Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 3325 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The Food Authority will assess the safety for human consumption of each food or class of food prior to its inclusion in the table. The safety assessment will be undertaken in accordance with the authority's approved assessment criteria. Under the standard, a food that is, or contains as an ingredient or component, a food produced using gene technology that contains new or genetically altered material, and is not substantially equivalent in any characteristic or property of the food, must include on the label the origin and nature of the characteristics or property modified.

The term "not substantially equivalent in any characteristic or property of the food" includes - and I will come back to "substantially equivalent" - where modification results in one or more significant compositional or nutritional parameters having values outside the normal range of values for the existing equivalent food or food ingredient; where the level of anti-nutritional factors or natural toxicants is considered significantly different in comparison to the existing equivalent food or food ingredient; where the food contains a new factor known to cause an allergic response in a particular section of the population; or where the intended use of the food or food ingredient is different from the existing equivalent food or food ingredient.

Mr Speaker, the "not substantially equivalent" issue is the nub of the information that I provided to members yesterday. I provided to each member a synopsis of the issues that would face the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council on this matter. The American and Canadian position, as set out in that synopsis, is to follow the process of substantial equivalence. The European approach that members saw is, if you like, the halfway position. A few countries were identified in that submission, as members would be aware, that were separate from the European Union. Those countries include Switzerland and Japan. Those countries have taken the same approach, as I read it, as the legislation that is now before us. If you like, it is a hardline approach. Members will be able to see that by reading through that synopsis.

When we go to the Food Standards Council, which meets in Canberra next week - I think it meets on 16 or 17 December - to discuss this issue, I will be seeking to represent members accurately, and I would hope that members would favour the European position as being a sensible position. I think, having Australia isolate itself in a hardline position or, even worse still, having the ACT, as proposed by this legislation, isolate itself in a hardline position is simply not tenable. Therefore, I would ask members to advise me whether it is their personal view - or party view, as the case may be - that we take the position identified by the European Union.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I should say that the obligation under the Bill to display a notice is actually misdirected. The Bill imposes no specific obligations on any person other than the seller. The ACT seller will seldom have information on whether the goods were subject to particular processes. The legislation does not require producers or manufacturers to provide reliable information to the seller. As the imposition of requirements on interstate or international suppliers or manufacturers may well be beyond the legislative reach of the ACT, the most effective means of dealing with this matter would involve agreement between, and legislation in, other Australian States and New Zealand. Indeed, Mr Speaker, all jurisdictions have agreed that the appropriate approach to deal with food is that we have a consistent approach across Australia.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .