ALTHOUGH the anti-GM lobby has picked up some high profile businesses against the growing of genetically modified canola, most buyers have preferred to remain out of the limelight on the emotional topic.
Bulk handlers have said that while they haven’t gone through the issue with all customers, the majority are okay with the introduction of GM canola.
Geoff Masters, ABB
quality and technical services manager, said that with much of Australia’s canola going to Japan, which already imports Canadian GM canola,
he was not planning for many buyers to have issues with the introduction of GM canola lines.
A spokesman for the Japanese embassy in Australia said that while he could not comment on specific cases, Japanese government guidelines were that GM crops will not be allowed to be imported unless the crop has already been assessed.
Japanese labelling requires food manufacturers to declare where they have used GM material – except in the instance of refined oil and soybean products, meaning GM canola is seldom declared on food packaging.
The spokesman said the Japanese market made distinctions between GM and non-GM but did not say whether buyers adhered to the adventitious presence (AP) standards of 0.9pc GM material in non-GM crops set by the Australian industry, saying it was a matter for individual buyers.
Domestically, leading anti-GM lobby groups such as Gene Ethics and the Network of Concerned Farmers have seized on the stances of companies such as Goodman Fielder and Tatiara Meats as examples of consumers’ unwillingness to accept GM.
Tatiara Meats, a major exporter of lamb, has said it does not want an end to the moratoria on GM crops, saying it could risk the international premium paid for Australian lamb, which is marketed as all-natural and guaranteed GM-free.
The other major opponent of GM is manufacturer Goodman Fielder (GF).
GF chairman Max Ould said his company believed consumers were increasingly concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the possible long-term effects of consuming genetically modified material.
“It is our experience that most consumers prefer foods that are not genetically modified and the company is working to eliminate raw materials that are genetically modified from our retail branded products, wherever this is technically possible.”
This stance came under attack from Agrifood Awareness Australia, who accused GF of putting their own commercial interests ahead of the industry, saying in a release that they were disappointed GF had put its company considerations before that of the industry.
Meanwhile, the position of supermarket giant Coles remains unclear. Earlier reports from Gene Ethics suggested Coles had spoken out against GM food, but Coles has distanced itself from this stance – preferring to remain out of the spotlight on the issue.
It has been reported that Coles has acknowledged a large number of metropolitan consumers are against GM food – but there has been no definitive statement from Coles as to whether the chain is for or against the raising of the moratoria.
Email a friend