Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

You are using software which is blocking our advertisements (adblocker).

As we provide the news for free, we are relying on revenues from our banners. So please disable your adblocker and reload the page to continue using this site.
Thanks!

Click here for a guide on disabling your adblocker.

Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

Organic industry warns of risks from proposed gene-editing label changes

The peak industry body for Australia's certified organic industry has sounded the alarm over a proposal to drop labelling requirements for gene-edited products saying it will reduce transparency for consumers and increase the risk of unwitting contamination in the strictly non-GMO organic sector.

In a submission to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) for the second round of public consultation on Proposal P1055, which involves potential changes to definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques (NBTs), Australian Organic Limited (AOL) has highlighted the lack of transparency for consumers, gaps in the cost-benefit analysis, and risks to Australia's certified organic export markets.

Under the proposed changes any modifications to genetic makeup that originate from the same species will not be considered genetically modified under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.

AOL Chief Executive Officer, Jackie Brian, said while they recognise Australian agriculture is operating in a rapidly evolving landscape requiring change and innovation to meet global food demand, the consequences of these changes needed to be carefully considered in the context of each industry.

"Protecting the nation's certified organic sector, and the consumer trust it has rightly earned, requires consistent standards, transparent labeling, and stringent oversight for all gene technologies," Ms Brian said.

"Currently, food derived from genetically modified organisms must be clearly labeled, however, if Proposal P1055 is approved, consumers will no longer be able to discern the origins of their food products, as the lack of mandatory labeling will obscure the use of gene technology, including NBTs."

Ms Brian said that given Australia's certified organic industry relies on meeting stringent standards to demonstrate products do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), AOL was also disappointed the sector was not considered in the cost-benefit analysis, despite FSANZ explicitly seeking input on major impacts to the food industry through previous consultation.

"Excluding the organic sector from the cost-benefit analysis raises questions about the assessment's comprehensiveness and accuracy, given the severity of the financial implications for organic farmers if their crops are unknowingly contaminated with unregulated genetically modified material," she said.

"In Australia, if certified organic farms have been contaminated with GMOs, they require a minimum of five years to regain organic certification. During this period, farmers are unable to market their products as organic, which can result in the loss of organic premiums and potential market position.

"AOL put forward a submission during the original consultation in 2021, however, there has been no further engagement with our sector, despite being a critical stakeholder in discussions surrounding gene technology."

To view the full report, click here.

For more information:
Kate Scott
Australian Organic Limited
Tel: +61 0438 389 092
Email: kate.scott@bluehillagency.com.au
www.austorganic.com

Publication date: