Consumers say NO to GMO
By Desta Itote and Madeline Cooper
As Moratoriums on genetically modified (GM) crops are lifted and regulations relaxed around Australia, Truth in labelling' campaigns are calling for better labelling of foods containing GM products or derivatives. And consumers are right behind them demanding greater choice and transparency.
In a survey conducted by market research company Mobium Group for BFA in 2010, an overwhelming 80 per cent of consumers surveyed indicated that the genetically modified organism (GMO)-free aspect of organic food is important to them. 62 per cent say that 'GM free' is one of the main contributing factors in their decision to buy organic.
Given that 6 in 10 Australian households now purchase organic products on occasion and the industry was projected to be worth $1 billion in 2010, it is more important than ever for consumers to know they can trust that certified organic products are free from synthetic chemicals, additives and GMOs.
Australian organic certifying bodies such as Australian Certified Organic (ACO) and the standards that underpin their programs currently take a zero tolerance approach to GM.
The recent legal dispute over liability for GM canola infiltration into WA producer Stephen Marsh's certified organic crops has GM advocates claiming that the organic industry's zero tolerance approach to GM - as set out in the BFA's Australian Certified Organic Standard 2010 as well as Australian base standards - is illogical and unreasonable.
According to a statement from Gene Ethics, WA Agriculture and Food Minister Terry Redman believes the zero per cent threshold for GM in organic standards is unrealistic.
Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) standards convenor Dr Andrew Monk says the zero tolerance approach is, at this time, not negotiable.
"The relevant base standards in Australia, as well as the Australian Certified Organic Standard behind the Bud logo, clearly require zero tolerance for GM in end food products produced in Australia and prohibit ingredients derived from known GM sources (hence even canola oil, pervasive in the food industry in many products, is prohibited unless from a known non GMO source)," he says.
"This is unlikely to change anytime soon as this is ultimately driven by the marketplace (Le. Consumers). Consumers are stating quite clearly what they want and don't want, and what they are still concerned about. "The organic industry is obligated to seriously consider and incorporate such views when making decisions in this space."
In a 2010 submission to the Blewett Review of Food Labelling Law and policy, the BFA requested that labelling reflect, more clearly and accurately, "all GM and GM derived products or ingredients" in order to protect the consumer's right to make an informed choice. "
At this point in time, organic remains one of few choices consumers have to select GMO free. While this reality remains the industry would not be acting in the consumer's favour by dropping this requirement [for organic products to be free from GMO," says Dr Monk.
International effects: According to The Australian, Europe and Japan have threatened to cancel their non-GMO grain contracts with Australian growers because of the threat of contamination. This highlights the risk to not only organic farmers but the entire non-GMO grain industry in Australia.
"European consumers remain resolutely opposed to genetically modified crops, and as European importers we must remain responsive to the needs of our customers," said a letter from the European importers obtained by The Australian.
Bans on GM food crops vary across Australian states. In 2003 many Australian states imposed bans, but in 2008, GM crops were grown commercially in New South Wales and Victoria after the bans were lifted Bans were also lifted a short time later in Western Australia in late 2008. In South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, moratoriums preventing the commercial production of the crops remain, while Queensland and the Northern Territory have never placed moratoriums on GM crops.