Fecha de publicación: 17/11/2024 Fuente: Food Processing Australian Organic Limited (AOL), the industry body for Australia’s certified organic industry, has expressed concerns over Proposal P1055, which involves changes to definitions of gene technology and new breeding techniques (NBTs).

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

The move will reduce transparency for consumers and increase the risk of unwitting contamination in the strictly non-GMO organic sector, AOL said in a statement.

Transparency, gaps and risks

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

In a submission to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) for the second round of public consultation on Proposal P1055, AOL highlighted the lack of transparency for consumers, gaps in the cost-benefit analysis and risks to Australia’s certified organic export markets.

“Protecting the nation’s certified organic sector, and the consumer trust it has rightly earned, requires consistent standards, transparent labelling and stringent oversight for all gene technologies,” Brian said.

“Currently, food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) must be clearly labelled; 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 labelling will obscure the use of gene technology, including NBTs.”

Comprehensiveness and accuracy

Given that Australia’s certified organic industry relies on meeting stringent standards to demonstrate products do not contain 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,” Brian 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.

Proposed amendments

AOL said it is also concerned about the draft Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2024, with proposed changes aiming to introduce a risk-based and flexible framework to regulate GMOs across various applications.

These changes will modify how Australia regulates GM and gene-edited products, including the introduction of a ‘risk-tiering’ system to categorise GM products based on perceived risk levels, with ‘low-risk’ products facing less regulatory scrutiny, the AOL said.

“By allowing certain ‘low-risk’ GMs to bypass comprehensive assessments, the risk-tiering framework diminishes oversight on these GM technologies and introduces contamination risks for organic farms, especially those situated near GM trial sites, as these ‘low-risk’ GMs may lack the scrutiny necessary to prevent unintended spread,” Brian said.

“These contamination risks unfairly shift the responsibility to the organic sector, which depends on strict non-GM protocols to uphold its certification standards, maintain market access and safeguard consumer trust.

“As an industry, we are advocating for a ‘polluter pays’ principle to be incorporated into the Bill to create an equitable and accountable regulatory framework to ensure those introducing potentially disruptive elements into an ecosystem are held financially and operationally responsible for any negative impacts.”

The draft Bill also proposes reduced oversight for specific environmental risks, particularly those associated with targeted pests and weeds, which Brian said would overlook the wider ecological impacts.

“Unlike controlled laboratory environments, natural ecosystems are complex and interconnected, and introducing GMOs without thorough impact reviews risks unforeseen and possibly irreversible consequences,” she said.

“We have seen this evidence in the US where herbicide-resistant GM canola crossbred with wild relatives, causing approximately 80% of wild canola tested to contain GM genes resistant to herbicide.

“This gene drift also contributed to herbicide-resistant weeds, complicating management efforts and impacting surrounding ecosystems.”

A troubling approach?

Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) has expressed similar concerns about the proposal and the potential consequences for the organic sector.

“The proposal’s shift from a ‘process-based’ to an ‘outcome-based’ definition of GM foods could lead to reduced transparency, making it harder for consumers to determine whether their food has been produced using gene technology. FSANZ’s decision to exclude NBT foods and refined ingredients from pre-market assessment, claiming they pose no greater risk than conventional foods, is particularly troubling,” OANZ said in a statement.

“This approach risks undermining consumer trust and the integrity of organic labelling, which depends on full traceability and clear labelling of all GM ingredients. Despite public demand for labelling GM and gene-edited foods, FSANZ has stated that GM labelling is ‘out of scope’ for this proposal, though some changes to labelling provisions are proposed.”

Image credit: iStock.com/Thurtell