Fine-tuning GM labels

On Friday, Health Ministers will meet to determine the labelling requirements for Genetically Modified (GM) Food.  Their decisions will have a profound effect on Australian food development and agriculture generally.  There is a tapestry of changes that can be introduced into existing stock to allow them to use less water, more readily take up fertilizer, secrete their own "natural" pesticides and so on.

We are told that GM foods may:

• create hazards to human health;
• harm the environment;
• cross breed with other plant stock or cause organic foods to reduce their relative tolerance to pests.

Nobody contends the need to be address these issues with GM, as with traditional introductions of new genes into existing plant varieties.  But, the scientific community, overwhelmingly supports the new technology, seeing its outcome as identical to the traditional practices.

The best known genetically improved variety, Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soyabean, improves yields by 5%, and lowers production costs by 10-20%.  It also uses 22% less herbicide, with positive environmental spin-offs.  In future, GM products will also appear that improve taste or create more healthy food.

At their previous meeting in August, Health Ministers decided to require "reasonable steps be taken" to establish the origin of food ingredients if manufacturers were to make a "may contain" claim.  Where, as is normal, the GM product is identical to existing product, the issue is the tolerance levels which trigger manufacturers' need to patrol the chain of supply.  Organics in Europe are allowed to contain 5% of non-organic material.

The impact of mandatory GM labelling is on product segregation.  The cost increases range between 6 to 50% and higher.  Some of this brings offsetting gains:  voluntary labelling in response to consumer demand (as opposed to consumerists' regulatory demands) delivers benefits in excess of the costs.  If manufacturers are allowed to label as "GM free" food that may occasionally contain some 1-2% GM product, the costs are likely to be at the lower end of the scale.  If "GM free" requires a total segregation of GM from other ingredients, the costs will be at the top end.

Even at a 6% cost impost, labelling of Australian crop production, worth about $15 billion per annum, adds up to almost $1 billion.  That sum is based on the realistic view that genetic modifications will be developed for all crops.  In addition, there has been little debate to date of secondary GM produce -- animal produce from GM inputs.  This extends beyond grain fed beef and chicken.  Virtually all existing grasses have been introduced by farmers and GM techniques will be found to raise their protein levels, allow them to grow faster and so on.  Hence the next round of GM demonization will attach itself to the meat and dairy industries.  And this is even before we have GM for livestock itself.

Health Ministers are unaccustomed to taking decisions that impact upon the whole of primary industry and much of the manufacturing sector.  They will need to brief themselves comprehensively about the costs their decisions may unleash onto the community.

ADVERTISEMENT