News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 Barley 
 Toughen up GM food labelling, say scientists 

Toughen up GM food labelling, say scientists

27/10/2008 5:30:00 AM
State and Federal governments have promised an independent review of food labelling laws, which will revisit the "traffic light" system of labelling for salt, sugar and fat content.

The review was agreed to in principle at the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in Adelaide on Friday and will also examine the issue of labelling all food sourced from genetically modified crops.

The decision coincided with an open letter signed by 15 internationally recognised scientists protesting over Australia's comparatively lax labelling laws for GE food, sent to the federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, last week.

The letter calls for an urgent independent review of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, noting that the authority is one of only a few regulators in the world to have approved every single application it has received for GE products.

Many other countries are passing more stringent food labelling laws controlling GE foods but products such as oils, starches and sugars still require no labelling in Australia.

One of the letter's signatories, Dr Judy Carman, a director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, said the decision not to mandate the labelling of GM oils was based on FSANZ's flawed belief the oils do not contain DNA or protein.

Meat, milk, cheese and eggs produced by animals that have been fed genetically engineered crops are also exempt from labelling.

"There is strong scientific evidence that FSANZ is wrong and that these animal products should be labelled," she said.

The separate issue of front-of-pack traffic-light labelling will be examined in the proposed review.

The labelling system is loathed by many food manufacturers because it identifies products high in salt, sugar, saturated fats and total fat through a simple code using red, amber and green spots.

The issue is complicated by the absence of any regulation mandating the labelling of trans fatty acids.

These are more harmful than saturated fats, yet under the proposed traffic light system these would still be classified under total fats.

Last week the Australian Medical Association added its weight to the trans fats debate, backing legislation introduced by the Greens in the NSW Parliament to move towards a total ban, as Demark has done.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It is essential that all GE food is labelled as such, so that people can identify the foods they wish to avoid.
Posted by huego on 27/10/2008 8:13:36 PM
thank you scientists! Please please note that consumers do not want GMOs in the chain of the food they eat. Avoiding their existence will not hide this. Retailers, manufacturers, farmers please note that consumers want to know what is in their food. What will happen when consumers work out that GMOs could still in there, fed to the cows that supply their children's milk, yogurt and cheese? Mothers, are not going to let food manufacturers use their children as "guinea pigs"! They have rights. GMO products need to labelled as such... if GMOs are going to be so good for us let the consumers decide! rather than sneaking them into the food chain. Consumers have the right to know what is in their food! Consumers want truth in labelling !!
Posted by catmac on 28/10/2008 7:20:07 AM
The call for labelling of GM food and products containing GM ingredients or residues is flawed. Labelling should alert the consumer to ingredients that are linked to certain risks or danger. There is no scientific link between GM food and ill health, only rhetoric from anti-GM lobbyists masquerading as serious scientists.
Posted by Dr. Glenn Tong on 28/10/2008 7:40:46 AM
Dr Tong, please be better and unbiased in your responses. We are not trying to 'Masquerade' as anything, but we are consumers who want truth in labelling and to have the choice as to what we consume. Many of us consumers don't care, but I am sure you wish to both choose what you consume and to retain the right to free speech without personal attack.
Posted by HealthyConsumer on 28/10/2008 8:58:48 AM
Dr Glen Tong you raise a very good point here - the reputation of serious scientists. What the consumers really need to know is:-

1. who are the reputable scientists who have done the full scientific analysis of the effects of gm altered foods on the genral population

2. where the peer review groups reported on the science. What publication etc..

3. So that consumers can be confident in the science, who funded the testing.

Are you able to point consumers in the right direction?

Posted by Gordons49 on 28/10/2008 9:04:25 AM
The labelling system as a whole is a sham. If products are so good why don't they shout it from the roof tops. I would like to know exactly what is on offer and from where and who owns the product, a uniform labelling system so I can make an informed choice and buy Aussie grown GM free instead of packaged from goods from Aus or overseas.
Posted by Richard Woolley on 28/10/2008 10:22:34 AM
Dr Tong's comments are interesting. A number of ingredients are already listed on products that have no risks or dangers. Surely labelling is there to inform consumers and consumers have the right to know what they are eating. Good or bad for them let the consumer decide not anyone else.
Posted by Freedom of choice on 28/10/2008 11:15:34 AM
To give consumers a choice, either the product must be labelled GM or non-GM. It is not possible to label as non-GM as this means NO GM which is not possible if GM is commercially grown. Due to contamination and a ridiculous government approved "self management" policy, high costs and liabilities are imposed on non-GM farmers because of a requirement to guarantee our product is not GM and accept liability for the recall of the product if it is GM. At the moment choice is denied as it is not legislated to label as GM and not possible to label as non-GM. Reliance is on FSANZ to test the product but the oil is not tested and the meal is not regulated. Consumers need a choice and farmers need to be able to market the product consumers want. The GM industry should not be permitted to hide their unwanted product from inadequate labelling as consumers do not want to take the risk and should not be forced to.
Posted by Julie Newman on 28/10/2008 11:31:14 AM
Please give us comprehensive labelling; we want choice in what we eat! Food, essential as it is to human survival, must be labelled according to long term, independent research on GM foods - not research conducted by the seed producer or their funded research. The health system is already struggling - imagine if food containing GM became the culprit!
Posted by Farmer Janet on 28/10/2008 11:53:49 AM
As consumers we are entitled to freedom of choice. It is essential that foods are labelled to fully inform of their origin. Labelling is the most obvious and direct way of informing the public of ingredients and origin of a product. What might be considered safe for the majority of the population may be very harmful for some. We are all entitled to be able to make a choice. Communication on labeling should be clear so that we can make this choice. If the pro-GM community is confident in what they are doing then they should not have a problem with this.
Posted by DL on 28/10/2008 12:28:50 PM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
A GM canola crop.
A GM canola crop.

RELATED ARTICLES

Q: Should there be mandatory labelling laws to advise consumers if food contains ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops?

Yes
(86.9%)

No
(11.1%)

Undecided
(1.9%)

Total Votes: 1507
Poll Date: 27 Oct 08

MOST POPULAR

01 Jul 09 | The ridiculous ironies and double standards of both politicians and the media were on show for all to see with the ‘utegate’ scandal, online editor Michael Thomson writes, but he says no-one is the better for it.
Ray White Rural
 
Subscription
 
Rural Bookshop
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
FOL Email Promo


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...