Posted on 1-5-2002

Consumer Advocate v Government

Interesting that the Aus Consumers Association is much more pro-active than
the NZ one (which could have also commented on this, because such moves by
Australia would obviously impact on NZ, since we use the same laws).
stu@ihug.co.nz

By Mark Metherell, 10 May 2002, The Sydney Morning Herald

Australia's new genetically modified food labelling system risked being
sabotaged by Government moves to undermine it in international
negotiations, the Australian Consumers' Association said yesterday.
Australia's new genetically modified food labelling system risked being
sabotaged by Government moves to undermine it in international
negotiations, the Australian Consumers' Association said yesterday. The
association said Australian representatives at an international conference
in Canada had "deliberately voted against our own domestic labelling regime".

The GM label law, implemented last December, requires packaged food
containing measurable GM ingredients to carry an identifying label. It is
believed that many food manufacturers, concerned about a consumer backlash,
altered their products and raw material supplies to avoid the GM mark. The
consumers spokeswoman, Rebecca Smith, said she had been told by
representatives attending the Canada conference that the Australian
delegation's move made the new labelling laws potentially invalid under
World Trade Organisation rules. The Australian and NZ Food Authority said
in Canberra yesterday it could not comment, but a food industry leader,
Mitch Hook, dismissed the manoeuvres at the Canada meeting as "shadow
boxing over something that has
not yet materialised".

Mr Hook, the chief executive of the Australian Food and Grocery Council,
said his council had warned that the new GM label rules might encounter
problems with WTO rules. Under trade rules, products requiring special
rules, such as labels, must be significantly different. The Government has
argued that GM foods had not been shown to be materially different from
orthodox foods. Critics of GM foods have produced no health or nutrition
evidence showing fundamental differences but have argued for the label on
the grounds of the
consumers right to know. The Federal Government resisted a stringent GM
labelling regime, which was decided by a majority of the New Zealand and
state governments. The Consumer Association's Ms Smith described the
delegation's approach at Halifax as "outrageous behaviour". "Australian
health ministers have been explicit, and it is now law, that consumers have
the right to labelling of GM foods. There is no excuse for this sort of
traitorous behaviour by Australian representatives."

The international meeting was considering three alternatives for labelling,
the weakest of which was being pushed by the United States.This option
would label only foods which were considered to be a health hazard, or
those which had significantly altered their nutrients. The US option would
mean that exporting countries with less rigorous GM labelling rules could
challenge Australia's domestic rules as an unfair barrier to trade under
WTO rules, which would force a watering down of the rules.

The consumers association's Ms Smith was not surprised by the Government's
ploy. "Trade and industry interests have been busy trying to undermine
Australia's GM-labelling system since it was promised in 1999," she said.