Home > Programs & Campaigns > Programs & Initiatives > Food Regulation Secretariat > Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation

Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation

Notice of publication of request for review of A589

Food Ministers request a review of variation to Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology – that has resulted from Application 589 – Food derived from Glufosinate Ammonium-tolerant rice LLRICE62

PDF printable version of Notice of publication of request for review of A589 (PDF 17 KB)

Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council

26 May 2008

Food Ministers request a review of variation to Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology – that has resulted from Application 589 – Food derived from Glufosinate Ammonium-tolerant rice LLRICE62

The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) has requested that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) review variation to Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology – that has resulted from Application 589 – Food derived from Glufosinate Ammonium-tolerant Rice LLRICE62.

Application 589 seeks to amend Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology, to include food derived from Glufosinate Ammonium-tolerant Rice LLRICE62 as approved for
sale and use.

The Grounds for the review of variation to amend Standard 1.5.2 – Food produced using Gene Technology are that:
– it does not protect public health and safety;
– it is difficult to enforce or comply with in both practical or resource terms; and
– it places an unreasonable cost burden on industry or consumers.
Work that establishes proof of principle for the persistence and uptake of foreign DNA in and across the gastrointestinal tract of mammals, and so indicates a need to re-examine and clarify potential implications from a genetically modified food safety perspective.

There is a lack of enforcement and monitoring of GM food regulation at the National and State level and until there are appropriate resources dedicated to enforcing the regulation, there should be a cautious approach to approving new GM applications.

The approval of this GM rice could have an adverse impact on the industry’s economic viability and international competitiveness, due to additional compliance requirements that would be needed to satisfy certain export markets.

FSANZ has 3 months to review the draft standard and re-affirm, re-affirm with amendments, or withdraw its approval of the draft standard.

The process for requesting a review

After Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) notifies the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (the Council) of a draft standard or variation the Council may request a review if any jurisdiction believes that one or more of the Criteria/Ground/s¹ set out in the Food Regulation Agreement 2000 (as amended in 2008) (the Agreement) or the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand concerning a Joint Food Standards System (the Treaty) applies. The Criteria / Ground/s set out in the Agreement and in the Treaty are:

1. it is not consistent with existing policy guidelines set by the Ministerial Council;
2. it is not consistent with the objectives of the legislation which establishes FSANZ;
3. it does not protect public health and safety;
4. it does not promote consistency between domestic and international food standards where these are at variance;
5. it does not provide adequate information to enable informed choice;
6. it is difficult to enforce or comply with in both practical or resource terms; and / or
7. it places an unreasonable cost burden on industry or consumers.

In exercising this power the Council must comply with the Agreement and the Treaty. Under the Agreement the Council will request a review if any jurisdiction considers that one or more of the Criteria applies. The Council would also, at this point in the process, request a review if New Zealand notifies the Council of concerns that the standard would be inappropriate for New Zealand (Annex C(2) of the Treaty).

If such a review is undertaken and the Council receives notice from FSANZ that the draft standard or variation has been reaffirmed (either entirely or subject to amendments) the Council may request a second¹ review. In exercising this power the Council must comply with the Agreement. Under the Agreement the Ministerial Council will request FSANZ to review the draft standard or variation a second time if it is agreed, by a majority vote, that one or more of the Criteria applies.

1 This part of the protocol will have to be updated once the ‘Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand Establishing a System for the Development of Joint Food Standards’ (the Treaty) has been amended to reduce from two to one the number of occasions on which the Council may request the Authority to review a draft or a variation to a standard. This will harmonize it with the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Act 2007.