April 21, 2011
 

Australia debates on GM crops

 

 

A senate hearing in Australia has been told that disagreement to genetically modified (GM) crops is the result of a non-scientific, fact-free, alarmist and scaremongering minority in the population.

 

The Senate Community Affairs Committee is investigating proposed legislative amendments that would compel food producers, manufacturers and distributors to label food for presence of GM materials.

 

However, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) chief executive, Steve McCutcheon, said the legislation was looking to establish a labelling standard inconsistent with existing arrangements and for a purpose unrelated to food safety.

 

FSANZ did not approve food items, including GM foods, that were unsafe, and it was already mandatory for GM food labelling so shoppers could make informed choices.

 

However, GMs were not labelled for safety reasons, because the safety of those products is already approved.

 

CropLife Australia chief executive, Matthew Cossey, whose organisation represents the Australian agricultural chemical and biotechnology sector, said GMs were already subject to rigorous scientific analysis, by local regulatory authorities and internationally.

 

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon slammed the anti-GM campaign when he was asked if it was irrational for consumers to want to know if their food was GM or approved GM.

 

"I believe if you look at all the agreed evidence, that in fact any generation of concern over approved GM in food products is driven by a non-scientific, fact-free, alarmist and scaremongering section of the community," he said.

 

"I believe it is a minority and I am not too sure that it serves the public good or a public policy good, particularly considering the broader importance of food labelling."

 

Cossey said unnecessary regulation is linked to equally unnecessary cost burden which was a potential threat to the agricultural technology's success.

 

The Australian Food and Grocery Council claimed the bill proposed an unprecedented, costly, and impractical approach to label for an occasional presence of components at very low levels, with no public health implications, and of only passing interest to most consumers.

 

However, Greenpeace, represented via teleconference by its GM wheat campaigner, Claire Parfitt, told the inquiry it wanted regulatory loopholes tightened so highly processed and other foods could be identified for any GM presence.