News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Consumers have a 'right to know' on GM canola 

Consumers have a 'right to know' on GM canola

23 Nov, 2009 06:59 AM
CONSUMERS should have the right to know which products on supermarket shelves contain genetically modified canola oil, health experts and environmentalists say.

Submissions to a national review on food labelling, due to be made public this week, are pressing for food containing GM canola oil to be clearly disclosed on packaging.

Dr Judy Carman, the director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, said a number of household products now contained GM canola oil, which consumers had no way of identifying.

GM canola is grown in both NSW and Victoria and is used in food including margarine, biscuits, and other snack foods.

Under the national standards for GM labelling, established in 2001, GM canola oil does not need to be identified because it is unlikely to contain genetically modified DNA or protein.

But Dr Carman, a former senior epidemiologist for the South Australian Government, said a range of scientific evidence showed DNA and protein from GM canola oil could be found in food products - albeit in small quantities.

Victorian-based group Gene Ethics said public health and safety must be at the forefront of food labelling.

In September, Greenpeace and 180 top Australia chefs also called for all genetically modified products to be identified in food labelling.

The Council of Australian Governments has established a wide-ranging review of Australia's food labelling regime including its role in health promotion, consumer expectations and the regulatory impact on industry.

In submissions to the review, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the National Farmers Federation argue for the need to reduce costs to producers of mandatory labelling.

The council's submission expressed broad support for voluntary labelling codes.

''Labelling requirements should not discourage purchase but rather assist consumers to make the right purchase to meet their individual needs,'' the submission reads.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Of course consumers want GM food labelled. Few people ever wanted to eat it. It was always a bad product, only purchased because it wasn't labelled - complete consumer deception laced up with media silence. What worries me is the extent to which this country is our own, rather than the US's, or Monsanto's.
Posted by Madeleine Love, 23/11/2009 3:57:09 PM, on Farm Weekly
Persons needing to buy GM free foods should be given access to the food selection system that is available to we coeliacs that need gluten-free foods. The food industries prepare and label gluten free foods. All foods that contain gluten are not labelled as such – such expense is unnecessary. This same system can be applied to those needing GM free foods. Were the demand for such foods significant, enterprising food providers would make available and clearly label GM -free foods. The extra expenses involved would be borne by those wanting the product and not the rest of us who don’t need to have GM status indicated. Scaremongering about the GM foods safety appears to becoming part of the current role of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research. If it has data on the incidence of GM material in our highly refined canola oil, when other research bodies don’t find it, they should present such information. Readers may perhaps know this IHER is an Institute that has for years had no offices, no laboratories, no employed staff and no peer reviewed scientific papers. It is an Institute based on a suburban post office box and a website.
Posted by cyril, 24/11/2009 12:09:09 AM, on The Land
Persons needing to buy GM free foods should be given access to the food selection system that is available to we coeliacs that need gluten free foods . The food industries prepare and label gluten free foods. All foods that contain gluten are not labelled as such – such expense is unnecessary . This same system can be applied to those needing GM free foods . Were the demand for such foods significant, enterprising food providers would make available and clearly label GM -free foods . The extra expenses involved would be borne by those wanting the product and not the rest of us who don’t need to have GM status indicated . Scaremongering about the GM foods safety appears to becoming part of the current role of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research. If it has data on the incidence of GM material in our highly refined canola oil , when other research bodies don’t find it , they should present such information . Readers may perhaps know this IHER is an Institute that has for years had no offices, no laboratories ,no employed staff and no peer reviewed scientific papers. It is an Institute based on a suburban post office box and a website.
Posted by cyril, 24/11/2009 12:09:24 AM, on The Land
Canola should definitely be identified as it is a created plant - a friend of mind becomes ill from eating it. I will never knowingly eat Canola or any GM product, and the public health should be the first consideration.
Posted by Concerned Northerner, 24/11/2009 7:15:39 AM, on Queensland Country Life
What about the use of cotton seed oil used in cooking that is from GM cotton. It is not just the raw product but by-products as well that a consumers should be notified of. It is similar to the generic brand pharmaceuticals that contain different binding agents etc from the chemists - many people I know are allergic to these additives and some even contain traces of other drugs that have made them quite ill (yet the Chemists swear that they are identical). Sometimes change is the last thing we need especially when it is not thought through to the very end products and the way these are delivered to the consumer so they have the choice on what they can or want to have.
Posted by coastie501, 24/11/2009 12:29:51 PM, on The Land
Cyril, well the FSANZ mob do NO TESTING whatsoever, and rely on info from the GM mob, who have been busted for incorrect and missing data many times. Approval was pre decided this year on a 2x modified soy product, on the basis of not much data and 2 42-day shed trials...no data on one vailable and the other sketchy! NO autopsy, and 42days is NOT long enough for safety in any way. I get ill when eating any commercial fried foods, I checked - yup cottonseed and canola in almost every available oil. I now buy NO commercial foods, and will be making my own dry dog food as I cannot be g/teed that NO cottonseed and canola byproducts are in it. Just because an EX MONSANTO man got into US govt and created "substantial equivalence" - a created con job! They weaselled out of labelling. Why not label it? Because people DO NOT want it, and if we can see it listed we will NOT BUY IT!!! Consider, to register GM it has to be new and novel...yet when we eat it, we are told it's the same as? No it is NOT! You can't have it both ways, one or the other. Not both. USA cancer council are coming out about IL2, cancer and RBGH milk now too, so much for no different. Never mind crippled animals.
Posted by amicus curiae, 26/11/2009 10:29:13 PM, on Stock Journal
Cyril, as usual, gets things upside down. But I agree with your first post. Those who want Gluten free products should pay for the labeling, since they are a minority. I have news for you Cyril! Those who want GM product are also in the minority by a huge margin so if you are so keen on GM you and your mates should pay for the labeling of GM. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! No insult intended, Cyril!
Posted by creeker, 27/11/2009 4:20:57 PM, on North Queensland Register
Why should anyone pay for the labelling of knowing what the product the company is giving them? They would know, it is not hard to figure out from their suppliers. It takes one phone call. The companies should be telling people by law what is in their product including Genetically Modified food. Especially GM as this has been shown to cause allergic reactions. How can we as consumers avoid something that we are allergic to if it is not written on the packet? Anyone who says differently does not have allergies and has never had the feeling of not being able to breathe due to an anaphyaxis attack.
Posted by Vicki Wilson, 29/11/2009 10:16:35 AM, on The Land

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 November, 2009
20 November, 2009
POLL
Q: How has the deregulation of export wheat marketing affected your farm's profits this harvest?

Increased profits
(22.1%)

Decreased profits
(56.2%)

No change
(21.7%)

Total Votes: 258
Poll Date: 23 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Northern Beef Week
 
MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Photo Library
 
Rural Bookshop
 
Land Subscriptions
 
The Land Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...