 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsNew Zealand Grocery Marketers AssociationRISKS & BENEFITS — SECTIONS A(1), B(a, B(c), B(j)Submission The New Zealand Grocery Marketers Association (the Association) outlined the wide use of GM technology in food production. This was submitted to range from the genetic modification of whole plants to the use of GMOs in the processing of food products. For example, GMOs can be designed to improve the efficiency of fermentation and other primary enzymatic processes as follows:
They further submitted the following possibilities in respect to GM technology:
They then noted that the controversy surrounding GM foods (GMFs) has resulted in emotional arguments often based on inaccurate and erroneous understanding of the technology and its processes. Surveys on consumers’ views on GMFs fail to take into account the complexity of the technology resulting in ‘skewed’ responses. For example, GMFs are frequently portrayed in the media as ‘Frankenfoods’ and many consumers, if asked to define a GMF, would say that it is a food that contains genes from animals or fish. This shows, therefore, that consumers either lack information on, or do not understand the upstream use of GMOs as explained in the previous paragraphs. The Association highlighted that there were arguments to the effect that GM foods should not be marketed until they are proved to be positively safe. However, it was submitted to be logically impossible to prove a negative, in this case the absence of harm. They then observed that there was no such thing as a no risk technology. If the precautionary principle, as outlined above, had been evoked in respect to the wheel, aspirin, penicillin and electricity the world would have been deprived of their obvious benefits. Furthermore, the Association submitted that scientists are concerned with accuracy and therefore often give qualified statements. The media, however, frequently report only the qualifications and this results in a distortion of the public’s perception of the risks as compared to the benefits. In respect to food safety, the Association submitted that any risk in respect to GM technology needs to be assessed in the context of the risks already associated with conventional foods, such as microbial contamination. They then outlined a number of statements from international bodies to the effect that GM foods were either safe to consume or that no adverse effects had been noted. For example, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, in their report GM Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues, stated that in 25 000 transgene crop trials conducted between 1986 and 1997, involving 60 crops, 10 traits, and 45 countries no adverse effects were noted. LAW & LEGISLATION — SECTIONS A(2), B(j)(i), B(n)Submission Regulation Associate Professor Laurence Eyres stated on behalf of GMA that the industry was satisfied that GM foods and ingredients comply with the Food Act and have been accepted as safe by regulatory agencies around the world including the USDA, WHO, OECD, UN FAO and the USFDA. They also noted that ANZFA’s approach to GM food has been cautious, the assessment is done on a case by case basis, and involved a detailed scientific evaluation of the product (see also the New Zealand Dairy Board summary under law and legislation). However, the Association submitted that an increased use of GM ingredients in the food chain and an increasingly complex food supply chain made necessary the establishment of a central, single, and well resourced agency to oversee all food administration, monitoring, and enforcement matters. Labelling The Association submitted that they supported labelling of GMFs where they substantially differ from their counterpart non-GM food product. Consumers must be told if a GMF differs in respect to its composition, nutritional value, taste, use or that it introduces a new protein or DNA. It noted, however, that some sectors of the community were seeking to extend labelling to all GMFs wherever GM occurs in the processing chain. The Association stated that it did not support this approach for the reasons outlined in the witness brief of Dr Geoffrey Annison. Dr Annison submitted on behalf of the Association that mandatory labelling of GMFs that are substantially equivalent to their ‘conventional’ counterparts was unnecessary. Mandatory labelling implies differences between products where none exist or can be readily detected. This type of labelling would not provide information that assisted consumers to select healthy diets and could, in fact, confuse them. Furthermore, there are no standardised analytical procedures to identify GM ingredients in food and thus establish compliance with possible mandatory labelling requirements. In the absence of such tools it will be essential to establish certified production systems, involving segregation and new food handling procedures. This will involve considerable cost to the consumer and may adversely affect production costs and competitiveness internationally. In light of the possible amendment to the ANZFA Standard A18, to include all possible permutations in respect to GM, it was submitted that labelling should still be required to meet the needs of consumers, the food industry and regulatory agencies. Specifically, the labelling regulations should be consistent with sound regulatory policy principles. These are:
Dr Annison then noted strong support for the concept of de minimus tolerance or threshold provisions. Tolerances provide a critical means of discriminating between products containing significant amounts of material derived from genetically modified organisms from conventional crops containing trace amounts through inadvertent or accidental carry over or mixing. It was highlighted that de minimus provisions do not signify a lack of willingness to label accurately, but rather recognises the impracticality of ‘zero tolerance’ from a compliance and enforcement perspective. Furthermore, the provision of accurate labelling is fundamental to the objectives of a labelling system. Dr Anniston highlighted that the application of ‘zero tolerance’ does not aid this process. For example, food companies wishing to meet market needs by providing products derived from conventional material will be inhibited from making negative claims because there is a chance that trace material will be present in the product. This is especially true of products that contain additives and processing aids, or that are highly refined. An inability to absolutely guarantee that there is no trace of GM ingredients in the product will result in the proliferation of ‘may contain’ labels that do not provide any relevant information to the consumer. It was further submitted that without thresholds, the organic food industry would not be able to use the non-GM status of food as a criterion for claiming organic food status. Their crops could not be marketed as ‘GM free’ if some trace material form a GM source was not allowed for in the label statements. In this submission it was noted that doubt still remains over how the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) will view negative labelling in respect to fair trading legislation. The example used was the possible difference between ‘not sourced from genetically modified ingredients’ and ‘free from genetic modification’. If ‘free from’ and ‘not sourced from’ are considered to mean the same thing, the critical imperative for establishing thresholds is underscored. Food companies are naturally conservative and will not run the risk of running foul of fair trading legislation. Unless clear guidance is given the ‘may contain’ statement will become the label of necessary choice. Furthermore, provision for two negative claims may confuse consumers. Many consumers, in the absence of an extensive and ongoing information campaign, will be unable to distinguish the subtle differences between foods delivered through a certification system, hence subject to the possibility of trace amounts of GM ingredients, and those that are GM free. It was submitted that consumers would therefore find such a system duplicitous and an example of bureaucratic and industry obfuscation. The basic requirement for a negative claim, therefore, should be that companies are able to demonstrate that foods were produced from conventional materials assured by segregation, audit and trace back mechanisms. International obligations It was then submitted that the amended Standard A18 may render Australia and New Zealand vulnerable to challenge under WTO rules due to the fact that it does not brace the concept of substantial equivalence. This is because both countries may be in breach of:
|