Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7295] 
3.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What steps is she taking to ensure New Zealand and Australia are “aligned with the European Union on standards for genetically engineered food”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 When the Australia New Zealand Food Authority as it was known then put in place a food-labelling standard for genetically modified (GM) food in the year 2000 it was one of the first of its kind in the world and as comprehensive as possible at that time. A review of the labelling standard was included in the 2000 decision and that review is now under consideration. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Now that the European Union has adopted a much more stringent genetic engineering (GE) labelling regime that will require the labelling of all genetically engineered ingredients irrespective of whether there is DNA or protein of GM origin in the final product will she commit to aligning New Zealand with these laws particularly as she justified our existing weak labelling laws by saying that it was essential that Australia and New Zealand were aligned with the European Union on labelling standards? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I feel that the member did not listen to my answer. I said that when we brought in our labelling regime in the year 2000 it was the most comprehensive of its kind in the world. At that time we put in place a review mechanism so that in the year 2003 it would be reviewed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. As I said in my first answer that review is now under way and is to look at international comparisons to see what changes if any need to be made to our food-labelling regime for GM food. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What are the differences between the Australian and New Zealand standard and the newly proposed European standard? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The main difference is the threshold of 0.5 percent for unapproved GM material. The European Union standard is less strict than ours which has a nil tolerance for food derived from an unapproved GM organism. Another difference is the European Union labelling which will be required if a food is derived from a GM crop. Labelling in New Zealand is based on the presence of GM material in the final food. In the European Union standard labelling is required even if GM material is not detectable. We believe that this will be extremely difficult to enforce. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In the review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand that she alluded to will she as Minister for Food Safety and the Food Standards Agency which has one of its objectives to promote accurate and meaningful labelling be advocating for a European Union style of labelling which requires all ingredients to be labelled irrespective of whether they contain DNA etc.? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will wait to see what the review brings forth because as I just outlined in my answer to my colleague some of the standards that the European Union has are less strict than New Zealand’s and I am unsure whether the member is asking me to promote a standard that is less strict in some areas but more strict in others. I think we will wait to see the outcome of that review. 
Sue Kedgley 
: As Minister for Food Safety is she concerned that if there was a food safety issue that required the recall of all food derived from a particular GE commodity it would be virtually impossible to do that under our existing laws which allow hundreds of GE ingredients to remain undeclared in food and do not require a strict traceability regime throughout the food chain; if not why not. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I am not concerned because any food that has GM in it in New Zealand has to be safe.