The Australian organic industry says Food Standards Australia and New Zealand’s (FSANZ) Proposal P1055 would strip consumers of their right to know whether the food they eat has been genetically modified (GM) or gene edited. It is calling on state and federal food ministers to reject the proposal.
The organics industry said P1055 looks to redefine what constitutes a genetically modified food. It also seeks to exempt from regulation a wide range of food products developed using new breeding techniques (NBTs) under the Food Standards Code cautions peak body Australian Organic Limited (AOL), it said.
FSANZ CEO, Dr Sandra Cuthbert, said the new definitions reflect the science and will “provide greater clarity for industry, regulators, and consumers”.
FSANZ said that following an extensive review under Proposal P1055 – Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques, the GM definitions have been modernised to address advances in gene technologies and maintain strong food safety protections.
“The updated definitions are outcome-based, focusing on the change that has been made rather than the process used to make the change.
“Our safety assessment confirms that many modifications achieved through new breeding techniques are equivalent to those from conventional breeding, which is widely recognised as safe,” Cuthbert said
The organics industry said the proposal would include gene-edited plants and animals where cisgenic (same species) DNA is used, and processed ingredients derived from GM organisms where novel (different species) DNA or protein is no longer detectable.
AOL said the proposed redefinition focuses on and outcome-based rather than process-based approach, which will result in the outcomes from the genetic engineering, using same species DNA, will not be regulated in food for consumption.
The organic sector is urging ministers to pause the proposal and commission a full review that includes:
- The cost to compliance systems and certification bodies;
- the impact on consumer trust and informed choice; and
- the effect on Australia’s export relationships and equivalency recognition.
AOL Operations and Technical manager, Josefine Pettersson, said “Traceability without transparency is a dangerous illusion.”
The organisation said if the changes were passed, it would allow a significant volume of genetically engineered food into the Australian market without mandatory safety testing, traceability or labelling.
“The revised definition would also apply to foods derived from gene-edited animals, making Australia the first country globally to allow such products to enter the food chain without any transparency or oversight,” AOL said.
“Organic supply chains will be expected to test all ingredients to verify freedom from undeclared gene-editing technologies—but there will be no obligation for manufacturers or importers to declare when these processes were used,” Pattersson said.
FSANZ said the new definitions were designed to remove ambiguity and improve clarity and predictability while continuing to protect public health and safety. It said the changes would being ANZ closer to regulatory approaches used overseas by countries including Canada, Japan, and England.
"it helps ensure the Code remains current and supports international trade, innovation and consistent regulation across markets," it said.
AOL said, “It would make it virtually impossible for consumers to exercise their right to avoid GM/gene edited foods, while shifting the burden of proof and compliance to the small percentage of supply chains that actively seek to stay GM-free – namely, the organic sector.”
Pettersson said advances in testing technology were not enough.
“The reality is, without disclosure of which edits have been made and where in the genome, it may be impossible to detect changes for processed products. This puts certified supply chains in an impossible position. Worse still, if an undeclared gene-editing change is detected by someone else, such as an export partner or foreign lab, it would fall on us to prove it wasn’t caused by gene technology,” she said.
The organic industry added that P1055 makes no provision to support gene editing for Australian organic products being exported. It said it leaves the leaves the organic sector and GM-free producers to carry the full cost while allowing gene-tech developers and importers to operate invisibly.
“As FSANZ’s new definition focuses solely on the end product, rather than the production process, it disregards the needs of certification, food ethics and consumer trust. The proposal was put forward without any formal cost–benefit analysis or trade impact assessment, despite implications for Australia’s clean, green export reputation,” the industry said.
Australian Organic chair, David Keens, said the proposal is reckless.
“Changing the definition of GM food while deliberately excluding traceability, labelling and IP protections is reckless.
“It breaks the social contract with consumers and risks making Australia a global outlier in food integrity,” he said.
Keens said major trading partners – including the EU, Japan and South Korea – continue to regulate gene-edited foods or require traceability protocols. FSANZ’s proposal goes significantly further, and may place future organic and clean food exports at risk.
“Consumers are being left in the dark, and clean food producers are being set up to fail. We are not opposed to innovation, but we are opposed to deregulation that removes responsibility, transparency and choice,” Keens said.
ANZ food ministers have 60 days to consider FSANZ’s decision.
