Discussion Paper

Voluntary GM-Free Labelling

April 2003

Previous Page / Table of Contents

Appendix Four: International Issues

• Australia
• Codex and Technical Barriers to Trade
• Other Export Markets

The international legislative environment has implications for New Zealand businesses that wish to market their foods overseas as GM-free.

Australia

The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement allows goods that can be legally sold in New Zealand to be sold in Australia. Foods with GM-free labels, which can be legally sold within New Zealand, will be able to be sold in Australia.

It should be noted that the interpretation of GM-free by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and the Commerce Commission is consistent with the interpretation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under Australia's equivalent to the Fair Trading Act, the Trade Practices Act 1974 (i.e. "GM-free" is the absence of any ingredients or production processes in a food).

Codex and Technical Barriers to Trade

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) develops international food standards. Countries that adhere to Standards developed by Codex are unlikely to breach the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). New Zealand, as a World Trade Organisation member, is committed under the TBT to not creating unnecessary obstacles to trade through the use of technical regulations and standards, including packaging, marking and labelling requirements. A voluntary initiative to develop a labelling system, as recommended by the Royal Commission, would be less likely to raise TBT issues than a mandatory initiative. Nonetheless, a national standard for a voluntary GM-free labelling regime would need to comply with the TBT Agreement's "Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Standards".[11] Any procedures for assessing conformity with such a standard would need to comply with the relevant conformity assessment provisions of the TBT Agreement.[12]

In May, the Codex Committee on Food Labelling considered issues around the definition of genetically modified, but agreement on the scope of this term was unable to be reached. Codex has yet to begin the process of developing a definition for "GM-free".

Other Export Markets

Outside of Codex, there is no internationally agreed interpretation of "GM-free". Individual government's guidance on GM-free claims can be divided into two broad groups:

• countries that define "GM-free" as the absence of genetic material only, do not require mandatory presence-based genetically modified labelling, and advise suppliers against making "GM-free" claims (e.g. Canada and the United States)
• countries that require mandatory genetically modified presence-based labelling and define "GM-free" as the absence of any genetically modified material or any genetic modification technology in the production process (e.g. EU member states, Australia and New Zealand).

New Zealand exporters making GM-free claims will, therefore, need to be aware of the interpretation of GM-free in the importing country, and the relevant provisions of that county's fair-trading law.

[11] Annex 3 to the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).

[12] Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the TBT Agreement.