Firm words from food agency chief
lobby groups to spread misinformation about the safety and
labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.
Following a statement last week over genetically modified foods Ian Lindenmayer, managing director of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) on Wednesday expressed his disappointment at recent attempts by some anti-GM lobby groups to spread misinformation about the safety and labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.
His statement follows a vigorous campaign against GM foods launched in Australia in recent days. This campaign, in turn, was in response to an ANZFA comment last week that maintained food derived from GM corn and GM canola was safe for human consumption.
"ANZFA welcomes vigorous public debate on any food matter. But the continual sledging of GM food safety by these groups has gone beyond the bounds of ethical lobbying practice.
"I now believe that these groups should be asked to put up or shut up. We have the evidence that approved GM foods are safe to eat. Where is their evidence that they are not?" Lindenmayer firmly said.
He made particular reference to Bob Phelps of the Gene Ethics Network and Dr Judy Carmen of the Public Health Association who, according to Lindenmayer, had deliberately sought to whip up public anxiety over the safety of the food supply in relation to GM foods in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Lindenmayer claimed that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, as the food regulator, carries no bias for or against any particular food technology.
He added that he understood why people might wish to avoid GM foods for environmental, ethical, religious or other reasons, but that they should argue their case on these bases and not mislead the consuming public with unsubstantiated assertions.
"I don' t pretend that we have all the answers about GM foods, but we have enough to know that those we approve are at least as safe as their non-GM counterparts," he clearly stated.
ANZFA issued an open letter calling for public comments on GM canola and GM corn in food but the vitriolic commentaries from firm anti-GM campaigners were perhaps more than Lindenmayer had expected. These media-hyped differences of opinion will only serve to confuse the consumer further.
