Australian and New Zealand GM food labelling standard one of the most comprehensive in the world
Friday 28 May 2004
A review of labelling of genetically modified (GM) food, conducted by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), has found that Australia and New Zealand have one of the most comprehensive labelling regimes for GM food in the world.
The final report of the Review of Labelling of Genetically Modified Food ,commissioned by the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, is now publicly available.
Three years ago Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food agreed to mandatory labelling for GM foods. These requirements came into force in both countries in December 2001. They require any food, food ingredient or processing aid produced using gene technology and containing novel DNA and/or novel protein or having altered characteristics to be labelled as ‘genetically modified’.
As Australia and New Zealand were among the first countries in the world to introduce GM labelling, in August 2003, Ministers requested that FSANZ conduct a review to compare our GM labelling requirements with international practice.
In Australia and New Zealand all foods produced using gene technology must be safety assessed by FSANZ before they can be sold. The labelling requirements for GM food are not about safety; they are designed to enable consumers to make informed choices about what foods they eat.
The review found:
- Although Australian 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.
- In Australia and New Zealand the majority of consumers welcome mandatory labelling of GM food so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. Consumers in other countries also hold these views.
- 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 regulations for the labelling of GM foods vary markedly from country to country. For example, the EU permits accidental contamination of foods with small amounts of unapproved GM commodities in the food supply while Australia and New Zealand does not permit any unapproved GM commodities for sale or use in the food supply.
A copy of the full review can be found on the FSANZ website www.foodstandards.gov.au .
Media contact: Lydia Buchtmann FSANZ (02) 6271 2620 or 0401 714 265 mobile
Attachment
Questions and answers about the Review of Labelling of Genetically Modified Food
How is the safety of GM food assessed?
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) carries out rigorous safety assessments of genetically modified commodities, based on internationally accepted principles, to ensure that they are as safe as conventional food. To date FSANZ has approved 23 GM commodities which consist of varieties of GM corn, cottonseed, canola, sugarbeet, soy and potato. A GM wheat is currently being assessed for safety as a food by FSANZ however the applicant states they are not going to grow this wheat in Australia or New Zealand. Of these, only cotton is currently grown commercially in Australia - although there has been an approval by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to allow the commercial growing of GM canola..
What are the current requirements for the labelling of GM food in Australia and New Zealand?
The standard for the labelling GM food came into force in December 2001 and requires any food, food ingredient or processing aid produced using gene technology and containing novel DNA and/or novel protein or with altered characteristics to be labelled as ‘genetically modified’. As the labelling requirements are based on the composition of the food, an exclusion exists for highly refined foods, where processing has removed all novel DNA and/or protein. There is also an exclusion for minor ingredients such as processing aids and food additives where novel DNA and/or protein does not remain in the food to which it has been added. An exemption to the labelling requirements exists for food prepared for immediate consumption such as in restaurants or takeaways, however, consumers can ask if any ingredients come from a GM source.
The produce (meat, milk or eggs) of animals fed GM crops does not have to be labelled as there is a complete breakdown of that crop in the digestive system and none of the altered DNA becomes part of the animal.
This standard also allows up to 10g/kg (1%) unintentional presence of GM food or ingredient in a final food. This exclusion applies to circumstances where the manufacturer has actively sought to avoid GM food (including ingredients or processing aids) but there is an inadvertent presence of GM material. The food manufacturer would be required to demonstrate that they have sought to source non-GM food for their product.
When developing the labelling standard it was decided not to base it on tracing ingredients back to the original source to see if they were GM or not. This would have been very complicated for manufacturers to set effective systems in place to trace their ingredients overseas and also difficult for enforcement agencies to police. This process would have added considerably to the cost of food and these additional costs would have been passed on to the consumer.
Why was the review carried out?
When the then Australia New Zealand Food Standards Ministerial Council agreed to the requirements for the labelling of GM food they requested that the requirements be reviewed three years from their gazettal in December 2000. In August 2003, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to carry out a Review of Labelling of Genetically Modified Food.
What were the terms of reference of the Review?
The Ministerial Council specifically asked FSANZ to:
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.
2. Compare the current Australian/New Zealand requirements for GM food labelling with the requirements of the EU, USA, Canada and APEC countries.
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 the EU, USA, Canada and APEC countries.
4. Summarise developments in the Codex Alimentarius in respect of a standard for the labelling of GM food.
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.
What were the findings of the Review?
The Review found:
- International regulations for the labelling of GM food vary markedly from country to country but when compared to APEC countries, the Australian and New Zealand regime for the labelling of GM food is one of the most stringent in the world.
- Only certain aspects of the new European Union requirements for GM food, which are based on method of production labelling rather than the composition of food, are more stringent. One aspect of the EU system which is less stringent is that the EU permits accidental contamination of foods with small amounts of unapproved GM commodities in the food supply while Australia and New Zealand do not permit any unapproved GM commodities for sale in the food supply.
- In Australia and New Zealand the majority of consumers want mandatory labelling of GM food so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. There is some support for method of production labelling rather than labelling based on the composition of food. Consumers in other countries also hold these views.
- Despite international efforts over several years to develop a harmonised labelling standard for GM food through the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), consensus on the nature and scope of such an international standard has not been possible.
- 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. For the combined total of 168 products tested, all but one was considered to be compliant with the labelling requirements of Standard 1.5.2. The non-compliant product was identified in the New Zealand survey and tested positive for the presence of GM material in an amount more than the 10g/kg (1%) of novel DNA and/or novel protein permitted in an ingredient of a non-GM food where the presence is unintentional. Enforcement action was initiated, the product was recalled and the labelling rectified.
- The surveys therefore 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.
Are manufacturers in Australia and New Zealand complying with the labelling rules?
Yes. In 2003, separate industry compliance surveys were undertaken by enforcement agencies in Australia and New Zealand to ascertain the level of compliance with the GM labelling requirements of Standard 1.5.2 and to assess the systems that food businesses have in place to ensure ongoing compliance. Both surveys had two arms of investigation, product testing and document audit.
Product testing found a high level of compliance in Australia and New Zealand with the labelling requirements of Standard 1.5.2. Product samples tested were those that were not positively labelled as containing GM ingredients but contained soy or corn ingredients that may potentially have been derived from a GM food. No non-approved GM varieties were found in the New Zealand survey and Starlink corn, a non-approved GM variety, was not found in any of the Australian samples tested.
For the combined total of 168 products tested, all but one was considered to be compliant with the labelling requirements of Standard 1.5.2. The non-compliant product was identified in the New Zealand survey and tested positive for the presence of GM material in an amount more than the 10g/kg (1%) of novel DNA and/or novel protein permitted in an ingredient of a non-GM food where the presence is unintentional. Enforcement action was initiated in this instance, the product was recalled and the labelling rectified. This clearly illustrates that the labelling requirements are enforceable.
Can the GM labelling standard be enforced?
Yes. The onus is on food businesses to develop and implement procedures to ensure that food products meet the requirements relating to the labelling of GM foods. The user guide ‘Labelling Genetically Modified Food’,available on the FSANZ website at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/assistanceforindustry/userguides/index.cfm sets out the principles of due diligence and the need for manufacturers to adopt verifiable documentation systems to demonstrate that there is not a requirement to label the product as a GM food or containing GM ingredients. This in turn enables enforcement agencies to undertake audits of manufacturer’s documentation to ensure due diligence and is being exercised. Enforcement agencies may also supplement documentation audits by product testing as appropriate. This is illustrated by the New Zealand compliance survey, discussed above, where a non-compliant product was identified and tested positive for the presence of GM material in an amount more than the 10g/kg (1%) of novel DNA and/or novel protein permitted in an ingredient of a non-GM food where the presence is unintentional. Enforcement action was initiated, the product was recalled and the labelling rectified.
Enforcement agencies in the states and territories and New Zealand will continue to monitor compliance with GM labelling.