Labelling of GMOs in Australia: Navigating Consumer Choices and Regulatory Challenges
Labelling can be used to emphasize the different characteristics of the products and is of importance to a consumer who bases his or her purchase decision on those specific characteristics. Sometimes labelling requirements differ depending
on the ingredients that contain GMO. There are also differences on what GM crops the rules encompass and do not encompass (Mercado, 2004). In addition, marketing regulations can affect the demand for GM versus non-GM crops; for example, GM food labels can act as perceived hazard warnings and reduce demand for these crops despite their approval from food safety authorities (Gruere, 2000).
The labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Australia remains a contentious issue, balancing consumer rights with the complexities of food production and international trade. As consumers increasingly demand transparency in the food supply chain, the role of labelling becomes paramount, especially for products derived from genetic modification.
The Importance of Labelling for Consumers
Labelling is not just a regulatory requirement but a vital tool for consumers, empowering them to make informed choices based on their preferences and concerns. In Australia, mandatory labelling for GMOs took effect in December 2001, mandating that foods with altered characteristics, such as changes in nutritional values or the presence of novel DNA or protein due to genetic modification, must be labeled accordingly. This includes specific GM foods listed under subsection S26-3(2) of Schedule 26 of the Food Standards Code.
However, exemptions to these labelling rules, such as highly refined products like vegetable oils where no GM material is detectable, have sparked debates about the adequacy of current regulations.
Up to 1% unintended contamination is permitted.
Exemptions:
- Foods obtained from GM crops, but which do not contain novel DNA or proteins (oils, sugars, starches etc. from GM soy, corn, and canola)
- Food additives and processing aids (unless novel DNA or protein is present in the final food product)
- Food prepared at point of sale (restaurants)
- Foods obtained from crops that have been genetically modified through techniques other than recombinant DNA (ISAAA Inc., 2004)
Critics argue that these exemptions could undermine consumer trust, as many processed foods no longer contain the novel DNA or proteins that originally triggered the labelling requirement.
“Foods like meat, milk or eggs from an animal that has been fed GM feed are not considered GM foods. These foods don’t need to be labelled as GM. This is because these animals and their products are not genetically modified.” (FSANZ, accessed 2024)
For therapeutic goods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), strict requirements apply, including the obligation for manufacturers to disclose the use of GMOs in the labelling, especially for vaccines or other biologics derived from genetic modification.
Having said that more and more GMO ingredients are being added to products and it’s important for consumers to know exact what they are consuming by being able to make informed choices.
Global Perspectives and Challenges
Internationally, GMO labelling practices vary significantly, reflecting broader debates over food safety, consumer rights, and trade regulations. In the United States, for instance, the USDA’s recent regulations require the disclosure of bioengineered ingredients, but the approach, which includes options like QR codes, has been criticized for potentially limiting accessibility for all consumers.
In contrast, Australia’s approach, while stricter in certain areas, still faces challenges. The country’s labelling requirements are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) under Standard 1.5.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. However, the complexities of global trade mean that Australia must continuously adapt its standards to align with international practices, particularly as new technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing emerge.
The Role of International Trade Agreements
The labelling of GMOs is not just a domestic issue but one that has significant implications for international trade. Various international instruments, such as the Codex Alimentarius and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, play a crucial role in shaping these regulations. The WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, for example, governs the implementation of labelling requirements, ensuring they do not unfairly restrict trade.
In the international arena, there is no direct convention for protection and regulation of use and manufacture of biotechnological products. However, there are various international instruments which have been interpreted in a way so as to protect the Intellectual Property Rights of innovators of such technology and the rights of other associated entities – consumers, indigenous people and environment. Many international organisations like the WHO, UNFAO, UNEP, UNESCO and Codex Alimentarius have developed some standards for dealing with particular impacts of biotechnology (Srinivisan, accessed 2024).
There are 8 steps to follow in the setting of Codex standards (MacKenzie
2000), from the decision to elaborate a standard (Step 1) to the point were the draft standard is adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and sent to governments for final acceptance (Step 8). After eleven years of discussions within the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, the draft guideline on the labeling of GM food remains at Step 3: the proposed draft standard is sent again to international organization and governments for comments.
In 2004, at the 32nd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling, only the amendment Definition of Terms of the General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods, which is directly related to the labeling guidelines, was advanced to Step 7 of the Procedure. But the actual “Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labeling of Food and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modifications/Genetic Engineering” remained at Step 3 of the Procedure in 2005.
The labeling provisions of the draft guidelines (section 3) include the following
recommendations:
3.1. Labeling should be required to GM food that is not substantially equivalent;
3.2. Labeling should be required for GM food that contain allergens;
3.3. Labeling should be required for substances with physiological or metabolic
impacts;
3.4. Where label indicate the presence of production process, GM food (food
containing GM and food with ingredients derived from GM food) should be
labeled;
3.5. For GM food products for which there are religious or dietary concerns, labeling should be required
The draft guidelines also include a provisional section on the necessity to set up a
threshold level for adventitious presence of GM food, and a section on exemptions for labeling provisions 3.4 and 3.5, letting countries decide whether or not to require labeling on certain specific GM food products (such as oils and other highly processed products). The sixth section provides recommendations on text declarations for labeling based on product characteristics (i.e., under provisions 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) and labeling based on the method of production (under provisions 3.4 and 3.5). The last section proposes to consider rules of implementation and enforcement (such as testing standards and traceability) (Gruere, 2000).
However, finally, even when decisions are clear and complete, states do not always comply with the WTO’s binding decisions (Phillips, 2001). The WTO does not have any mandate on GM food regulations.
Additionally, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) is a multilateral instrument that provides guidance in three major aspects – technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures. Matters which fall within the regulatory ambit of the TBT Agreement include regulations and standards for packaging, marking, identification or labelling of products. Compliance to technical regulations is mandatory while compliance to standards is voluntary and not mandatory. The Agreement recognizes the sovereign rights of countries to adopt own standards where they deem fit, but encourages them to use international standards where such exist. For the case of labeling requirements, the interpretation would depend on the legitimacy of a specific labelling requirement, on its importance and visual effects to achieve the objective as compared to other measures (such as educational programs or voluntary labeling for the objective of information provision). Heumueller and Josling (2004) argue that the TBT may rule for or against the labeling requirements, depending on the interpretation of this Agreement (Gruere, 2000).
Yet, the interpretation of these agreements often leads to disputes, particularly when labelling requirements are perceived as non-tariff barriers to trade. The tension between protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trade practices remains a delicate balance, with the Codex Alimentarius Commission continuing to work towards a consensus on GMO labelling.
The economic effects of mandatory versus voluntary labeling will greatly depend on 1) the purchasing power and sensitivity of consumers and 2) the structure and organization of the food chain. Many developing countries have large populations of poor consumers (some of them illiterate), low standards of safety, rare food labels, and unstructured industry, where mandatory labeling would likely be very costly, and unenforceable. As mentioned in Section 6. (the regulatory harmonization effect), there is no evidence that the adoption of stringent mandatory labeling requirement similar to large importers really helps for export, thus this should remain a domestic decision based on domestic objectives (comparing the cost of implementation to the benefits of consumer information and consumer choice is likely to help achieve these targets) (Gruere, 2000)..
The Future of GMO Labelling
As the debate over GMO labelling continues, the economic and social implications cannot be ignored. Many developing countries use standard traditional ingredients and are happy to label their products. However, the argument from other parts of the world is that the stigma associated with GMOs could be exacerbated by mandatory labelling, potentially harming the economies of countries heavily invested in agricultural biotechnology thus making many GMO organisations adverse to having to label everything ingredient.
Nevertheless, proponents of comprehensive GMO labelling argue that it is essential for consumer choice. If GMOs are indeed safe, as some scientific studies may suggest, clear labelling should not deter informed consumers but rather empower them to make choices aligned with their values.
New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) are advanced genetic methods that alter the DNA of plants and animals. Although NBTs are sometimes marketed as different from traditional GMOs, they still involve genetic modification. The organic sector insists that food products produced using NBTs must be clearly labelled because they involve artificial genetic changes that consumers have the right to know about. Clear labelling ensures transparency and allows consumers to make informed choices aligned with their values, especially in maintaining the integrity of organic and natural food standards.
The organic sector is deeply concerned about the rapid pace of the P1055 proposal and the potential consequences it poses for the organic sector in Australia and New Zealand. The proposal’s shift from a “process-based” to an “outcome-based” definition of GM foods that 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. 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 (FSANZ, 2024).
Conclusion
The ongoing evolution of GMO labelling regulations, highlights the complexities at the intersection of science, consumer rights, and international trade.
As Australia and other countries navigate these challenges, the goal we believe must be to ensure that labelling practices are both transparent and fair, providing consumers with the information they need without compromising the principles of free and fair trade.
Whilst in this article, we may understand why producers of foods derived from genetic modification would not like them labelled GMOs as they believe it will affect their potential sales.
GMFAA asserts the consumer’s RIGHT TO KNOW what is in our food. We do not support the Proposed Amendments as they undermine the rights of consumers to be able to make fully informed choices on what they and their families are consuming. If the case of GMOs until they are proven to be safe by independent, peer reviewed science, they should not be forced upon all.
Informed consumers and full transparency must then be the paramount goal and not be put after profits, nor after untried and untested new technologies being tested on unsuspecting consumers.
GMFAA advocate that ALL source ingredients, whatever they are, must be disclosed on the packaging, to uphold transparency along with honest business and consumer practices.
As a society most believe transparency remains the pinnacle of good and best practices in business, a keystone of freedom and democracy.
It cannot be understated how important it is, that that concept extends to what we put in our bodies, where it comes from and what the animals consume that we then consume whether through their meat or diary. As we are finding that the long term effects of GMOs in all areas can be devastating to our health.
References
- Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). (2022). Approval Report – Application A1239. Food derived from EPA and DHA producing and herbicide-tolerant canola line LBFLFK.
- Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). (2023). Genetically modified (GM) food labelling.
- Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). (2024). FSANZ P1055 NBT Proposal: Organic Sector Calls for Urgent Action email.
- Gruere, P. G. (2000). An Analysis of Trade Related International Regulations of Genetically Modified Food and their Effects on Developing Countries. International Food Policy Research Institute.
- International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). (2004). Pocket K No. 7: Labelling GM Foods.
- Mercado, A. (2004). The EU-US Controversy on Trade with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) – Implications for the Transatlantic Trade Relations.
- Phillips, P. W. B. (2001). Issues and Options for the Multilateral Regulation of GM Foods.
- Srinivisan, S. (2024). Genetically Modified Organisms – Impact of Biotechnology on International Trade Laws.
- Ugochukwo, I. P. (2014). Genetically Modified Organisms: Legal Interaction between the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and World Trade Law.