Regulation of genetically modified foods in Australia and New Zealand

Brent, Paul; Bittisnich, Dennis; Brooke‐Taylor, Simon; Galway, Nora; Graf, Lynda; Healy, Marion J.; Kelly, Lisa E.

doi:10.1016/s0956-7135(03)00037-9

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Oversight of gene technology for use in food ends with a premarket assessment by FSANZ. After that, both countries rely on a non-codified “duty of care” from manufactures, suppliers, or others connected to the products of gene technology to adequately monitor any harm if it should later eventuate and to report and/or mitigate, as appropriate (Brent et al 2003 ).…”

Section: Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand—GMO Rules and Regulations in New Zealand

Heinemann

Coray

Kurenbach

2020

GMOs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The New Zealand legal and regulatory landscape for genetically modified organisms is split between food and environmental safety. Different regulators take primary responsibility. New Zealand and Australia jointly regulate GMOs used as food primarily through the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act. Each country has its own environmental regulator. The apex law for research and release is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. The New Zealand courts have confirmed that products of synthetic biology and gene/genome editing techniques are GMOs for purposes of regulation under the HSNO Act. In some parts of the country, regulation also involves local government where districts or regions have opted to regulate under the Resource Management Act. There have been calls from some sectors to revise the definitions of GMOs and approach to regulation. However, the current government has indicated that this is not a priority and that doing so would harm the agricultural sector. The law as currently framed has contributed to there being no evidence of harm to human health or the environment, and no economic losses either. However, a recent determination by the Environmental Protection Agency to allow open air use of nucleic acids on eukaryotic organisms is too fresh to speculate on future effects.

show abstract

Section: Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand—GMO Rules and Regulations in New Zealand

Heinemann

Coray

Kurenbach

2020

GMOs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were the outcome of a 6 year long period of political consultation and engagement with stakeholders, which delivered substantial reform of the Australian food standards code and changed the operations and functions of the trans-Tasman food standards agency FSANZ. 37-38 …”

Section: Inter-governmental Food Regulation Agreement Signed By Coagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ascendancy of agricultural biotechnology in the Australian political mainstream coexists with technology criticism by a vocal-minority

Tribe

2014

GM Crops & Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia is a federation of States. This political structure necessitates collaborative arrangements between Australian governments to harmonize national regulation of gene technology and food standards. Extensive political negotiation among institutions of federal government has managed regulation of GM crops and food. Well-developed human resources in Australian government provided numerous policy documents facilitating a transparent political process. Workable legislation has been devised in the face of criticisms of gene technology though the political process. Conflicts between potential disruptions to food commodity trade by precautionary proposals for environmental protection were one cause of political tensions, and differences in policy priorities at regional political levels versus national and international forums for negotiation were another. Australian policy outcomes on GM crops reflect (a) strong economic self-interest in innovative and productive farming, (b) reliance on global agricultural market reforms through the Cairns trade group and the WTO, and (c) the importance of Codex Alimentarius and WTO instruments SPS and TBT. Precautionary frameworks for GM food safety assurance that are inconsistent with WTO obligations were avoided in legislation. Since 2008 the 2 major parties, Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberals appear to have reached a workable consensus at the Federal policy level about an important role for agricultural biotechnology in Australia's economic future.

show abstract

“…In order to import, field test, or release into the environment, the approval of the Environmental Risk Management Authority is needed. Because each organism is different, and therefore the risks related, the analysis is done on a case-by-case basis [74,75].…”

Section: New Zealandmentioning

confidence: 99%