Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2526 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
Mr Deputy Speaker, on 3 August 1999 Health Ministers agreed to require comprehensive mandatory labelling of all foods and foods made from ingredients which have been produced using gene technology. This was a major step forward for the Ministers. They have now agreed that consumers have a need and a right to full information so that they can make choices about the food they eat. Another major achievement for consumers was the removal by Ministers of the concept of "substantially equivalent" from all discussions about the labelling of genetically modified foods. This was a unanimous decision of the council. Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACT has been at the forefront of ensuring consumers' concerns and health and safety issues are addressed. The ACT has played a leading role in ensuring that comprehensive and practical labelling requirements are mandated.
There are a number of issues still to be investigated and reported back to the council. These include: Threshold limits of genetically modified material in foods; compliance cost to industry and producers; and the need for education and information for the consumer. Mr Deputy Speaker, the concept of threshold raises a concern. To determine an arbitrary acceptable threshold level before requiring mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods will present real difficulties. Surveys indicate that consumers want labelling of genetically modified foods. A threshold level is unlikely to satisfy consumers. Rather, it will make consumers suspicious of the industry and regulatory authorities. While the discussions continue on genetically modified food, the ACT will maintain its commitment to comprehensive labelling. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, even since that meeting there has been a series of meetings. Officers of my department and from my staff have attended these meetings, and are doing so this very day.
I would like to move on to irradiated food. There has been a moratorium on the irradiation of food and the sale of irradiated food in Australia since 1989. A proposed new food standard to permit the sale of irradiated food was put to the council. The ACT had concerns over the proposal because it was based on out-of- date science, but supported the comprehensive labelling of irradiated foods. It is interesting that the proposal to permit food irradiation was passed by the council with comprehensive labelling, while the council struggled to agree to labelling of genetically modified foods.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACT earlier this year requested further information to consider three proposals to amend the maximum residue limits, MRLs, in our food. These residues can be antibiotics, steroids, insecticides or fungicides. It came to light at the council meeting that these MRLs were being approved or raised without adequate assessment of the health impacts. The peak Australian health and medical research organisation had apparently not been requested to assess the health implications. This is of considerable concern to me as a Health Minister responsible for ensuring the health of all in our community. It was agreed that the proposals would be referred to the NHMRC for advice on health issues before being reconsidered by the council. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was very pleased about that.
Many of you would have read articles by Dr Peter Collignon of the Canberra Hospital. Associate Professor Collignon had these published in peer review journals, and has also had at least one article published in the Canberra Times about the impact of growth enhancing antibiotics in animals on resistance in humans. It is a very important issue for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .