- Lack of/ doubt in confidence in systems / authorities.
- Workable labelling for consumer choice
- Need to define risks
- Test needed for GM foods
FIRST TIER
Lack of/ doubt in confidence in systems / authorities. Mentions 14
Consumers
- Lack of confidence and trust in regulatory authorities and science.
- Slow down. Public inquiry needed – GE has been dominated by commercial interests.
- Consumers have lost faith in the governing bodies etc.
- GE interest has been commercially driven (not needed) e.g. patenting.
- How are Codex panels set up? Who is on these panels? Can we trust them? (I have read that they are heavily industry loaded.)
- Need in depth public inquiry to listen to the wide range of concerns. Need a real independent body listening to us. (not IBAC -–too biased).
- Codex itself should be examined for impartiality to commercial pressures etc.
- Codex and ANSFA need to re-establish trust by admitting past failures and rescinding permits for substances since shown to be harmful. Trust also based on new behaviour with respect to testing GE foods.
Producers / Manufacturers / Marketers / Retailers
- Lack of confidence in ‘system’ is of concern to groups of all persons. Question: whose role is this - are regulatory bodies in the business of public education?
- Much is said about “consumers want this and that” – what evidence is there that this is so. Are the concerns a ”vocal minority”?
- Loss of confidence in science, resulting in confusion between those who retain confidence and those who do not. (Caused by (a) poor education of scientists, (b) transference to science of faith previously given to religion.)
- The mistrust of authorities and science with regard to biotechnology.
- Lack of confidence: in the “system” (Government, business, Codex, science, WTO) - in the
- Re-establishing confidence in NZ regulatory systems.
Research
Workable labelling for consumer choice Mentions 14
Consumers
- Unless absolute labelling of GE processed food is instigated, peoples right to choose to boycott food and send clear messages will not be realised.
- Need categorisation of GE foods: what exactly is in the food not necessarily the plant (new protein, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide) and information on this available on labels.
- Any food or additive or processing aid, which is the result of, or has been part of a GE process, should be labelled as such. Consumers are demanding choice.
- Anything that has been through a GE process needs to be labelled.
- Labelling is absolutely essential – so consumers can identify which foods have had GE processing and can make a choice.
Producers / Manufacturers / Marketers / Retailers
- At a national level, NZ needs mandatory labelling both for personal choice and to permit epidemiological studies to trace effects in the future.
- Slow decision-making to get labelling established has been a problem.
- Accepted labelling standards.
- Labelling regulations must be workable – again not reliant on honesty.
- Informed choice/labelling. Labelling must confer useful information to the consumer to assist making an informed choice without being unhelpful costly/onerous and allowing countries to unfairly block trade.
- Testing / labelling of GE foods.
- Labelling must be effective and informative to enable consumer choice.
- “Substantially different’ is to be labelled.
Research
- Anything, which goes through GE process, ought to be labelled. The origin of the DNA needs to be labelled.
Need to define risks Mentions 13
Consumers
- The lack of absolutes (in terms of safety) is frightening for consumers.
Producers / Manufacturers / Marketers / Retailers
- Definition of acceptable risk from GE.
- Risk that consumer is ‘overawed’ by information available.
- What is an acceptable level of risk – society needs to discuss.
- Focus on the risk not the process. For example, a gene inserted from one apple into another apple should not be subject to any greater controls than that controlling traditional breeding where the resulting risk would be seen to be the same.
- Need to look at risks. Need to decide what level of risk is acceptable/reasonable. Consumers must be educated that there is never zero risk, even with ‘conventional foods’.
- Inability to define/quantify the consumer fears precisely. Hence problem in defining testing regimes and standards.
- Difficulty of balancing fear of unknown against quantifiable benefits.
- What is acceptable level of risk? Gaining a wide understanding of the nature of risk assessment so that it is realised that there can never be a guarantee of no risk.
- Need for risk assessment. – Open (transparent) – Assumptions to be made clear.
- The manufacturer is always painted as the ‘bad’ guy – this assumes risk to past investment etc. is not a consideration.
- Food safety is the key concern. Any standard must have this as its core objective. “must know versus need to know”.
Research
- Risk must be reasonable and in the context of food risks in general. No such things as no risk.
Need for communication with consumers on factual issues re foods from biotechnology Mentions 12
Consumers
- Clarity of communication of issues of risk associated with GE - consumers confused and frightened by the lack of clear answers.
- Facts need to be sorted from hype and fiction about benefits of GE foods.
Producers / Manufacturers / Marketers / Retailers
- Need for communication on issue.
- Education and communication on the risks of biotechnology with regards to food safety.
- Education of facts needs to be communicated …… how?
- Establishment of credible forum(s) for factual information about biotechnology / food.
- Consumer education of biotechnology including GE – in lay terms.
- Regulatory bodies need to develop and communicate profile of credible risk assessors to industry, consumer organisations and consumers – as the FDA in USA.
- Informed choice must be available to consumers. To be informed consumers must have balanced information. Communication becomes the key.
- Peoples understanding of biotechnology and its’ connection with food safety. “Perception versus fact”.
- Communication of what GE/biotechnology is and is not.
Research
- Consumer information should be available – communication of risk assessment, i.e. labelling should be allowed not necessarily compulsion.
Test needed for GM foods Mentions 10
Consumers
- Testing is secondary:
(1) Is there a real benefit to farmers – same as other growing pattern.
(2) Test perception of public – is this safe in terms of economics for country.
(3) WTO view on what we do.
(4) Test of residues of sprays are increased. - Testing has to be independent, long term, animal and human. Has to be complete and adequate. Cannot accept ‘assumed equivalent’.
- More testing over time needed on selected crops.
- The scientific assessment tools available to determine safety are too juvenile and inadequately researched to be of real use at this point.
Producers / Manufacturers / Marketers / Retailers
- A scientifically based regulatory response including labelling regulations ASAP.
- Need to determine methods to test GM products so that ‘GM’ status is not based on honesty, but can be provable.
- Proposed CODEX standards on foods derived from biotechnology must be based on sound science.
- Loss of sources of objective advice – due to loss of independent researchers not required to “relevant” or to “sell” their research projects.
- Test regime has to be seen to be rigorous for new GM products.
Research
- Food safety issue: Need to know the residue level on crop to ensure the safety of food.
| © 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
