Australians may Lose Right to Know what they are consuming as FSANZ Pushes ‘Deregulation’ of Gene-Edited Foods.
The proposal—currently under ministerial review— seeks to redefine what constitutes a genetically modified food and exempt from regulation a wide range of food products developed using new breeding techniques (NBTs) under the Food Standards Code cautions peak body Australian Organic Limited, together with other organisations like ORICoop that deeply care about the integrity of our food and farming systems. This includes gene-edited plants and animals where cisgenic (same species) DNA is used, and processed ingredients derived from GM organisms where novel (different species) DNA or protein is no longer detectable.
This proposed redefinition of GM focuses on an outcome based approach rather than a process based approach. However, this will result in a situation where the outcomes from the genetic engineering using same species DNA will not be regulated in food for consumption. If accepted, these changes would allow a significant volume of genetically engineered food into the Australian market without mandatory safety testing, traceability, or labelling. The revised definition would also apply to foods derived from gene-edited animals, making Australia the first country globally to allow such products to enter the food chain without any transparency or oversight. This would make it virtually impossible for consumers to exercise their right to avoid GM/gene edited foods, while shifting the burden of proof and compliance to the small percentage of supply chains that actively seek to stay GM-free—namely, the organic sector.
“Traceability without transparency is a dangerous illusion,” said Josefine Pettersson, Operations and Technical Manager at Australian Organic Limited. “Organic supply chains will be expected to test all ingredients to verify freedom from undeclared gene-editing technologies—but there will be no obligation for manufacturers or importers to declare when these processes were used.” The organic industry supports advances in testing technology, but Pettersson notes this isn’t enough. “The reality is: without disclosure of which edits have been made and where in the genome, it may be impossible to detect changes for processed products. This puts certified supply chains in an impossible position. Worse still, if an undeclared gene editing change is detected by someone else—such as an export partner or foreign lab—it would fall on us to prove it wasn’t caused by gene technology”.
The majority of the rapidly growing $2.6 billion dollar Australian organic industry is an exported product, Gene editing can be detected, but who will pay for this? The current P1055 proposal makes no provision for support. It leaves the organic sector and GM-free producers to carry the full cost while allowing gene-tech developers and importers to operate invisibly.
As FSANZ’s new definition focuses solely on the end product, rather than the production process, it disregards the needs of certification, food ethics, and consumer trust. The proposal was put forward without any formal cost–benefit analysis or trade impact assessment, despite implications for Australia’s clean, green export reputation.
“Changing the definition of GM food while deliberately excluding traceability, labelling, and IP protections is reckless,” said David Keens, Chair of Australian Organic and a certified almond producer. “It breaks the social contract with consumers and risks making Australia a global outlier in food integrity.” Australia’s major trading partners—including the EU, Japan and South Korea—continue to regulate gene-edited foods or require traceability protocols. FSANZ’s proposal goes significantly further, and may place future organic and clean food exports at risk.
“Consumers are being left in the dark, and clean food producers are being set up to fail,” said Keens. “We are not opposed to innovation, but we are opposed to deregulation that removes responsibility, transparency, and choice.” The organic sector is urging Ministers to pause the proposal and commission a full review that includes:
• The cost to compliance systems and certification bodies
• The impact on consumer trust and informed choice
• The effect on Australia’s export relationships and equivalency recognition
In a time when Australian consumers are increasingly seeking transparency and integrity in the food system, FSANZ’s proposed changes move in the opposite direction. The Health Minister and Deputy must now decide whether to protect that trust—or dismantle it.
All submissions to the process can be found HERE
Published responses for Second Call for Submissions: P1055 Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques – Food Standards Australia New Zealand – Citizen Space
Despite repeated efforts, the following critical concerns remain excluded from the scope of the proposal:
- Labelling of gene-edited or GM-derived foods
- Traceability systems for domestic and imported ingredients
- Intellectual Property (IP) considerations, particularly the spread of patented traits into GM-free systems
FSANZ has not revised its position on food safety, continuing to assert that gene-edited foods using same-species DNA do not require regulatory oversight for plant and animals—despite a lack of transparency or testing obligations.
If accepted, Proposal P1055 would leave consumers unable to avoid gene-edited foods, and place the entire burden of compliance and testing on organic and GM-free supply chains, especially for imported ingredients.
You can read the full FSANZ report and proposal documents here:
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/proposals/p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-new-breeding-techniques
The Full Report is here
The previous ORICoop article explains the concerns for organic operators more fully:
ORICoop recommends that all concerned farmers and foodies contact the following to voice your concerns:-
Australian Organic writes:-
