There is mandatory labeling of GE proteins in Australia, but they would like to go one better. Bravura.

Vivienne Reiner
June 24, 2009

I am an avid reader of food labels so must admit I'm more obsessed than most about the health effects of what I eat.

But I have only recently discovered that a majority of processed food on supermarket shelves could contain genetically modified organisms. Yet you are unlikely to learn this by reading the label.

----------------------------
POLL: Do you trust GE foods?
----------------------------

A Newspoll last year found a majority of Australians are less likely to buy food if they know it contains GE ingredients and nine in ten are in favour of labelling of GE food.

In the months before Kevin Rudd gained government, Federal Labor promised not to approve the release of GE crops unless they could be proven safe "beyond reasonable doubt". Labor also supported the "comprehensive labelling of genetically modified food" but now any firm decision has been relegated to the ministerial council's review, which is expected to last for a year.

Meanwhile, Australia's leading food brands, including Goodman Fielder (Meadow Lea, White Wings, Helga's), Kellogg's, Coles house brands and ALDI exclusive range, have been responding to consumer sentiment by pledging to avoid GE ingredients. Nutritionist Rosemary Stanton has weighed in, as have chefs Neil Perry, Bill Granger, Kylie Kwong and Margaret Fulton, who are among more than 180 other foodies committed to support full labelling of GE food.

Unlike in the EU, here only food where GE proteins can be detected must be labelled. This means that foods containing highly refined GE ingredients need not mention this on the label and nor do products from animals fed GE feed.

But why all the fuss over GE food in particular? One issue is the lack of peer-reviewed, independent safety testing. Where tests have been done, serious concerns have been raised in the areas of increasing toxins in our bodies as well as allergens and even the potential for altered hormones. As well, there are worrying health risks regarding the associated increased pesticides in GE foods and the use of antibiotic-resistant genes. Epidemiologist and author Judy Carman says without proper testing and labelling, it is almost impossible to track any resultant health problems.

Once consumers know about GE food, there may well be less demand for Australian farmers to continue growing GE canola. In Canada, the export market for canola to Europe collapsed after the introduction of GE canola. Markets like Europe and Japan are against GE, as are most Australians who know about it.

In any case, anecdotal evidence suggests farmers here have not been rushing to embrace GE, with many openly resistant, despite promises that genetically engineered crops will reap greater profits.

When considering the enticing arguments in favour of GE, it is also telling to look at the history of Monsanto, which has brought GE canola crops to Australia. Monsanto, whose other business interests focus on chemical production, was behind Agent Orange. Do we really want to entrust the future of our food to a seed monopoly that genetically engineers its seeds to withstand its associated herbicides and is known for its huge PR budgets and strategically placed "research” funding? Truth or profit – I know which one I'd go with.

Vivienne Reiner is a freelance journalist who works a casual communications officer for Greenpeace's GE campaign.