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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2525 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

meeting which I attended. The maximum permitted concentration of cadmium in peanuts has been on the council agenda for a while. In 1997 the council agreed to new permitted concentrations of cadmium in many foods, but requested further research on the health, trade and agricultural impacts of the permitted cadmium concentration in peanuts.

In December 1998 the council agreed in principle to raise the maximum permitted concentration of cadmium in peanuts from .05 milligrams per kilogram to 0.1 milligrams per kilogram, subject to no contrary advice being received from the National Health and Medical Research Council. However, at the time the peak Australian health and medical research body had not been asked to assess, and were not consulted over the health implications of, such a proposal. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is essential that all health consequences of any new or modified food standard be assessed thoroughly, including input from leading and independent health research organisations.

The ACT accepts that the raising of the maximum permitted cadmium concentration in peanuts alone is not a public health significance, but it agrees with the NHMRC view that "there can be no isolated consideration of the maximum permitted concentration for peanuts independent of a more general consideration of likely or possible impact on health and dietary intake of changes in MPC's of foods containing cadmium". While the ACT did not agree to the raising of the MPC of cadmium in peanuts and recommended a review of the cadmium level in all foods, the majority decision of the council was to approve the new higher concentration. Mr Deputy Speaker, considering the benefits of a national uniform approach to food, the majority view of the council should be accepted. However, the raising of issues of concern for jurisdictions is an important part of a robust and informed decision-making process.

Another important issue discussed was the development of uniform national food Acts and food safety standards. The principle of uniform national food legislation and food safety standards is supported. The proposals put forward, however, need more research and justification. There are likely to be significant impacts to government, consumers, the food service sector and industry. The issue will be further discussed in the October meeting of the council.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the approval and labelling of genetically modified foods, Standard A18, was first put forward to the council in July 1998. The council decided to adopt Standard A18 which requires the labelling only of genetically modified foods which are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterpart. The standard also requires a health and safety assessment of any genetically modified product before being released to the market in Australia. The council agreed to consider at its December 1998 meeting additional labelling requirements for genetically modified foods.

At this time the council agreed by a majority decision to require further development of the standard. This included: Where foods are not substantially equivalent they must be labelled; where foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterpart, for food manufacturers to label food that is known to contain genetically modified material; and if the manufacturer is uncertain of the genetically modified content of the food product, to indicate that the food "may contain" genetically modified material. That was the December position.

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