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.
|