AOL calls for the 'deregulation' of GM foods to be rejected

The Australian organic industry is calling on state and federal food ministers to reject Food Standards Australia and New Zealand’s (FSANZ) Proposal P1055, warning that the plan would strip consumers of their right to know whether the food they eat has been genetically modified (GM) or gene-edited.

The proposal, currently under ministerial review, seeks to redefine what constitutes a genetically modified food and exempt from regulation a wide range of food products developed using new breeding techniques (NBTs) under the Food Standards Code, cautioned Australian Organic Limited (AOL).

This includes gene-edited plants and animals where cisgenic (same species) DNA is used, and processed ingredients derived from GM organisms where novel (different species) DNA or protein is no longer detectable.

This proposed redefinition of GM focuses on an outcome-based approach rather than a process-based approach. However, this will result in a situation where the outcomes from the genetic engineering using same species DNA will not be regulated in food for consumption, said AOL.

If accepted, AOL said these changes would allow a significant volume of genetically engineered food into the Australian market without mandatory safety testing, traceability or labelling. The revised definition would also apply to foods derived from gene-edited animals, making Australia the first country globally to allow such products to enter the food chain without any transparency or oversight.

This would make it virtually impossible for consumers to exercise their right to avoid GM/gene-edited foods, said AOL, while shifting the burden of proof and compliance to the small percentage of supply chains that actively seek to stay GM-free — namely, the organic sector.

“Traceability without transparency is a dangerous illusion,” said Josefine Pettersson, Operations and Technical Manager at AOL. “Organic supply chains will be expected to test all ingredients to verify freedom from undeclared gene-editing technologies — but there will be no obligation for manufacturers or importers to declare when these processes were used.”

The organic industry supports advances in testing technology, but Pettersson claimed this isn’t enough.

“The reality is, without disclosure of which edits have been made and where in the genome, it may be impossible to detect changes for processed products. This puts certified supply chains in an impossible position. Worse still, if an undeclared gene-editing change is detected by someone else, such as an export partner or foreign lab, it would fall on us to prove it wasn’t caused by gene technology,” Pettersson said.

The majority of the rapidly growing $2.6 billion Australian organic industry is exported. Gene editing can be detected, said AOL, but it questioned who will pay for it, as the current P1055 proposal makes no provision for support.

The organisation said it leaves the organic sector and GM-free producers to carry the full cost while allowing gene-tech developers and importers to operate invisibly.

As FSANZ’s new definition focuses solely on the end product, rather than the production process, AOL said it disregards the needs of certification, food ethics and consumer trust. It said the proposal was put forward without any formal cost–benefit analysis or trade impact assessment, despite implications for Australia’s clean, green export reputation.

“Changing the definition of GM food while deliberately excluding traceability, labelling and IP protections is reckless,” said David Keens, Chair of AOL and a certified almond producer. “It breaks the social contract with consumers and risks making Australia a global outlier in food integrity.”

Australia’s major trading partners — including the EU, Japan and South Korea — continue to regulate gene-edited foods or require traceability protocols. FSANZ’s proposal is set to go significantly further, and may place future organic and clean food exports at risk.

“Consumers are being left in the dark, and clean food producers are being set up to fail,” Keens said. “We are not opposed to innovation, but we are opposed to deregulation that removes responsibility, transparency and choice.”

The organic sector is urging ministers to pause the proposal and commission a full review that includes:

• the cost to compliance systems and certification bodies;
• the impact on consumer trust and informed choice;
• the effect on Australia’s export relationships and equivalency recognition.

AOL said that at a time when Australian consumers are increasingly seeking transparency and integrity in the food system, FSANZ’s proposed changes move in the opposite direction.

The AOL submission and other submissions to the process can be found here. The full report can be found here.

Image credit: iStock.com/wildpixel