Appendix 2 - Wellington Workshop Group
Immediate Issues
- listed by group during the opening discussion- in the order in which the points were raised .
- Anything that passes through a GE process ought to be labelled.
- If ‘new’ protein or similar product created (not previously encountered by humans) in food > allergy risk.
- Growing pesticide resistant crops (due to GE) – can lead to more spray being used with resultant higher residue levels on crops.
- GE introduced pesticide resistance is internal to the crop – could produce a ‘toxin’ in the food.
- Need thorough testing of GE foods – use animals in testing.
- GE interests have driven GE foods.
- Who makes up Codex? How independent is Codex?
- Tests of long-term effects of GE foods are inadequate.
- Codex is made up of 160 +countries.
- How are Codex panels set up? Who is on these panels?
- Agree – need to look at risks.
- Pesticide resistance allows growers to reduce the use of chemicals.
- Pesticide resistance in crops allow farmers to use less sprays and these are more environmentally friendly.
- Food safety issue – need to know residue levels on crop – if any.
- Need to scientifically determine whether spray levels are safe.
- What is acceptable level of risk? Society needs to decide this level within a food context.
- Reasonable risk – must be a sensible level – must have public confidence.
- Too soon for international standards – allow countries to determine their own levels of risk in the interim – present knowledge is inadequate for setting international standards.
- Regulations should not be available as instruments for World Trade organisation debates.
- Perception of food safety is important – cultural issues to be considered – labelling must provide information on which to base cultural and religious decisions.
- Need independent tests of GE foods.
- Where is the boundary line between food and medicine? Line will blur over time.
- Suggest minimum standards internationally – tighten standards on individual country basis.
- New Zealand must participate in international fora. – juggernaut has started.
- Mix of sound and unreliable information available. – Need a New Zealand forum to provide information with credibility.
- New Zealand must participate in the process – want to avoid embargoes.
- Confusion over ‘equivalence’ concept.
- ‘Substantially different’ products are to be labelled.
- More severe standards may become non-tariff barriers.
- Codex may restrict use of food types, eg. herbs become prescriptive.
- World Trade Organisation is a good broker – not a rogue organisation.
- Codex participation is voluntary.
- Need an in-depth inquiry on GE to sort fact from fiction.
- There are problems with alternative pesticides, eg. atrazine will reside in the soil for significant periods and can move down into the ground water.
- Issue of ‘substantial equivalence’ – this is an untested hypothesis which is based on compositional analysis – need long-term studies in order to determine ‘equivalence’.
- Example of artificial ‘mango’ flavour that was assumed to be ‘equivalent’ to natural flavour – but artificial product impacted on childrens’ health.
- GE issues are developing quickly – but Codex response is slower.
- Food safety issues area wider than GE food.
- Choice – consumer needs information to be able to make choices.
- Use ‘Substantial equivalence’ reduces options for choice.
- Need funds to expand knowledge of GE foods.
- Trust factor – history of reassurances by scientists – losing credibility - because breakdowns have occurred. Future performance has to be better.
- Introduction of GM foods to consumers has not been open.
- Loss of faith in science.
- Governing bodies have not listened to consumers.
- ANZFA has been lobbied by most groups and from many perspectives.
- Consumers are ‘resource-poor’ when lobbying.
- Lack of confidence in ‘system’ is of concern to groups of all perspectives.
- Unnecessary regulations - a risk.
- Do costs of compliance outweigh benefits? Who measures the benefits?
- Regulations have to be measurable – not voluntary claims.
- Anything that has been through GM needs to be identified.
- GE foods – lowest common denominator – universally exposed – need to apply precautionary principle.
- If GE is so good – use this claim to market the products.
- Using GE to add vitamins etc. to crops > loses biodiversity.
- Slow decision making to get labelling established has been a problem.
- GE technology has raced ahead of controls.
- Cannot quantify ‘fear’ of GE foods – will be difficult to allay fears.
- New methods of risk assessment are now available – will pinpoint areas of disagreement.
- Communication in terms of risk needs to be improved – Statements by Regulatory Authorities are not sacrocant.
- Risk that consumers are ‘overawed’ by the information that is available.
| © MAF 2000 |  |
|
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Dr Sharon Adamson
Manager,
Innovation Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0618
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0741
Contact this person
