OPPONENTS of genetically modified (GM) crops, including multinational Greenpeace, are busily circulating petitions seeking “full” GM labelling. However, several points need to be made.

Australia already has a GM labelling system, implemented in 2001. Health ministers were clear at the time that this was to facilitate choice. It is not about safety, as foods sold in Australia, including GM foods and ingredients, undergo thorough scientific safety assessment. Claims to suggest otherwise are misleading.

Oils are not required to be labelled GM simply because the genetic material is removed during the refining process. This means that oils from conventional and GM crops cannot be differentiated.

Changes to GM labelling laws would not enhance choice but could serve to reduce it, through all products carrying a “may contain GM” label. Alternatively, new costs could be added with the forced introduction of a traceability system spanning the entire supply chain. This cost would be passed on to all consumers.

Farmers in NSW and Victoria have chosen to grow GM canola this year because these new varieties enable better weed control, higher yields, improved oil quality and less herbicide use. In states where GM canola is not permitted, farmers have been forced to persist with conventional varieties which require greater inputs. Such decisions have denied access to cleaner, greener alternatives.

Perhaps it is time to poll consumers on a real question: Do you support Australian farmers utilising all the tools and proven technologies available to produce safe, affordable, nutritious food as efficiently and sustainable as possible? Gene technology is one tool that will help to deliver this outcome.

Paula Fitzgerald

AGRIFOOD AWARENESS

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA