Dialogue: GE food labelling falls far short of promises

By SUE KEDGLEY*

It sounded like the news consumers have been waiting for years to hear. At long last, a system requiring the mandatory labelling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Certainly it is a first step. From next July, labels will have to declare the presence of some GE ingredients in food.

Unfortunately, however, included in the fine print of the communique that Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers signed last week were exemptions that mean that most GE ingredients in our food supply still won't have to be labelled.

So instead of a simple, comprehensive labelling system which would enable shoppers to pick up a loaf of bread and know whether it contains any GE ingredients, or whether it's been subject to genetic modification at any point in the food chain process, the ministers agreed to a complicated system by which only some of the hundreds of GE products in processed foods will need to be declared on a label.

Under the new labelling regime, tofu, soy protein, soy flour and soy milk will have to be labelled.

But the most common GE ingredients found in a vast array of foods in our food supply - soy, cottonseed, canola oils or fats, corn or maize starches, highly refined sugars such as dextrose, fructose and sucrose - won't be declared on a label because there is no DNA or protein left in the final product.

Nor will processing aids, such as the GE rennet used in making vegetarian cheese, or the flour-improving enzyme, amylase, which is used in many breads and baked goods. Nor will GE flavourings used in a wide variety of processed food, or additives, such as soy lecithin, which are found in thousands of breads, confectionery lines and baked goods.

Takeaway foods won't be labelled, either. Nor will food sold in delicatessens or in restaurants, nor prepared food sold in the supermarket.

The labelling regime also allows for food which has up to 1 per cent of unintended contamination to be labelled GE-free. Unless this is stringently monitored, this could be yet another loophole for manufacturers and retailers.

It's no wonder the grocery manufacturers are crowing. Largely as a result of their lobbying, the Health Ministers retreated from the comprehensive regime they agreed to last October to label all foods derived from genetically modified organisms. So have the Labour Party and the Alliance, which promised in their manifestos to label all foods derived from genetically modified organisms.

Not only that, the Health Ministers have delivered manufacturers a labelling system that sounds comprehensive and credible, and which could easily lull consumers into thinking that all GE foods are labelled. But the new system will not require manufacturers to declare most of the GE ingredients they use in making processed food.

The Health Ministers justified their retreat by saying we would risk trade sanctions, or being taken to the World Trade Organisation, if we set up more stringent labelling than our trading partners.

That is nonsense. There are a many differences between our labelling regime and those of our trading partners. The United States has stringent nutrition- labelling requirements, for example, which we don't have.

While the new regime is delighting manufacturers and retailers, it will be incredibly confusing for consumers. When they buy a loaf of bread, an ingredient such as genetically engineered soy flour will be labelled. But other GE ingredients, such as vegetable oil and lecithin, won't be declared on a label.

It is absurd that a product that is made from GE soy beans, such as soy oil, won't have to be labelled because the processing methods used to extract the oil are so severe that no protein (or nutrients) are left in the final product.

The ministers said they were introducing labelling so consumers know what is in the food they eat. But consumers have made it abundantly clear in submissions and surveys that they want to know whether there are any GE ingredients in food, not just ones that leave detectable levels of DNA-protein.

The new system is based on European labelling, with some minor differences. The European system requires takeaway, restaurant and delicatessen food to be labelled. Our system does not.

European consumers are unhappy with their labelling regime. They want one based on tracing all GE products at source, not one based on a technical definition of whether there are detectable levels of DNA in the final product.

For most European consumers, however, their regime is almost academic. Responding to consumer demand, most major supermarkets, and even manufacturers such as Cadbury and Nestle, have gone far beyond the requirements of their labelling regime and voluntarily removed all GE ingredients from their foods.

We can only hope that is what will happen here.

* Sue Kedgley is the Green Party health spokeswoman.

GE debate - A Herald series

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary

GE discussion forum