Global GM food labelling laws
Agrifood Awareness Australia - Biotech Bulletin 8

INTRODUCTION

Over the last six months Australia has become increasingly targeted by a global activist campaign against genetically modified (GM) animal feed, which to date has primarily focused on the poultry industry. Activities have included people dressed in chicken costumes demonstrating at poultry producer offices, ports and major supermarkets, individuals placing graffiti on ships and office buildings, and at the more resource-heavy end of the campaign, a visit to Australia by a large international shipping vessel.

Media statements by campaigners have suggested that by eating animals fed GM crops consumers are part of a “giant genetic experiment” that presents “environmental concerns”. Sadly, they fail to acknowledge that over 140 animal feeding studies have been conducted around the world to assess the safety of GM animal feed (see www.animalbiotechnology.org/references.asp) with the broad consensus being that approved GM animal feed presents no risk over conventional feeds and has no impact on the end product, be that eggs, meat or milk. Australian-based campaigners have also failed to acknowledge that our own home grown GM animal feed derived from GM cotton, in its crop form, delivers significant environmental benefits.

In addition to the poultry campaign, a lobbying effort has been directed at changing Australia’s GM food labelling laws which exclude eggs, meat and milk from labelling on the basis that the GM ‘component’ – found in the animal feed - is undetectable in the end product. Ironically, this has come at a time when Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has completed a review and found that Australia has “one of the most comprehensive labelling regimes for GM food in the world”. In particular, the review, commissioned by the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council found:

• Although Australia and New Zealand were among the first countries in the world to adopt mandatory GM food labelling, these requirements remain among the most comprehensive, both in scope and breadth of capture, of any country in the world.
   

• Two separate compliance surveys conducted by enforcement authorities in Australia and New Zealand and finalised in 2003 found a high level of industry compliance with the labelling requirements. Of the 168 products tested, all but one was considered to be compliant with labelling requirements. The non-compliant product was identified in the New Zealand survey and enforcement action was initiated with the product being recalled and the labelling rectified.
   

• The surveys demonstrate that the labelling requirements can be effectively enforced using strategies which examine compliance plans and documentation held by manufacturers, and supplemented by product testing where appropriate. International rules for the labelling of GM foods vary considerably between nations. Some countries are in the process of discussing legislation, some have had mandatory laws in place for several years, and others such as Canada have opted for a voluntary labelling regime. This Biotech Bulletin highlights different systems in place around the world. Australia has taken a world-leading position in this area by implementing stringent, science-based regulation and being one of the first countries in the world to 2 introduce labelling laws which are not about safety, but respect the right of consumers to make informed purchasing choices.

The complete bulletin in PDF format is at http://www.afaa.com.au/biotechpdf/08_2004_Global_Labelling_Laws.pdf