Not good enough
from The Press, New Zealand
March 16, 1999
Should genetically modified food be so labelled? Few
would doubt that the answer is yes. But despite
assurances from the Prime Minister that consumers have
a right to know what is in the food they eat, there is still
suspicion that National will fudge the issue.
Mrs Shipley maintains that consumers should get useful
and credible information. Just what that means in practice
will be hard to work out. The Government has
compounded confusion by talking with different voices.
Last month, the Associate Minister of Health, Tuariki
Delamere, ruled out mandatory labelling because it would
increase industry costs and thereby consumer prices. He
appears now to have been reined in, in effect to have had
his mind changed. He nevertheless raised practical
questions. Two, in particular, are not yet answered: how
should genetically modified food be defined; and how far
down the processing chain should its identification be
mandatory?
Mrs Shipley's assurances are themselves a turnaround. In
August the Government engineered the defeat of a bill
which would have required genetically altered food to be
labelled. It refused to send it to a select committee. That
was shortsighted. Committee hearings would have given
consumers a chance to outline their concerns. The
Government would have had a bellwether of public
opinion. Now it wants to head off the sort of onslaught
that last month bedevilled the British Government. Tony
Blair was forced to backtrack in his support for
genetically modified foods after unprecedented criticism.
Distrustful of official assurances after the mad-cow scare,
the public made clear its anxieties that the foods may be
dangerous, may threaten the environment, and may allow
a few big pharmaceutical companies to monopolise
agriculture. One of them, Monsanto, had earlier fuelled
the furore. Exporting both standard soya and its
genetically modified equivalent into Europe, the company
had said it was impossible to segregate the two types and
label them accordingly. That position -- and the fact that
tests of genetically modified foods are mostly left to the
companies developing them -- has led to widespread
alarm, not all of it the preserve of cranks.
National's earlier position opposing labelling as
unworkable is not good enough. Identifying all genetically
modified components in food may indeed be very
difficult. But a moratorium on their use while the problem
is worked out is not unreasonable.
The protests themselves are likely to bring a halt to some
harvesting. The British row has virtually ensured that no
genetically altered crops will be commercially grown
there for years. Many safety tests of food do not go much
beyond toxicity and allergy potential. That is why any
present assurance about genetically altered foods is not
worth much. Their potential for good or harm is simply
unknown. In the absence of any definitive scientific
results, people revert to instinct. Already attracted by
organic foods without additives, they are suspicious of
any food manipulation.
That has not stopped companies from going ahead with
food alteration. The latest is Nestle, which is developing
functional foods -- those designed to prevent disease, for
example tomato sauce with anti-oxidants. Functional
foods will be available within five years. Critics say they
blur the line between food and drugs. But at least such
foods should be labelled without difficulty.
Ideally, the far harder labelling of genetically altered foods
should be internationally addressed. Meantime, this
country's best hope might lie with the Australian New
Zealand Food Authority, the body trying to standardise
food regulations in both countries. It would need first to
reverse its opposition to the full labelling of genetically
altered foods. But it is at least a forum where sensible
consideration of the issue might bear fruit.
Australia has long been more stringent than New Zealand
in requiring adequate labelling. That gives some
confidence that the Australians will not duck the latest
and toughest labelling job. Mrs Shipley discussed the
matter with John Howard during his recent visit. Both
countries have the expertise to give an international lead.
At the very least, they must keep the issue to the
forefront.
press.co.nz |
