As Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) looks back on the 2023-24 year, its annual report highlights advancements in the field of genetically modified (GM) food items. But the organics industry has raised concerns about potential impacts of regulation and labelling changes.
This year’s highlights for FSANZ included the world-first approval of a GM banana, progressing the case of an Australian-first cell-cultured quail, and working towards clarifying what foods should be regulated and labelled as genetically modified.
However, this final project has the organics industry uneasy, with Australian Organic Limited (AOL) saying it will reduce transparency for consumers and increase the risk of unwitting contamination in the strictly non-GMO organic sector.
FSANZ released a first public call for submissions to Proposal P1055 – Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques in 2021.
The feedback suggested the initial approach to amending the definitions was unclear and too complex, and following further assessment, the organisation simplified the approach and is now proposing a new definition for 'genetically modified food’.
In the second round of submissions, which closed in September, AOL stated that it believed the new proposal would result in lack of transparency for consumers, gaps in the cost-benefit analysis, and risks to Australia’s certified organic export markets.
AOL said these issues stem from the proposed change stating any modifications to genetic makeup that originates from the same species will not be considered genetically modified under the Food Standards Code.
AOL CEO, Jackie Brian, said while the organisation recognises Australian agriculture is operating in a rapidly evolving landscape, requiring change and innovation to meet global food demand, the consequences of these changes needed to be carefully considered in the context of each industry.
“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,” said Brian.
“Currently, food derived from GM organisms 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.”
Given Australia’s certified organic industry relies on meeting stringent standards to demonstrate products do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Brian stated she was disappointed the sector was not considered in the cost-benefit analysis.
“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,” she 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.
“AOL put forward a submission during the original consultation in 2021, however there has been no further engagement with our sector, despite being a critical stakeholder in discussions surrounding gene technology.”
Other organic producer and certifier organisations, such as Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and BioGrow, have expressed similar concerns with P1055, openly standing against the changes.
However, organisations like the National Farmers Federation (NFF) are in full support of the proposal, stating that the agriculture industry has already benefited significantly from the application of gene technology over the past two decades and is well-positioned to embrace the transformative opportunity NBTs present.
“A reduced regulatory burden through simpler, more straightforward regulation will provide certainty for innovators and promote the introduction of safe, beneficial new products to market,” stated the organisation’s submission.
It should be noted that Australia is the only OECD country without a legal definition for the word 'organic', although legislation has recently been submitted to Parliament to rectify this. Organic labelling was a major issue in the organics sector this year, with AOL claiming the organics industry is being held back by Australia’s labelling laws.
FSANZ is also currently leading the charge for nutrition and alcohol labelling reformation, recently calling for submissions as part of its review of the Health Star Rating (HSR) and Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) systems, as Australian and New Zealand food ministers agreed to scoping work by the organisation earlier in the year. It will be interesting to see if and how genetically modified and organic labelling play into this investigation.
Proposed amendments to Gene Technology Act 2000
AOL stated 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 products based on perceived risk levels, with ‘low-risk’ products facing less regulatory scrutiny.
While these changes are meant to streamline approvals for certain GM products, Brian said they raise several concerns about the protection of Australia’s certified organic sector, consumer trust, and environmental health.
“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,” she 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 per cent 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.”
Similar to its submission to FSANZ, AOL is advocating the draft Bill includes distinct mandatory labelling and traceability for GM products to protect consumer trust and maintain a clear regulatory framework.
Brian said this will ensure consumers and markets can accurately differentiate between natural and gene-edited products, preserving integrity in certified organic and non-GM standards.
