John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2007 as amended and Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5248 moved by Senator Siewert.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated last night when I was speaking at 11 pm, we will not be supporting this amendment moved by the Australian Greens. Labor is on the record frequently and often talking about the impact of advertising on children, children’s eating habits and families. We are not of the view that this is the place to deal with this issue. It is an issue that, I believe, the Labor Party have put on the agenda for a long time and we will ensure that an appropriate policy response to the inappropriate advertising of lower quality food—let us call it that rather than junk food—will be developed at the appropriate time. But this is not the place to deal with this particular matter.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McLucas for her comments. Firstly, I would like to assure Senator Siewert that even the more liberal amongst us—indeed libertarian amongst us—do not believe that restrictions on advertising constitute a nanny state. Be not concerned about that. Indeed, this morning I read the Australian newspaper and saw that Kellogg’s has just announced that, because of concerns about obesity, they will no longer use cartoons and toys to advertise cereals for young children. So you make a very valid point.

As Senator McLucas said, this is not really the place to proceed with this sort of amendment. Australia currently has policy and regulatory requirements that limit television advertising of food and drink to children during children’s viewing times. Like Senator McLucas, we do not believe that it is appropriate for legislative action in this area while the Australian Communications and Media Authority is reviewing the current standards. In fact, public consultation is yet to be concluded and the resulting public comment should, I think, inform any legislative change in this area. So I think this proposal is a bit premature; we should wait for the public consultation process to be conducted. I understand that a discussion paper calling for public submissions is due to be released this month—June 2007.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer. When is that consultation process likely to be concluded?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hope that the consultation process will be concluded by the end of this year. As I said, there should be a discussion paper calling for public submissions by the end of this month.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5246:

(3)    Page 92 (after line 6), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 4—Genetically modified food and animal feed

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991

1  After Division 4

Insert:

Division 4A—Genetically modified food and animal feed

23AA  Interpretation

                 In this Division, unless the context otherwise requires:

operator means a person who places a product on the market and also a person who receives a product that has been placed on the market at any stage of the production and distribution chain, but does not include the ultimate consumer.

traceability means the ability to trace food, animal feed, and ingredients of food and animal feed, that are produced using genetic modification technology throughout the production and distribution chains.

23B  Packaged foods

        (1)    All packaged food derived from genetic modification, or containing an ingredient derived from genetic modification, must be labelled as such regardless of whether or not it contains DNA or protein resulting from that genetic modification.

        (2)    The label required by subsection (1) must contain the words “derived from genetic modification (GM product)” in conjunction with the name of the food or in association with any specific ingredients derived from genetic modification, or “genetically modified (name of food) (GM product)” or “contains genetically modified (name of ingredient) (GM product)”.

23C  Unpackaged foods

                 All unpackaged food, including bulk foods, derived from genetic modification, or containing an ingredient derived from genetic modification, regardless of whether or not it contains DNA or protein resulting from that genetic modification, must have displayed in association with the food the words “derived from genetic modification (GM product)” in conjunction with the name of the food or in association with any specific ingredients derived from genetic modification, or “genetically modified (name of food) (GM product)” or “contains genetically modified (name of ingredient) (GM product)”.

23D  Exemptions

                 The following foods are exempted from the provisions of sections 23B and 23C:

             (a)    all meat, milk, eggs obtained from animals treated with GM veterinary products, or fed GM food;

             (b)    food produced with the help of GM enzymes;

             (c)    takeaway foods and restaurant meals.

23E  Animal feed

        (1)    All genetically modified animal feed, or animal feed containing an ingredient derived from genetic modification, must be labelled as such regardless of whether or not it contains DNA or protein resulting from that genetic modification.

        (2)    The label required by subsection (1) must contain the words “derived from genetic modification (GM product)” in conjunction with the name of the food, or in association with any specific ingredients derived from genetic modification, or “genetically modified (name of feed) (GM product)” or contains “genetically modified (name of ingredient) (GM product)”.

23F  Accidental contamination

        (1)    Food or animal feed which is contaminated by less than 0.5 % of the product by adventitious GM DNA or protein, that is approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand, is exempt from labelling, so long as operators can demonstrate that they have used all appropriate steps to avoid the presence of accidental contamination.

        (2)    Food or animal feed which is contaminated by detectable levels of GM DNA or protein that is not approved by Food Safety Australia New Zealand must be labelled as containing GM material.

23G  Traceability

        (1)    The Governor-General must make regulations prescribing a comprehensive traceability system for all foods and animal feeds containing GM product or derived from GM processes that ensures the ability to trace the food or animal feed throughout the production and distribution chains.

        (2)    The regulations made under subsection (1) must include, but are not limited to, requirements that:

             (a)    operators must ensure that information identifying GM product or GM-derived material in food and animal feed is transmitted with that product;

             (b)    operators must have in place systems and procedures to allow the identification of the person or persons from whom and to whom the products referred to in subsection 23F(2) have been made available;

             (c)    operators must retain the information specified in paragraph (b) for a period of 5 years from each transaction, and make it available to competent authorities on demand.

        (3)    Operators delivering food to the ultimate consumer are exempted from paragraphs (2)(b)and (c).

        (4)    For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), competent authorities means a department or other public organisation appointed by the Minister responsible for food safety for the purposes of this Act. 

        (5)    The Minister responsible for food safety must implement a monitoring plan in order to trace and identify any direct or indirect, immediate, delayed or unforeseen effects on human health or the environment of GM product or animal feed or both after it has been placed on the market.

As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, the Greens are concerned about enabling adequate labelling and notification of genetically modified food and we believe that the standards at the moment are lacking in that they do not require the provision of adequate information for people to assess the genetically modified content of the food that they are potentially buying. We have put forward a number of quite detailed amendments to ensure that food is adequately labelled to indicate whether the product contains genetically modified material and the nature of that genetically modified material.

We think this is an important amendment that provides better disclosure to the community and to consumers, to enable them to make informed decisions. We believe it is appropriate to include this amendment to food standards because it relates directly to public health and safety and will ensure that people are fully informed. With all due respect, I hope that this is not another area that is under consultation and where we will have to ‘wait and see’. I appreciate there are processes being undertaken in a number of these areas, but a number of the answers we have had, last night and today, have been: ‘Just wait and see; this is under consultation.’ It is pleasing to see the government is taking these issues on board, but I would like to see something come out the other end.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports full disclosure of genetic modification of food, but we will not be supporting this amendment. We cannot support full consultation and review processes in respect of these provisions because those full consultation review processes are not included. So we cannot support this particular amendment, but we want to have it on the record that we do support full disclosure and labelling for genetically modified food.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just adopt Senator McLucas’s comments in terms of the process. Senator Siewert, you raise perhaps a legitimate issue about genetically modified food, but the problem again is—and I raised this last night in the debate—that amending this bill would not in fact have the outcome that you desire. It would take a change in the food standard, to be enforced at the state jurisdictional level, before any effect would be had with respect to genetically modified food. I understand what policy you wish to achieve, but that policy would not be achieved by what you seek to do here. So the government opposes this amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the consistency of the government’s approach in terms of taking it to the states. Is the government considering putting this—and the other items that we have been discussing through this amendment process—on the agenda for the council?

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not under active consideration currently, no.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we may be encouraging you to put this on the agenda. It is obvious, by the sound of it, that it has bipartisan support. It sounds like the ALP support it. You have indicated that some sort of notification would be appropriate. So I encourage the government to put this on the agenda.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.