FSANZ propose GM food modification

A new proposal to clarify definitions associated with genetically modified foods could “obfuscate the truth” surrounding how food is produced.

A new proposal to clarify definitions associated with genetically modified foods could “obfuscate the truth” surrounding how food is produced, according to a leading organic food producer.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand is arguing that current definitions that distinguish between “food produced using gene technology” and “gene technology” are outdated, and “do not reflect the diversity of techniques now in use, or that may emerge in the future”.

One of the items of contention in FSANZ’s proposal is a change to exclude certain foods from the new GM food definition, because the final product is equivalent to conventional food, even if it has undergone modification in the process.

“Under the proposed new definition, foods derived from organisms that do not contain novel DNA and are equivalent to conventional foods will not be regulated as GM foods. Such foods therefore will not require an application to FSANZ for pre-market approval or be labelled as GM foods,” an FSANZ spokesperson said.

Genetically modified bananas.

Peter Hislop Speers, chair of Organic Industries of Australia, said the impact of such a decision would remove the ability of consumers to know exactly where their products come from.

“The entire food industry is going in the other direction. We want increased transparency and increased provenance, and FSANZ is taking it in the opposite direction,” he said.

“Did it actually occur in a natural environment through cross breeding? Or did you actually dissect the genes out of the tree and insert those genes through scientific process into another tree. To me, (the difference is) pretty clear.”

FSANZ acknowledged submitted comments to the proposal that labelling should apply to all GM foods including foods made with new breeding techniques, but is proposing a switch from a process-based definition to a definition based on the outcome of the genetic modification process.

The advantages to this include flexibility, to address the development of new breeding technologies, and stability, with the definition less likely to become outdated, according to FSANZ.

However, Mr Speers said all forms of genetic modification need to be mandatorily labelled.

“If FSANZ says you don’t need to label GM, the assumption of consumers is that there isn’t any genetic modification. They would be shocked to find out that they were exposed to any long term risks (associated with GM food), as FSANZ didn’t require them to be told of that risk.