Genetically edited food to be deregulated in Australia and NZ
Genetically edited food to be deregulated in Australia and NZ
Removal of right to know if our food is natural or genetically edited
FSANZ is Australia and New Zealand’s Food Authority. They have a current proposal open (ending COB Tuesday 10th September) to allow genetically edited food to be grown and sold without any safety testing or labelling.
FSANZ Proposal P1055 - Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques can be found here.
Answer questions on the FSANZ portal here. Or email FSANZ your own submission- submissions@foodstandards.gov.au
FSANZ asserts that genetically edited food is the same as natural- conventional food, that it has the same “characteristics”. Under this definition lab meat may be seen as the same as meat, as the lab meat has added synthetic vitamins and minerals which match the natural levels of vitamins and minerals in meat.
The public is being asked to go along with a hypothesis that Synthetic is the same as Natural. It’s not!
Video detailing aspects of FSANZ proposal 1055
Included in the video:
Snippets from the PSGR podcast “People pay premium prices for GMO-free food. But the AU/NZ regulator proposes to declare a vast range of foods non-GMO.” Full podcast here. Speakers include:
Elvira Dommisse, BSc (Hons), PhD, former scientist, Crop & Food Research Institute (1985-1993), working on GE onion programme,
Jon Carapiet MA, MPhil, Senior Market Researcher, Trustee PSGRNZ
Jodie Bruning, B.Bus.Agribusiness (Monash Australia); MA Sociology (Research)
Snippets from the PSGR video “Biotechnology - Risk that scales up as efficiency increases. Heinemann on risk management & policy.” Full interview here. Professor Jack Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, (School of Biological Sciences). University of Canterbury. Director, Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) UC. PhD Molecular Biology (Oregon), BSc(hons) Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Julie Mcnab, Master Practitioner Naturopath N.D, Dip.Hom., Dip.C.Hyp., B.A.Dip. Ed.
Petra Hooijenga MSc, AARPN Certified Practising Nutritionist, Masters in Nutritional Epidemiology and Public Health.
FSANZ rationale
FSANZ argument states: since the genome of plants and animals change in natural ways; through evolution or conventional breeding techniques (some which I don’t approve of, but can include techniques such as cross pollination) genetically editing food is the same as conventional or natural farming practices. This argument negates the difference in time, scale and process whereby these natural or conventional changes occur. Genetic engineering is a recent development, is planned for large scale development, and can have widespread negative implications for our health, animal health and wellbeing, and the environment.
Novel Breeding Techniques (NBTs)
NBTs encompass a wide range of genetic engineering technology. Tech that is current and emerging:
The following categories will be allowed into our food sources without labelling or oversight:
Food from a Null Segregant
Genetically edited organisms (without novel DNA)
Food additives and processing aids
Food from genetically edited plant roots
Growth mediums used for lab meat (e.g. the current lab meat going through FSANZ approval uses barley infused with pig genes to grow the cells)
In Australia and New Zealand the vast majority of our food stock is not genetically manipulated. If FSANZ is able to push through this proposal genetically edited materials will be in our food, including organic/biodynamic, and we will not be aware.
Under the new definition of New Breeding Techniques vast majority of genetically engineered food will be allowed in to the market without safety testing or labelling. FSANZ is planning to take away our choice, we will no longer have any choice over whether we are eating genetically edited produce.
FSANZs remit
Though FSANZs obligation is to protect public health and to engender a high degree of consumer confidence, they seem more concerned with not inhibiting innovation and to accelerate the rapid progression of newly emerging “food” technology.
The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 states:
Disturbingly, it seems FSANZ is more interested in assisting industry (as outlined in their consideration of costs and benefits document). To note here is that FSANZ is also leaving the door open for non regulating emerging technology:
Benefits to food industry:
FSANZ acknowledges that consumers are concerned with genetically edited food, but they glide over this with confusing goobly gook. When they say consumers desire process based labelling, this means we want to know if our food has been created through any genetic editing. FSANZ is now stating that we as consumers have no right to know how the food we are expected to consume is made:
Benefits to consumers
Industry gets a lot of benefits- we the consumers may get cheaper food prices and an assurance that “synthetic food is sustainable”, and we are saving the climate through allowing patented, centrally controlled food to flood the market. But what if you think that’s a machiavellian PR spin?:
Even if you are interested in cheap highly processed foods, there’s no assurance it will be cheap once the patented gene edited products control the market. As outlined by Food Futurist Tony Hunter (full interview here):
What do the public want?
According to the document 2nd Call for submissions – Proposal P1055 In July 2021, FSANZ commissioned the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University to undertake a systematic literature review on consumers’ response to the use of NBTs in the production of food.
Key findings were:
Though there is little evidence and awareness is low of NBTs, people are positive about them. Note that the review focused primarily on overseas findings. That’s because the majority of people, not in the food industry, have no clue as to what’s going on:
Consumers do not accept that novel food techniques are the same as conventional food:
Consumers do not agree that “Synthetic is Sustainable”:
Consumers want regulation of NBTs:
Which begs the questions:
How can the two statements coexist: consumers are unaware of NBTs but they feel more positively towards them than GMO?
If FSANZ is aware the vast majority of Australian and New Zealanders are uneducated on NBTs, why are they pushing ahead with a community consultation? A mass education campaign would need to proceed a genuine community consultation.
If consumers do not consider conventional food as the same as NBTs, why is FSANZ proposing to rob us of our right to choose?
If consumers do not agree that genetically edited food will mitigate climate change, why has FSANZ included this as a benefit to consumers in their costs and benefits document?
If consumers want regulation, why is FSANZ proposing to remove regulation of genetically edited food?
Next steps
Submissions close on Tuesday Canberra time 6p.m.
Let FSANZ know how you feel about their proposal to strip away your choice regarding eating non GMO food. Gene Ethics Australia sums up succinctly what the issues are. Please don’t copy this wording, as FSANZ will lump the submissions through into one submission. Please put in your own words what your concerns are.
PLEASE HAVE YOUR SAY on P1055
FSANZ wants to redefine Gene Edited foods (aka NBTs)
The fake food industry would self-regulate its own GM products
FSANZ must not end our Right To Know and Choose what we eat!!
FSANZ (Food Standards Australia NZ) seeks your comments by COB on Tuesday September 10, 2024, on proposal P1055. In your own words, please make your comments on the FSANZ portal here. Or email FSANZ your own submission. Reject all proposed changes to the Food Standard as all would deregulate gene-edited foods and deny us any labelling.
Gene Ethics Australia media release regarding FSANZ P1055 Proposal
GeneEthics MEDIA RELEASE - Thursday September 5, 2024
We say NO to Deregulating Gene Edited food ingredients
Food Standards Australia NZ (FSANZ),under its proposal P1055[i]is set to allow the global processed food industry to self-regulate all gene-edited foods. Yet the gene edited foods made with CRISPR, that FSANZ calls NBTs (New Breeding Techniques), have scant history of safe use as food and unknown future impacts on health and wellbeing.
“FSANZ would amend the definitionsof ‘food produced using gene technology’ and ‘gene technology’ in the Food Standards Code, to exempt from any regulation the gene modified organisms, fermentations, and chemicals, used to make synthetic foods,” says GeneEthics Director, Bob Phelps.
“The food industry would not be required to notify FSANZ, so can avoid any assessment, regulation, and labelling.
“So gene-edited fake meat, mock milk,synthetic seafood, processing aids, additives, nutritive substances, colourings, and flavourings – even those not yet invented - would be sold in secret.
“Shoppers would entirely lose our right to know and choose what to feed our families.
“Gene-edited foods would also greatly expand the supply of highly refined and ultra-processed foods (UPFs)[ii]which are rightly blamed for rising rates of disease – obesity; diabetes; colorectal cancer; and heart trouble – even in young people.
“In its cost benefit analysisof P1055 FSANZ claims there is no hard evidence either way, but concludes the benefits would outweigh costs.
“This completely ignores the substantial body of hard scientific evidence that UPFs, loaded with salt, fat, sugar, and synthetic factory-made ingredients, cause ill health and death.[iii]
“FSANZ disregards the health, well-being and safety of families,with decisions that unfairly favour the global junk food industry and its addictive, gene-edited, highly-refined, and ultra-processed fake food.
“Gene-edited ingredients are a match for the Nova food classification system (Group 4)[iv]which defines UPFs as industrial formulations that deconstruct whole foods into chemical constituents, alter them, and recombine these with additives, into food-like products.
“Transnational corporations make, sell, and promote addictive UPFs, formulated to be convenient, affordable, hyper-palatable, to replace whole foods, and over-consumed.
“GeneEthics calls on all members of the Food Ministers Meeting(FMM)[v]and the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC)[vi] to direct FSANZ to exclude from the human food supply all gene-edited and UPF ingredients, including those derived from NBTs (New Breeding Techniques) and other biotechnologies (GM and gene edited).
[i] https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/proposals/p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-new-breeding-techniques
[ii] https://ontarget.cmaaustralia.edu.au/the-environmental-impact-of-the-global-food-system-the-curse-of-ultra-processed-foods/
[iii] https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2021-068921
[iv] https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf
[v] https://www.foodregulation.gov.au/activities-committees/food-ministers-meeting/members
[vi] https://www.foodregulation.gov.au/activities-committees/frsc
For a wider view on what is being planned for the synthetic transformation of our food systems (the deregulation of genetically edited materials is necessary for this transformation):
Resources (in process):
PSGRNZ's response to: Proposal P1055 - Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques
Soil and Health Association NZ submission
IS OUR FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY FAILING THE FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY TEST?
More calls to slow down on gene tech regs
Keep it REAL, stop Ultra Processed syn-bio-tech foods
European enterprises call for rigorous labelling of NGTs
The hidden costs of GE crops and GMOs: What NZ stands to lose
FSANZ’S paradigm shift in gene-edited food regulation
“A Victory for Farmers”: Supreme Court Halts Genetically Modified Rice
Perhaps needless to say, the Orwellian slogan at the heart of all this is “Ignorance is Strength”.
"Disturbingly, it seems FSANZ is more interested in assisting industry” — Of course the parallels between Big Ag and Big Pharma are not accidental. Same M.O.: the merging of state and corporate interests, and doing away with both informed choice and consent. Also, this blurring of lines between natural and synthetic mirrors the transhumanist push.
“Reject all proposed changes to the Food Standard as all would deregulate gene-edited foods and deny us any labelling.” — YES!
Gene Ethics Australia: “This completely ignores the substantial body of hard scientific evidence that UPFs, loaded with salt, fat, sugar, and synthetic factory-made ingredients, cause ill health and death.”— Considering that causing “ill health and death” is one of the principal unspoken goals, that statement would be more accurate if “completely ignores” were replaced with “takes into account”.
As per usual smashing it out the park Kate! THANK YOU so much for giving a "f~ck", doing the research and sharing it with your audience! You make the world a better place... 🙏❤️