Labelling report betrays shoppers
31 January 2011The national food labeling review report* issued on Friday ignores public demand for full labelling of all foods made using Genetic Manipulation (GM) techniques. Of 6,000 individual submissions to the inquiry, more than 5,000 backed: "comprehensive disclosure of information on food labels about the use of genetically modified foods, foods produced using nanotechnology and the declaration of additives and allergens on food labels" (Report, P171).
"The Blewett panel scorns public demands for honesty and fairness in GM labeling by backing the status quo," says Gene Ethics Director Bob Phelps.
"Australians were first asked in 1994 about GM food labels and every survey since then finds that over 90% want all GM-derived foods to be fully labelled.
"Despite this, in recommendation 29 they say: 'only foods or ingredients that have altered characteristics or contain detectable novel DNA or protein be required to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label'.
"All GM vegetable oils, starches and sugars, as well as the eggs, meat and milk from animals fed GM feed and restaurant or takeway meals, are all exempt from any GM labelling.
"And a 1% threshold for 'adventitious' (accidental) GM contamination is also allowed. This allows many products to bypass the labeling law, selling processed foods that routinely (not occasionally) contain GM soy, corn, canola and cotton, and their derivatives.
"So Gene Ethics supports the positive recommendation 30: for governments to monitor compliance with the 1% threshold provisions but this should occur continually, not only when a contamination event is discovered.
"If GM contamination were found the panel recommends follow up testing but until now no governments (except NSW) have fulfilled their duty to test processed foods for GM presence.
"Some food processors appear to routinely sell unlabelled products (S26 infant formula for example) that include GM vegetable oils, starches or sugars containing foreign DNA and protein not removed by the refining processes.
"If adopted and fully implemented, we hope this proposal would make it more difficult for industry to process and sell GM-contaminated foods without labeling them GM.
"The panel's call to improve the resources and analytical skills necessary for GM testing is also welcome but does not redress the basic flaws in the labelling standard.
"Gene Ethics also supports their call to: 'develop as a matter of urgency a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in the food production chain' but they should also have proposed an immediate ban on nanomaterials in food and food packaging while the policy is developed.
"The requirement to label irradiated foods should continue and not be reviewed, as shoppers are entitled to know which foods are sterilized or disinfected with radiation," Mr Phelps concludes.
* Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy http://www.foodlabellingreview.gov.au/internet/foodlabelling/publishing.nsf/content/labelling-logic
Notes:
Labelling Logic: Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy
Recommendations on New Technologies Pp 87-94
Recommendation 28: That as a general principle all foods or ingredients that have been processed by new technologies (i.e., all technologies that trigger pre-market food safety assessments) be required to be labelled for 30 years from the time of their introduction into the human food chain; the application of this principle to be based on scientific evidence of direct impact on, or modification of, the food/ingredient to be consumed. At the expiry of that period the mandatory labelling should be reviewed.
Recommendation 29: That only foods or ingredients that have altered characteristics or contain detectable novel DNA or protein be required to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.
Recommendation 30: That any detection of an adventitious genetically modified event be followed by a period of monitoring and testing of that food or ingredient.
Recommendation 31: That foods or ingredients with flavours containing detectable novel DNA or protein not be exempt from the requirements to declare the presence of genetically modified material on the label.
Recommendation 32: That foods or ingredients that have been genetically modified and would require declaration if labelled be declared on menu/menu boards or in close proximity to the food display or menu in chain food service outlets and on vending machines.
Recommendation 33: That governments ensure effective monitoring of labelling requirements in the Food Standards Code relating to genetically modified foods or ingredients through support for sufficient Australian and New Zealand laboratories, observing world best practice protocols, and with the necessary resources and analytical skills.
Recommendation 34: That the requirement for mandatory labelling of irradiated food be reviewed.
Recommendation 35: That Food Standards Australia New Zealand and other relevant bodies develop as a matter of urgency a standard for regulating the presence of nanotechnology in the food production chain, consistent with the recommendations in this Report relating to new technologies.