there was no rationale as to why sampling for GM soy concentrated on the heavily processed soy milk and completely omitted less processed versions of soy such as soybeans sold directly for human consumption, tofu, tempeh, soy sauce, processed meats and vegetarian alternatives to meat such as vegetarian burgers and sausages. Processing is known to decrease the amount of DNA and protein that can be tested.

· No rationale was given as to why 69 samples were collected and then why only 74% of these samples were tested.

· No information was given about how the samples were obtained. For example, were they randomly sampled, and if so, what methodology was undertaken to ensure this? Were samples obtained from only one supermarket or several? Were the supermarkets chosen by random selection?

· Our own survey of a large Coles store in Adelaide (Adelaide was the site of most of the FSANZ survey) on 12 September 2003, found 37 different types of soy milk in 3 separate sections of the supermarket. FSANZ tested 12 soymilks, that is, only 1/3 of the soymilks that we identified as being available for sampling. Of the FSANZ sample, a high proportion (42%) were positive to GM soy. Consequently, a bigger sample size may have identified one or more soy milks above the legal limit. It may be prudent to test all soy milks to determine if this is the case. A similar argument can be made for tacos where 75% of samples were positive for GM residues.

· It appears that the survey only assessed GM residues by varieties of GM soy and corn that are approved for sale in Australia (except for Starlink corn in some corn chips and tacos), rather than all GM soy and corn varieties available worldwide. For soy, the only GM variety that was quantitatively measured was Roundup Ready soy. The survey may therefore be underestimating the level of GM contamination in Australian food.

· On a small sample size, FSANZ has shown that management systems involving documentation do not prevent GM residues occurring in Australian food. We are therefore concerned that FSANZ then recommends that a document survey could replace direct measurement of GM residues in food in determining compliance with GM labelling requirements.

Furthermore, this small FSANZ survey is to our understanding the only survey of GM foods that FSANZ has ever done, even though labelling laws have been in place for some time. There also appears to be no provision for a repeat of this survey in its current form, or a more thorough survey. The lack of regular surveys of randomly-determined products prevents a determination of the true exposure of the Australian population to GM food thereby hampering epidemiological investigations involving GM food. It also means that inadvertent or deliberate inclusion of GM ingredients is unlikely to be detected. This may advantage less scrupulous manufacturers and suppliers and give them an unfair advantage over other companies. The lack of monitoring is also likely to have a detrimental effect on consumer confidence in the food supply and in the regulatory process.

It is also of concern that at present, it appears that enforcement may largely rest with Environmental Health Officers in local councils and shires. This is despite the fact that many foods are distributed nationally. It also makes enforcement unlikely due to EHOs’ cost and time constraints. We therefore seek to have the Commonwealth and/or State and Territory governments allocate money to a central agency to undertake a thorough basket survey at least every six months, of randomly-chosen foods that are likely to contain GM ingredients. The survey should also be designed to detect unapproved GM food ingredients.

Finally, the Australian Pilot Survey of GM Food Labelling of Corn and Soy Food Products states that “the National Association of Testing Authorities Australia (NATA) is the Commonwealth Government recognised national authority for accreditation of laboratories. It has not at this time accredited laboratories for the quantification of GMO residues in food products.” It is our understanding that this means that the admissibility of the results of any testing may be in question and that no Australian laboratory may be legally able to certify the results of its GM analyses. It is our further understanding that this means that the GM food labelling standard cannot be legally enforced. It is our further understanding that this unenforceability may be known to members of the food industry. This may further advantage less scrupulous manufacturers and suppliers and give them an unfair advantage over other companies. This lack of enforceability is likely to have a detrimental effect on consumer confidence in the food supply and in the regulatory process.

Summary Point 3.

It is our understanding that there is essentially no monitoring or enforcement of the GM food labelling standard and that in fact, the Standard is not currently legally enforceable. We therefore submit that all foods at risk of containing GM residues in the Australian food supply should be surveyed at least every six months, as described above and that the Standard be made enforceable.

* Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on allergenicity of food derived from biotechnology, 22-25 January 2001, Rome.