Should all genetically modified foodstuffs be labelled as such?

Echo Issue Outline (... appearing in 1999 print editions 26 and 27)

TITLE: Should all genetically modified foodstuffs be labelled as such?

Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
'Complete, honest information on packages is essential as the basis for fully informed decisions on new, untested foods'
Bob Phelps, director of GeneEthics Network Australia

'If the GM crop is not significantly different from existing crops, no special labelling should be required'
Alan Moran, currently with the Institute of Public Affairs and formerly head of the Commonwealth Office of Regulation Review

In August, 1999, the health ministers of Australia and New Zealand announced that most genetically modified foods sold in the two countries would have to be labelled as such by October 2000.
Exempted were foods with a genetically modified content below a certain threshold. This threshold has yet to be determined.
The Australian and New Zealand Food Association has been asked to make a recommendation about appropriate GM thresholds for labelling purposes.
The health ministers' decision appears to have satisfied no one; neither the food producers and processors who generally do not favour compulsory labelling, nor the consumer rights advocates and health groups who argue that all genetically modified food components should be indicated on the label.
The debate over the safety, environmental consequences and ethical nature of genetically modified food appears to have been focused by the issue of whether such food should have to be labelled.

Background
Genetically-modified (GM) food is produced from plants or animals which have had their genes changed in the laboratory by scientists. Modifying the genes can alter the characteristics of an organism.
Genetic engineering allows scientists to select a single gene for a single characteristic and transfer that stretch of DNA from one organism to another - even between different species.

Techniques used to produce transgenic plants
There are a number of techniques that can be used for getting a desired gene into a plant.
* One technique makes use of a soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
This microbe can insert stretches of DNA into plants. Scientists have devised a means to get this bacterium to deliver genes of their choice.
* Also used is a technique called biolistics.
This uses a 'gun' to fire the desired gene into a plant's cells. The "foreign DNA" is carried on tiny pieces of gold. With luck, the plant will take up the DNA and start to read out its instructions. Wheat and rice have been modified in this way.
* Another method uses protoplasts. These are plant cells which have had their tough walls removed. This gives the foreign DNA easier access to the cell interior.
No matter which technique is used, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it usually cannot function without an artificial boost.
Boosters (called "promoters") are artificially attached to the foreign genes and operate independently of the host's control mechanisms to promote the cell division of the inserted gene.
When developing plants through biotechnology, scientists also use selectable marker genes, attached to the inserted DNA, to determine whether transfer has been successful. Sometimes antibiotic-resistant marker genes have been used for this purpose.
The success of genetic engineering techniques depends on the fact that many plants can be regenerated from single cells or small pieces of plant tissue. This means a successful modification can be multiplied very quickly.

The development and commercialisation of transgenic crops
The first transgenic or genetically modified plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983.
In 1986 the first patent was issued on a genetically engineered variety of corn crop that has increased nutritional value.
In 1993 the first GM plant was commercially produced in the United States. This was a delayed-ripening tomato.
In 1996 the European Union approved the importation and use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans in foods for people and feed for animals. These beans have been modified to survive being sprayed with the Roundup herbicide that is applied to a field to kill weeds.
(Monsanto is a multinational company specialising in biotechnology. It is based in the United States.)
However, not all GM products have been approved for use in Europe. Concern appears to be particularly strong in Great Britain. This seems in part due to British consumers' distrust of official assurances about food safety. It is popularly claimed that this distrust stems from Britain's experience with mad cow disease.
In 1998 44 per cent of the United States' soybean crop and 36 per cent of its corn were produced from GM seeds.
The United States Department of Agriculture has approved more than 50 GM plant varieties for use by US farmers.
Australian authorities have so far approved only one GM crop, Ingard cotton.
In May, 1999, the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) gave provisional authority for 20 genetically modified foods to be sold in Australia while the new labelling requirements are being worked out. Products containing these ingredients will not initially be labelled as genetically modified. Whether all of them ever are will probably depend on the threshold ruling the ANZFA finally arrives at.
It has been estimated that some 500 foods already on sale worldwide contain some genetically modified ingredients.
These foods include baby food, soup, beer, chocolate, biscuits and some health foods.

Internet information section

There are a very large number of Internet sites which deal with genetically modified food in general and, in particular, the issue of whether such food should be labelled as genetically altered.

A good place to start is with the BBC's Online Network which has a special sub-section of its site titled Special report: Food under the microscope
The index page for this special section can be found at THIS ADDRESS
Of particular interest to those finding their way around this issue is a link from this section titled Genetically-modified Q&A
Answers to basic questions can be found here at THIS ADRESS
In addition to straight-forward information about how plants are genetically modified, this series of questions and answers explains the laws regarding GM food as they currently apply in the United Kingdom and also explains the term 'substantial equivalence', which is important for understanding the basis on which many regulations governing genetically modified food have been established.

The well-regarded science magazine, New Scientist, has set up a special sub-section of its site to look at genetically modified food. The subsite is titled Living in a GM world. Special Report: the facts versus the frenzy
The subsite can be found at http://gmworld.newscientist.com/
It links to a large number of New Scientist articles dealing with aspects of genetic engineering and food production.
Its lead article is titled Unpalatable truthsand explains the difficulty of testing to determine if genetically engineered foods are safe.
The subsite was set up in April, 1999, but has links to more recent material. It is worth taking the time to explore its range of links.

The nature magazine, Nature, also has a number of special features relating to genetically engineered food. A collection of what appear to be the most recent can be accessed by clicking on THIS ADDRESS

Monsanto UK has a large section of its site given over to a consideration of genetically modified food.
The company is concerned to show the advantages that genetically modified food is claimed to offer.
The relevant section of its site can be accessed at http://www.monsanto.co.uk/index.html
Of particular interest is its Safety Assessments Of Foods Derived From Genetically Modified Plants.
These can be accessed at http://www.monsanto.co.uk/highlights/safety.html
Monsanto is one of the world's largest biotechnology firms. It is a global firm with facilities on many continents. The company's headquarters are in St. Louis, Missouri (USA). Its business sectors are:
* Agricultural, including seeds improved through biotechnology, crop-protection chemicals and dairy cow product. It has long been a world leader in the production of pesticides and herbicides.
* Pharmaceutical, including products for arthritis, cardiovascular problems, insomnia and women's health.
* Nutrition & Consumer Products, including food ingredients and food-product systems.

The United States National Food Processors Association (NFPA) has issued a policy statement on the 1998 United States proposals to alter the law regarding the labelling of genetically modified food.
The NFPA represents the US food processing industry on scientific and public policy issues involving food safety, nutrition, technical and regulatory matters and consumer affairs.
The Association's statement on the labelling of genetically modified food can be found at http://www.nfpa-food.org/Comments/label98_9_30.html
The document is titled NFPA Comments on Genetically Modified Food Labeling Proposal of August 27, 1998
The NFPA supports voluntary, not compulsory, labelling, and argues that the food processor should not have to label food components as genetically modified where they are 'substantially equivalent' to the naturally occurring component.
Interestingly, the NFPA believes that 'Mandatory labeling would discourage advances in this new important technology. '
This would appear to suggest that the NFPA considers that consumers may not accept genetically modified food if they were aware that that was what they were purchasing.

The International Food Information Council (IFIC) has produced an eight-page article titled Backgrounder - Food Biotechnology. At the time of this issue outline going to print the article had last been updated in April, 1999.
The background piece gives clear, accessible information on the uses to which genetic engineering has been put in the United States food production industry.
It lists the current and hoped for advantages in applying this technology to food production and manufacture.
It also lists the current laws and regulatory bodies, including the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), intended to safeguard the quality of United States food.
The piece adopts a uniformly positive attitude to genetically modified food and suggests there are no risks that are not adequately allowed for by present legislation and regulatory practice.
The article can be found at http://ificinfo.health.org/backgrnd/BKGR14.htm
The IFIC is a non-profit organization providing information on food safety and nutrition to health and nutrition professionals, educators, government officials and others.
Despite its title, IFIC focuses primarily on US issues. It is based in Washington
Financially, the IFIC is supported primarily by the broad-based US food, beverage and agricultural industries.

The Alliance for Bio-Integrity presents a Summary Overview opposing genetically engineered food.
This is again a clear and accessible article presenting the anti-GM food argument from a number of perspectives.
It can be found at http://www.bio-integrity.org/Overview.html
The Alliance for Bio-Integrity is a US-based organisation. It claims to be non-profit and non-political.
Its stated aim is human advancement and environmental health 'through sustainable and safe technologies'.
It seeks to
* inform the public about technologies and practices that negatively impact on health and the environment
* inspire broad-based, responsible action that helps correct the problems and uphold the integrity of the natural order.
The site is interesting, in part because it presents both scientific and religious arguments against certain biotechnological developments.

The international environmental protection organisation, Greenpeace, opposes genetically engineered food.
Greenpeace has a subsection of its site dealing with this issue. This can be found at http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/
This subsite gives simple explanations of genes and genetic engineering. It argues that the effects of genetic engineering are unpredictable and that safety testing has been inadequate.
It also summarises the various bases for public concern and looks at the labelling issue as it has been approached by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union.

International Consumers has produced summaries of consumer attitudes to the labelling of genetically modified food in Australia, Canada, the European Union and the United States..
These can be found at http://www.oneworld.org/consumers/campaigns/biotech/surveys.html
They appear to indicate that a significant majority of those surveyed in all these countries or regions favour the labelling of food to indicate it has been genetically modified.
International Consumers has also produced a clear and detailed argument for the compulsory labelling of all genetically engineered food. It includes a consideration of many of the hazards that could result from genetically modified foods.
The article is titled Why We Need Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food and can be found at http://www.oneworld.org/consumers/campaigns/biotech/whylabel.html
International Consumers was founded in 1960 as the International Organization of Consumers Unions.
In 1995, the organisation adopted the name Consumers International. It has five regional operations and some 200 member consumer groups from some 90 countries.
It aims to support member organisations and to promote policies at the international level that respect consumer concerns.
It is a non-profit organisation and is not politically aligned. It is funded by fees from member organisations and by foundation and government grants.
It is campaigning to have the United Nations recommend that all genetically engineered food should be labelled as such.

Arguments against all genetically modified foods being labelled as such
Those who argue against the comprehensive labelling of all genetically modified foods, and ingredients in processed foods, tend to argue that it is not information that is of real benefit to the consumer.
The starting point for this claim tends to be that genetically modified food components are safe and therefore their presence is not of relevance to the consumer.
Those who maintain that genetically modified food is safe tend to place reliance on the testing procedures that the foodstuffs have undergone.
This position is taken by Alan Moran, currently with the Institute of Public Affairs and formerly head of the Commonwealth Office of Regulation Review.
Mr Morgan has argued, 'The first step is to ensure all GM products are known, registered and widely tested for health and environmental safety. Such a regime is in place in Australia ...'
A similar point has been made by Mr Grant Tambling, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Health.
Mr Tambling has stressed that the issue regarding GM foods is not one of safety.
It has been claimed that many of those who seek the labelling of GM foods are extremists who actually want to see all GM crops banned.
It has further been argued that selective breeding programs, which have been in place for a long period of time are a sort of genetic manipulation and that they have taken place successfully without the apparent need to inform consumers of the food products thus modified.
This point was made in an editorial published in The Australian on August 4, 1999.
The editorial stated, 'Genes researchers point out that humans have been eating genetically modified foods for ... years. In earlier generations the research that led to the development of rust resistant wheat in Australia ... built on wheat varieties which contained genes from many sources, including rye grasses ...'
It is further claimed by some who oppose the labelling of genetically modified food components, that if the modified component is 'substantially equivalent' to the naturally occurring product then there should be no need to label it differently.
Substantial equivalence generally appears to mean that it looks and tastes the same and does not provoke known allergic reactions in consumers.
This point has also been made by Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs, who has claimed, 'If the GM crop is not significantly different from existing crops, no special labelling should be required.'
It has further been argued that the ruling recently made by Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers will be expensive and unworkable.
Alan Moran has said of this decision, 'The outcome could be a cost to consumers similar to that of a GST on food and a loss of export competitiveness and income for Australian farmers.
These costs emerge if comprehensive labelling is required of any food containing an ingredient derived from genetically modified plants.'
'The costs,' Mr Moran claims, 'arise, not from the label, but the vast new auditing and duplication of handling required to ensure the label is accurate.'
Mr Moran has quoted some British experts who have suggested that the resulting increase in cost of basic food could be as high as 50 per cent.
A similar point has been made by Mr Mitch Hooke, the executive director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.
Mr Hooke has suggested, 'In the worst case scenario, the costs of segregation, audit, testing and relabelling ... could amount to at least $1billion annually, for an industry worth $45 billion.'
Mr Moran has suggested that, as a question of consumer rights, it is not appropriate that all consumers (the majority of whom, he suggests do not opposed GM foods) should have to pay the added costs of the labelling system sought by a supposed minority.
On the question of impracticality, Mr Moran has argued that this new labelling system, if carried through comprehensively, would 'require the entire food chain to be streamed into products that contain, or do not contain, genetically modified ingredients.'
It has been claimed that one of the reasons for this is that many foods that currently contain genetically modified ingredients are extremely difficult to detect. In the case of oils, for example, this is because the DNA of the genetically modified plant, such as canola, is destroyed in processing.
It has further been argued that some composite products, such as bread or cakes, contain so little of a genetically modified ingredient as also to be extremely difficult to detect.
In addition, it is noted that currently food producers are not always aware of whether their products contain one or more ingredients from a genetically modified plant.
This difficulty is said to be compounded because some suppliers of raw materials may mix genetically modified and naturally derived produce.
The health ministers of Australia and New Zealand have responded to the admitted difficulty of 'sourcing' all ingredients in processed food by ruling that food should be labelled in one of three ways.
If the product is known to contain GM ingredients it should be marked as such; if it is known to be free of GM ingredients then its label should say so.
However, if the manufacturer is uncertain of the GM status of all its ingredients then the product's label is to indicate that it 'might contain' genetically modified components.
Mr Mitch Hooke, the executive director of the Australian Food and Grocery Council, has questioned the usefulness of this 'might contain' label.
Mr Hooke has argued, '... this form of labelling stands to mislead and confuse consumers and add considerable recurrent costs on industry, and ultimately consumers, with little tangible benefit.'
According to this line of argument, consumers have actually been told very little if they are told only that a particular product 'may contain' genetically modified ingredients.
It has also been argued that the proposed labelling regulations could undermine the development of genetically modified crops in Australia.
Those who make this point claim that consumer uncertainty about and possible resistance to genetically modified ingredients could see food manufacturers refuse to use them.
It has already been noted that a number of Australian food manufacturers are in the process of removing genetically modified ingredients from their products in advance of the new regulations coming into effect.
It has been reported, for example, that the Sanitarium Health Food Company has been removing GM ingredients from its products since March, 1999.
Dr Greg Gambrill, Sanitarium's operations manager (international) has claimed that the company would be using only non-GM segregated supplies by September, 1999.
Dr Gambrill has stated, 'What we are doing is responding to consumers.'
Similarly Cadbury-Schweppes, Master Foods Australia, Mars Confectionery of Australia and Heinz Watties Australasia have indicated that they too will be removing any GM ingredients from their products.
It has been claimed that such boycotts by manufacturers of GM ingredients could halt the development of genetically modified crops in Australia.
Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs has stated that such a development could deprive Australian primary producers of access to GM crops which are more efficient to grow, requiring less fertiliser and less water.
In the future, it has been claimed, it could also deprive Australian consumers of access to fruits and vegetables with enhanced vitamin content, enhanced flavour and longer shelf life.
It has also been argued that on an international level, GM crops have the capacity to grow in otherwise unproductive areas and so help overcome the problem of world food shortages.
Further it has been argued that GM crops can be produced which are insect-resistant and so reduce the need for the use of pesticides.
Asa Wahlquist, The Australian's rural business writer, has claimed, 'While environmentalists rail against GMOs, the on-farm consequence is lower chemical use, and hence lower chemical residues in the environment and in food.'
Ms Wahlquist has also claimed that `The overseas experience with herbicide-resistant plants - these plants are not yet approved for use in Australia - is that farmers are using less herbicide'
Thus, it is argued, from both an humanitarian and an environmental perspective, Australia should be doing nothing to discourage the development and acceptance of GM food technology.
It has also been argued that many transgenic crops will have definite health benefits for those who consume them.
This point has been made by Graeme O'Neill, The Herald Sun's science writer.
Mr O'Neill has claimed, for example, that gene technology makes it possible to develop 'edible oils with health-giving properties' that will help to prevent heart disease.
Finally, it has been claimed, Australasian regulations which limit or prohibit the importation of GM primary produce or manufactured food products could have a negative impact on Australia's international trade.
It was revealed in July, 1999, that Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand had sought to persuade Japan not to go ahead with its recently adopted regulations requiring that GM foods be labelled as such.
The four nations apparently warned Japan that such regulations might breach world trade agreements.
It has been claimed that the same arguments could be used against Australia in the event that we adopt similar regulations to Japan.
It has also been noted that when the European Union blocked imports of US hormone-treated beef, the United States retaliated by imposing $US116 million tariffs on EU goods coming into America.
It has been suggested that similar action could be taken against Australia were we to block or limit the importation of GM-modified US produce.

Arguments in favour of all genetically modified foods being labelled as such
Those who argue in favour of the comprehensive labelling of all GM ingredients in food products usually start by stressing the consumer's right to be informed.
This point has been made in an Age editorial published on August 7, 1999. The editorial states, 'As a general principle, food companies should be obliged to reveal whether their ingredients are genetically modified. Many consumers want to be able to make an informed choice in their supermarkets.'
A similar point has been made in The Herald Sun's editorial of August 5, 1999. The editorial states, '... consumers do have a right to know what they are eating; whether products are naturally produced or manipulated in a laboratory. Every effort must be made to ensure that products are labelled correctly.'
Many of those who argue for the comprehensive labelling of genetically modified foods maintain that food is a particularly sensitive consumer item as it is a necessity which we have no choice but to purchase and it is also one which has a major impact on our health and well-being.
From this point of view, it is claimed, a product as unavoidable and important as food is one about which consumers should be able to demand maximum information.
Those who argue that all genetically modified foods should be labelled often also argue that many consumers have reservations about GM products and so should be able to reject these products if they wish.
This point has been made by Mr Bob Phelps, the director of GeneEthics Network.
Mr Phelps has claimed, 'Complete, honest information on packages is essential as the basis for fully informed decisions on new, untested foods.'
Mr Phelps' emphasis on the supposedly 'untested' nature of GM food is typical of many of those who doubt its safety.
According to this line of argument, GM foods have only been available for less than fifteen years and, thus far, to a fairly limited extent.
Critics of genetically engineered food products claim that this is too short a period over which to gauge their possible negative consequences for both the environment and human health.
The point has been made that it often takes at least 25 years, or a generation, for the potentially harmful effects of a new technology to become apparent.
This point has been made by Mara Bun, the policy manager of the Australian Consumers' Association.
Ms Bun has stated, 'It's not surprising that GM labelling has overwhelming public support as we learn that these crops have not been tested on human beings or assessed for their longer-term environmental impact.'
Of particular concern for some critics is the use of antibiotic-resistant marker genes in the process through which some transgenic plants are produced.
There are those who fear that this antibiotic resistance will be passed to other bacteria, including those which cause disease in human beings.
This point has also been made by Mara Bun, who has stated, 'Doctors are asking ... questions about the use of antibiotic resistant genes in some GM crops.
What would the long-term damage be if the embedded antibiotic resistance made its way up the food chain in bugs that harm human beings.'
Ms Bun has further claimed that possibilities of this sort have led to growing concern within the Australian and British medical associations.
At the end of July, 1999, the Australian Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia backed the Australian Consumers Association's push for comprehensive labelling of transgenic products or ingredients.
Also of concern to those who want GM foods labelled for health reasons is the possibility that allergy suffers could be unknowingly exposed to substances to which they are allergic.
This point has been made by W J Gabriel in a letter published in The Australian on August 4, 1999.
W J Gabriel has stated, 'Fortunately there are only a handful of people severely allergic to specific foods and they can usually avoid them.
However, in this era of genetic engineering a tomato might contain other than tomato genes and the list of transgenic foods can only increase.
For allergy suffers ... comprehensive food labelling is the only way to go.'
Numbers of environmentalists are also concerned that GM crops will have a damaging impact on the environment and want the opportunity to effectively boycott them at the supermarket..
One of the environmental apprehensions frequently expressed is that GM modified crops may increase the use of herbicides.
This point has been made by Peter Moore in a letter published in The Age on August 7, 1999.
Mr Moore notes that numbers of crops have been genetically modified so that they are resistant to the herbicide Roundup.
Referring specifically to soybeans, Mr Moore notes that this modification means `Roundup will kill all other plant life within the soybean crop but leave the soybeans unaffected.'
The implication appears to be that such a genetic modification promotes chemical-based farming with its potential to harm both consumers and the environment.
It has also been suggested that some genetically engineered crops may prove toxic to other animal life and so threaten the survival of some species. There is also a concern that these engineered toxins may be very difficult to control or limit.
This point has been made by Mara Bun of the Australian Consumers Association, commenting on the possible impact of a GM crop on the North American Monarch butterfly.
Ms Bun has noted, 'Research published recently in the US indicated that genetically engineered BT corn can be lethal to Monarch larvae. American children adore this butterfly; it's an environmental icon.'
(Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium which produces a protein said to be toxic only to caterpillars and designed to protect Bt-modified plants from insect damage
The Monarch larvae do not feed on Bt corn, however it has been found that wind-borne pollen crystals from this corn have contaminated the larvae's natural food source, killing the larvae.)
It has further been argued that rather than solving world food supply problems, the use of genetically modified crops may actually increase the disadvantage that many farmers in undeveloped countries currently suffer.
It has been suggested, for example, that GM crops are generally expensive and go hand in hand with highly mechanised, chemical- and capital-intensive farming.
It has been suggested that if such farming practices increase they will further close out from world markets farmers in less developed nations and smaller farmers in the developed world.
This point has been made by Dr Gyorgy Scrinis, author of Colonising the Seed: Genetic Engineering and Techno-Industrial Agriculture.
Dr Scrinis states, 'If genetically modified crops allow large-scale, monocultural, capital intensive farms to increase production levels or improve their profit margins ... this ... will [squeeze] out small-scale farmers, leading to a further concentration of land ownership.'
Dr Scrinis has also claimed that the form of agriculture encouraged by GM cropping leads to the degradation of farming land.
He has claimed, 'Agricultural land is already being degraded and rendered unusable ... due to intensive and unsustainable chemical-industrial farming practices, particularly in Australia.
The intensification of this form of agriculture through the use of genetically engineered crops therefore threatens the long-term prospects for maintaining even present levels of food production.'
Also of concern from an environmental point of view is that GM cropping may lead to a further standardisation of crop strains so that the range of naturally occurring different strains of a particular type of plant is further reduced.
Critics of GM cropping are concerned that we may reach a point where we have reduced natural biodiversity to a point where the only way to introduce different characteristics into a particular food crop is through genetic engineering, whatever the negative side-effects of this might be.
This point has been made by Mr Bob Phelps of the Australian GeneEthics Network. Mr Phelps has stated, 'What these companies are doing is privatising the common heritage of humanity. As well, this monopoly ownership is threatening the biodiversity of the planet.'
It has also been noted that there are those who are opposed to eating certain sorts of foodstuff on religious grounds and that for these people it is very important to know exactly what their food is composed of.
There are also those who from a religious or ethical perspective object to genetic engineering as an unwarrantable interference with either God's creation or the natural order.
Equally, vegans, those who eat only vegetable products, are concerned to know the exact composition of the foods they eat.
Those who are doubtful about GM crops from either an environmental, public health or ethical point of view tend to argue that the threshold concept is irrelevant and that products containing any GM ingredients should be so labelled, no matter what percentage of the product the GM component forms.
For those who hold serious concerns about genetically modified crops, a product either contains genetically modified ingredients or it does not and if it does then they wish to be informed so that they can avoid it.
Mara Bun of the Australian Consumers Association has summed up this position, stating, 'genetic modification is like pregnancy or death: you either are or you are not.'

Further implications
The ramifications of this issue are far-reaching.
Within Australia the ANZFA has been asked to make a recommendation regarding GM thresholds, for labelling purposes, by October of this year.
The ANZFA has been accused by some of being pro-GM crops and it has been suggested that it may recommend thresholds that a number of lobby groups and medical authorities consider too lenient.
(From this perspective it is interesting to note that in May of this year the ANZFA gave provisional approval for a number of GM foodstuffs to go on sale in Australia in advance of the new labelling regulations and that currently these new products do not have to be labelled as GM.)
Any generous interpretation of threshold levels recommended by the ANZFA would be likely to be rejected by federal and state health ministers, especially now that the AMA and Public Health Association of Australia have joined with the Australian Consumer Association in demanding rigorous labelling.
Australia's new labelling regulations are meant to be in place by October, 2000.
On a worldwide level, if current rates of uptake persist the United States is likely to continue to be the world leader in the production and consumption of GM foodstuffs. There appears to be significant resistance to these products in the European Union (EU). Australia is presently only a very small player in this area.
Depending on where our labelling thresholds are set it may be that most goods intended for Australian markets will not contain GM ingredients. The threshold levels are crucial from this point of view.
It has been claimed that many Australian farmers are keen to exploit the production advantages that GM crops offer. The extent to which they do so will depend on the available markets in both Australia and the rest of the world for GM crops. Currently a number of Australian primary producers are taking advantage of their GM-free status to sell to the EU.
The extent to which the cultivation of GM crops will be taken up in other areas of the world is as yet unknown, but given that the firms promoting these technologies are multinational it seems likely that their reach will be wide.
It seems too early to speak with confidence about either the benefits or the dangers that GM crops represent. If present trends continue, the United States may well act as a laboratory for the rest of the world. US experience with these crops should, over time, indicate relative gains and losses. It is to be hoped the 'experiment' has a positive outcome.

Sources
The Age
7/6/99 page 13 comment by Gyorgy Scrinis, 'Sowing the demon seed'
14/6/99 page 12 letter from Dr David Tribe, 'Gene technology will help stave off famine'
14/6/99 page 12 letter from Bob Donovan, 'Putting ethics ahead of food engineering'
19/6/99 page 1 (News Extra section) analysis by Geoff Strong, 'Hard to swallow'
25/7/99 page 3 analysis by Mark Ragg & Nick Leys, 'Manufacturers shun high-tech foods - for now'
30/7/99 page 9 news item by Darrin Farrant, 'Labelling of GM foods in doubt'
2/8/99 page 14 letter from Brian D Fray, 'Hidden perils in genetically modified plants'
3/8/99 page 7 news item by Darrin Farrant, 'Ruling on modified food labels stays on the shelf'
5/8/99 page 4 news item by Darrin Farrant, 'Food labelling quandary ahead'
7/8/99 page 5 analysis by Darrin Farrant, 'What are we eating?'
7/8/99 page 8 editorial, 'The right to know what's on the menu'

The Australian
26/5/99 page 13 comment by Asa Wahlquist, `Not against the grain'.
30/7/99 page 3 news item by Sid Marris & Christopher Dore, 'No gene food labels, we tell Japan.
4/8/99 page 1 news item by Sid Marris, 'Ministers agree on gene food labelling'
4/8/99 page 12 editorial, 'Food genes compromise a step ahead'
4/8/99 page 12 letters from W J Gabriel and Murray Winter and Dallas Kinnear, under the heading, 'Leave our food alone'
5/8/99 page 2 news item by Sid Marris & Kristine Gough, 'Gene food labels to cost $1bn: grocers'
5/8/99 page 11 comment by Mara Bun, 'Regulator must heed concerns'
5/8/99 page 11 comment by Mitch Hooke, 'We may need to read what we eat'
6/8/99 page 34 analysis by Asa Wahlquist, 'Field of genes'

The Herald Sun
13/6/99 page 53 comment by Graeme O'Neill, 'Scientists give us the good oil'
2/8/99 page 12 news item by Fiona Hudson, 'Gene food labels fight may be lost'
3/8/99 page 6 news item by Sarah Dent & Fiona Hudson, 'Labels for genetic food'
4/8/99 page 3 news item by Sarah Dent, 'OK for labels on GM foods'
4/8/99 page 18 comment by Alan Moran', 'Don't hobble our smart food'
5/8/99 page 16 editorial, 'Knowing what we eat'