Paula Fitzgerald (pictured) Executive Director Agrifood Awareness Australia Ltd writes:
Opponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, including multinational Greenpeace, are busily circulating petitions seeking ‘full’ GM labelling. However, several facts need to be made.
Australia already has a GM labelling system, implemented in 2001. Health ministers were clear at the time that this was to facilitate choice.
It is not about safety as foods sold in Australia, including GM foods and ingredients, undergo thorough scientific safety assessment. Claims to suggest otherwise are misleading.
Oils are not required to be labeled ‘GM’ simply because the genetic material is removed during the refining process. This means that oils from conventional and GM crops cannot be differentiated.
Changes to GM labeling laws would not enhance choice but could serve to reduce it, through all products carrying a ‘may contain GM’ label. Alternatively, new costs could be added with the forced introduction of a traceability system spanning the entire supply chain. This cost would be passed onto all consumers.
Farmers in New South Wales and Victoria have chosen to grow GM canola this year because these new varieties enable better weed control, higher yields, improved oil quality and less herbicide.
The introduction of these varieties has actually facilitated choice, with a number of restaurants, retailers and food manufacturers now voluntarily making GM claims to suit their own purposes.
Ironically, in States where GM canola is not permitted, farmers have been forced to persist with conventional varieties which require greater inputs.
Such decisions have denied access to cleaner, greener alternatives.
Many consumers may not be aware that Australia has been growing canola, including herbicide tolerant varieties, since the 1980s.
Perhaps it is time to poll consumers on a real question -
.
“Do you support Australian farmers utilising all the tools and proven technologies available to produce safe, affordable, nutritious food as efficiently and sustainably as possible?”
.
Gene technology is one tool that will help to deliver this outcome.
.
……………………………………………………………………..
.
Have Your Say! Tell Paula what you think. Or ask a question?
.
Related Posts
- USA introduces Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) on Food - Video of the day.
- Imported food disguised as Product of Australia - It’s got to stop!
- Fuelish Food Policies
- Farmer asks “What’s so bad about Higher Food Prices”
- International Commission On the Future of Food and Agriculture
Tags: AAAL, Greenpeace, Paula Fitzgerald
I don’t think Paula understands that having the genetic material removed from a seed does not mean that the plants out there growing in the fields are not GM.
This stems from a basic understanding that a core driver of the anti-GM movement is not that humans may get sick from consuming GM, but that people are concerned of the impact of GM crops in the greater environment… contamination of non-GM crops etc.
I don’t really understand why the ag industry is so afraid to just put a label on products saying if they are GM or not and let the consumer decide. Unless of course all their research shows that consumers will reject GM… in which case they should just respect the consumer.
My answer is “Yes, or course we should, but consumers should rightly have the choice”
I fully agree with MattB, but not with his answer to the question.
My answer to that is No, I don’t support the “use of all tools and proven technologies”.
This questions is intended to be a ‘are you still beating your wife, Yes or No’ question.
There are hundreds of proven technologies and tools that have been outlawed over the years and more currently being discredited; so simply put, No.
I’m a mum and I don’t want my kids to eat GM foods. These foods have not been safety tested over the long term. Scientists have told us plenty of things were safe and later proven wrong. Let’s have full labelling of all GM foods and let all of us decide for ourselves.
Very true Cathy… I just want choice to consume GM or not… is that too much to ask?
Most foods made using Gene Manipulation (GM) technology are unlabeled as such, though 93% of Australians want labeling. Labels would allow us a real choice of what to feed our families.
Agrifood Awareness opposes full GM labeling, which serves their sponsors’ interests - Croplife (GM companies), National Farmers Federation (GM agribusiness) and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GM labs).
GM vegetable oils, starches and sugars refined from GM soybean, corn, canola and cottonseed are in many processed foods. Cottonseed oil is also used in some fast food shops. None are labeled, on the risky assumption (not fact) that all GM protein and DNA is removed from these ingredients by processing. Even highly refined peanut oil may still provoke life-threatening allergic reactions, so care and labeling are essential.
Also exempt from labels, for the same shaky reason, are the meat, milk, eggs and honey from animals fed GM feed; restaurant meals; colourings; additives; and processing aids. Yet new Italian research found foreign DNA in cows milk and meat from animal clones may soon be sold here, untested and unlabeled. See Here
If GM foods are as nutritious, safe and acceptable as Agrifood claims, their corporate clients should be happy to tell the truth, on labels. Health Ministers should require the labeling of all food made using GM. Nothing less will do.
Bob Phelps
Executive Director
Gene Ethics
60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053 Australia
Tel: 1300 133 868 or 03 9347 4500 {Int Code +613}
Mob: 0449 769 066
Fax: 03 9341 8199
Email: info@geneethics.org
WWW: http://www.geneethics.org
Paula, Hopefully you can answer my query. You mentioned that genetically engineered food undergoes thorough scientific safety assessment.
Can you tell me by whom and the length of time it takes for a safety assessment?
To Paula Fitzgerald,
Paula I’m still hoping you can answer my query from 16 Sep 08. You mentioned that genetically engineered food undergoes thorough scientific safety assessment.
Can you tell me by whom and the length of time it takes for a safety assessment?