# data[].attributes.headline
Food tank - sustainable food and what we can do

# data[].attributes.subject
Food tank - sustainable food and what we can do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our food system is broken.

Some people don't have enough food, while others are eating too much. There's only one way to fix this problem-and it starts with you and me.

Food Tank is for the 7 billion people who have to eat every day. We will offer solutions and environmentally sustainable ways of alleviating hunger, obesity, and poverty by creating a network of connections and information for all of us to consume and share. Food Tank is for farmers and producers, policy makers and government leaders, researchers and scientists, academics and journalists, and the funding and donor communities to collaborate on providing sustainable solutions for our most pressing environmental and social problems.

As much as we need new thinking on global food system issues, we also need new doing. Around the world, people and organizations have developed innovative, on-the-ground solutions to the most pressing issues in food and agriculture. Through years of field visits (and years of trying to eat better in her own community) our President Danielle Nierenberg has helped to highlight and promote these best practices. Today, we hope to bridge the domestic and global food issues by highlighting how hunger, obesity, climate change, unemployment, and other problems can be solved by more research and investment in sustainable agriculture.

Food Tank highlights hope and success in agriculture. We feature innovative ideas that are already working on the ground, in cities, in kitchens, in fields and in laboratories. These innovations need more attention, more research, and ultimately more funding to be replicated and scaled-up. And that is where we need you. We all need to work together to find solutions that nourish ourselves and protect the planet.

Food Tank is a 501(c)3 non profit organization. All donations and membership dues are tax deductible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About Food Tank - The Think Tank For Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our food system is broken. Some people don't have enough food, while others are eating too much. There's only one way to fix this problem-and it starts with you and me. Food Tank is for the 7 billion people who have to eat every day.

# data[].attributes.body
Australian Govt Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: this material was prepared prior to commencement of the caretaker period on 8 May 2016

Food loss and waste is a global problem affecting our economy, society and environment.

A significant problem for Australia

In 2013 it was estimated that food waste cost Australian households more than $8 billion each year. A departmental report released in 2011 estimated that Australians continued to generate 361 kilograms of food waste annually per person. The environmental cost is also significant and includes greenhouse gas emissions. An estimated 6.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was released as a result of sending organic waste to landfill in 2011.

There are a number of barriers to effective food waste management in Australia. These include:

the complexity of food production, purchasing and consumption patterns

a lack of established infrastructure and technology for the alternative treatment of food waste

lack of consumer awareness.

Australians are acting to reduce our food waste in Australia in a number of ways. These include consumer education, investment in waste treatment infrastructure, waste diversion from the retail and commercial sector, food collection for redistribution and research into high value uses for food waste. More needs to be done with a focus on action by state and local governments and community organisations to better manage and limit food waste at the local level. It is important that governments, communities and industry work together to better manage food waste..

State and territory governments

New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia make up more than 60 per cent of the Australian population. They are addressing consumer food waste by introducing public food waste education and awareness initiatives and grants programmes for organic waste diversion activities undertaken by local councils and by investing in organic waste and recycling infrastructure.

Pilot programmes in a number of states, including Queensland and South Australia, have shown that the businesses that sell food can save money by diverting food waste at source. Our states and territories are also discouraging the disposal of food waste in landfill by applying levies, providing incentives for alternative food waste treatments and investing landfill levy funds back into infrastructure development.

Local Governments

Local governments are well positioned to influence the management of food waste at its source by organising waste collection for households and businesses in their local area. Many councils have identified the significant amount of food in their waste streams and are taking steps to reduce food waste through a range of programmes. These may include:

community information sessions and demonstrations on storing food and composting at home

grants and rebates for households to purchase compost bins and worm farms

pilot programmes for restaurants and cafes to assess their food waste practices and reduce the amount of food they send to landfill

supporting local businesses to source food waste, in order to turn it into valuable products like compost and fertiliser.

Private sector and not-for profit organisations

In Australia, the retail and food processing sectors are working independently to address food loss and waste.

The food processing industry's peak body, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, has a target to reduce waste to landfill by 40 per cent by 2020. The council recognises there are strong incentives for food processors and retailers to reduce their food waste. These include increased efficiency and profitability and opportunities for businesses to stand out from their competitors in a highly competitive industry.

A substantial amount of food is diverted from landfill through three major food recovery services-Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite . In 2014-2015 these charities saved enough food to provide more than 72 million meals to the community that would otherwise have gone to landfill.

Major grocery retailers Coles and Woolworths, who hold around 70 per cent of the supermarket sector in Australia, have partnered with food recovery organisations. These partnerships mean that retailers can meet their food waste reduction goals while the charities are able to alleviate poverty and improve food security.

The role of the Australian Government

The Australian Government is making a practical contribution in two main areas. It is focused primarily on promoting a strategic dialogue on food waste outcomes and standards and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the Emissions Reduction Fund the Government is implementing the Source Separated Organic Waste method. This will allow funding for projects which divert food waste from landfill. The aims are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by significantly reducing methane emissions to the atmosphere.

The Emissions Reduction Fund is further supporting reduction of emissions from waste through projects which reduce the amount of organic waste in landfill, through diversion to composting and resource recovery, capturing methane from landfills and producing electricity and treating wastewater at places such as sewerage plants or abattoirs. Compost can also be used to reduce the rate of soil carbon loss in agriculture.

The Australian Government also plays a strategic role in fostering and encouraging state, territory and local governments to continue work on food waste programmes and policies. Practical measures include identifying knowledge gaps and sharing information through national waste reporting, the one-stop shop for key national waste and recycling information in Australia. National waste reporting consolidates food waste data from the states and territories and access to the data means that governments, the market and the public are all able to see what progress is being made on this important issue.

Managing Australia's food waste

State and territory governments, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector are largely working to address food loss and waste without Australian Government intervention. There are ten key levers to manage food waste effectively:

support for agricultural efficiency and innovation

assessment of food ordering, transport and storage practices

effective and sustainable use of packaging

partnership between food and grocery retailers and charitable organisations

household education and community initiatives

diversion of food waste from the commercial sector

investment in alternative treatment technology and infrastructure

incentives for alternatives to landfill disposal

creating value from food waste

standardise data for measurement of food waste and tracking of waste reduction.

The Australian Government's strategic dialogue with stakeholders will better coordinate actions across these ten areas and lead to better and more lasting outcomes. By mapping current and future activities against these key result areas we can identify any gaps in delivery over time and assist everyone to maximise their overall food waste reduction.

Next Steps

Australian Environment Ministers will consider approaches to reduce food waste at the next meeting in 2016.

This will include consideration of the role of targets in reducing food waste, increasing engagement with industry and not for profit organisations in working together to reduce food waste in Australia.

Download

Download this page as a PDF fact sheet.
Working together to reduce food waste in Australia (PDF - 893.4 KB)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Working together to reduce food waste in Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: this material was prepared prior to commencement of the caretaker period on 8 May 2016 Food loss and waste is a global problem affecting our economy, society and environment. In 2013 it was estimated that food waste cost Australian households more than $8 billion each year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Slow Food is a global, grassroots organization, founded in 1989 to prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteract the rise of fast life and combat people's dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from and how our food choices affect the world around us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this report we consider key factors contributing to the current unacceptable level of food waste across the world and the wider implications for sustainably supporting projected population growth.

With the global population estimated to reach 9.5 billion by 2075, mankind needs to ensure it has the food resources available to feed all these people. With current practices wasting up to 50% of all food produced, engineers need to act now and promote sustainable ways to reduce waste from the farm to the supermarket and to the consumer.

Engineers, scientists and agriculturalists have the knowledge, tools and systems that will assist in achieving productivity increases. However, pressure will grow on finite resources of land, energy and water. Although increasing yields in hungry countries is an appropriate response to an emerging food crisis, to ensure we can sustainably meet the food needs of over three billion extra people on the planet by 2075, we call for initiatives to be taken to reduce the substantial quantity of food wasted annually around the world.

The potential to provide 60-100% more food by simply eliminating losses, while simultaneously freeing up land, energy and water resources for other uses, is an opportunity that should not be ignored. Factors affecting waste relate to engineered infrastructure, economic activity, vocational training, knowledge transfer, culture and politics.

Key recommendations

1. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) should work with the international engineering community to ensure governments of developed nations put in place programmes that transfer engineering knowledge, design know-how, and suitable technology to newly developing countries. This will help improve produce handling in the harvest, and immediate post-harvest stages of food production.

2. Governments of rapidly developing countries should incorporate waste minimisation thinking into the transport infrastructure and storage facilities currently being planned, engineered and built.

3. Governments in developed nations should devise and implement policy that changes consumer expectations. These should discourage retailers from wasteful practices that lead to the rejection of food on the basis of cosmetic characteristics, and losses in the home due to excessive purchasing by consumers.

Related links

Read the press release:
Disturbing levels of food wastage ignite global call for action

Read the Engineering News article:
Half of all food produced ends up as waste, says IMechE

Read the Engineering News article:
Cut waste to feed the starving, says IMechE

Read the Institution News article:
New report: As much as 2 billion tonnes of all food produced ends up as waste

Read the Institution News article:
Food wastage and food security is about more than just food

Read the press release:
Supermarkets still encouraging UK shoppers to buy too much food, survey finds

Read the press release:
Most shoppers would buy 'ugly' fruit and veg

Read the press release:
Institution responds to European food waste report

Read Dr Tim Fox's blog post:
Food wastage: A warm reception for some cool thinking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this report we consider key factors contributing to the current unacceptable level of food waste across the world and the wider implications for sustainably supporting projected population growth. With the global population estimated to reach 9.5 billion by 2075, mankind needs to ensure it has the food resources available to feed all these people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback - Putting a stop to global food waste

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback - Putting a stop to global food waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feedback - Putting a stop to global food waste

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's On My Food? :: Pesticides On Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At Pesticide Action Network (PAN), we believe that pesticides are a public health problem requiring public engagement to solve. We want you to have the information you need to take action based on a solid understanding of the issues. What's On My Food? builds on PAN's more than 30-year tradition of making pesticide science accessible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Eating Organic Really Better for You and the Environment?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Eating Organic Really Better for You and the Environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On average, organic food items are 47 percent more expensive than standard supermarket fare-but thanks to their purported health and environmental benefits, many shoppers still splurge on them. In fact, the total retail market for organic products in the United States was valued at over $39 billion in 2016. But while the organic industry means big business for farmers and food companies, the question still remains: Are organic foods actually better for both you and the environment?

In the video below, AsapSCIENCE co-creator and host Mitchell Moffit explains why eating organic may not be the panacea most people think it is. Contrary to popular belief, an organic diet isn't chemical-free. In fact, Moffit explains, organic farmers can still use natural pesticides and fungicides to keep crop-destroying insects at bay-and studies show that they aren't necessarily better for you or the soil than synthetic ones.

Labels tend to be misleading, too. If a food product's package simply says "organic," it only has to contain 95 percent organic ingredients. (This percentage is even lower with items labeled "made with organic ingredients" or "containing organic ingredients.") And in some cases, chemicals or ingredients are the least of a shopper's worries: In 2015, organic foods had accounted for 7 percent of recalled foods units as of August of that year, thanks in part to incidents of potential bacterial contamination.

Even if you're extra-careful to only consume food that's labeled "100 percent organic," the jury's still out on whether it's good for you or the environment. In 2012, Stanford University scientists published a meta-analysis of 237 studies concluding that organic fruits and veggies don't provide more nutritional benefits than regular produce. Meanwhile, a study published in the journal Nature in 2012 found that organic crop yields are much lower than conventional ones. They require more farmland for growth, and put a greater strain on the environment.

Adding to the confusion, other studies suggest that organic farming methods can actually increase important nutrients in foods, and some agricultural experts say they improve soil quality. In short, there's no surefire answer for whether or not you're wasting your money at Whole Foods-but at the end of the day, "production methods vary greatly for both organic and conventional foods from one farm to another," Moffit points out.
Know of something you think we should cover? Email us at tips@mentalfloss.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Eating Organic Really Better for You and the Environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On average, organic food items are 47 percent more expensive than standard supermarket fare-but thanks to their purported health and environmental benefits, many shoppers still splurge on them. In fact, the total retail market for organic products in the United States was valued at over $39 billion in 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
October 22nd, 2013

Natural/Organic Brands No Longer Hiding Behind Lobbying Organization
The Cornucopia Institute releases shopper's guide:
pro/con I-522 brands

Proposition I-522, a citizen's initiative on the November 5 ballot in Washington state that would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages, has become the most expensive initiative campaign in the state's history. The high-priced battleground is pitting consumer and farmer advocates against multi-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations.

A number of new opponents to the GMO food labeling proposal were recently revealed following the release of their names by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a national business lobbying organization. The GMA had been, apparently in violation of state election law, hiding the identity of its donors who had provided more than $7.2 million to fight the consumer's right to know what is in their food. The disclosure came shortly after Washington's Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit demanding the GMA reveal the identity of its secret donors.

With the outing of the GMA's donors, The Cornucopia Institute has released an updated infographic detailing the financial expenditures of corporate and organizational supporters and opponents of I-522.
(click on the poster image below to view a quick loading larger version,
and then click on it again for an even larger version)
( or click here to view a printable hi-res version)
(click on the poster image above to view a quick loading larger version,
and then click on it again for an even larger version)
Download High Resolution PDF for printing purposes by clicking here
"Consumers might be surprised to find out that some of their favorite organic and natural brands, hiding behind their lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are contributing bushel baskets of cash towards thwarting their right to make informed choices in the supermarket," says Mark Kastel, Cornucopia's Codirector.

A similar GMO labeling measure, Prop 37, was narrowly defeated in California last year, with GMA, Monsanto and their allies pouring more than $46 million into their campaign and outspending labeling supporters by five to one. Many prominent organic and natural brands were also exposed in California by Cornucopia for their opposition to GMO food labeling.

"We think the bad press and consumer outrage that many of the GMA member companies received in California, like Kellogs (Kashi), General Mills (Cascadian Farms/Muir Glen) and Smucker's (Santa Cruz and Knudsen), led to the decision to try to clandestinely hide under the GMA's cloak with its secret donor approach," noted Kastel.

The Cornucopia infographic also outlines dozens of organic brands that have heavily contributed to the YES on I-522 campaign, including Dr Bronner's, Nature's Path, Annie's, Stonyfield Farm and Nutiva. It is thought that after the dust settled in California, these groups gained respect and market share after some of the prominent, agribusiness-owned brands lost favor with politically savvy consumers.

A number of prominent organizations have also substantially contributed in support of consumer rights, including the Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Mercola.com, Presence Marketing, PCC Natural Markets and Food Democracy Now!.

Earlier this year, the GMA publicly scrubbed its website of its members, a move thought by many to be an effort to mask which corporations/brands were helping underwrite corporate donations against I-522. They weren't, however, able to remove this web archive detailing their membership.

"In addition to the many companies supporting a YES vote on I-522, there are thousands of individuals making small donations to fund the pro-labeling campaign," said Goldie Caughlan, a retired nutrition educator for PCC Natural Markets in Seattle and former member of the National Organic Standards Board. "Out-of-state interests, like Monsanto and the many identified GMA members, are flooding our airwaves with misleading ads telling Washington residents how to vote," Caughlan added.

Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food at the state level is viewed as a watershed event by many industry observers, given the inaction on the popular proposal at the federal level - with polls showing as high as a 90% in support. Lobbyists for Monsanto, its biotech allies, and GMA in particular, have been credited with bottlenecking a federal labeling law.

After the industry advertising blitz, the most recent polling of Washington state voters indicates a tightening race on the I-522 initiative, with a narrow majority supporting labeling of GMO food ingredients. Opponents of the measure have raised in excess of $17.1 million. The GMA's share of the NO vote dollar alone, at $7.2 million, is greater than all of the money raised by I-522 supporters, who have collected nearly $6.9 million in favor of a YES vote.

"Consumers and food citizens are increasingly interested in 'voting with their forks,' and many want to support companies that share their values," observes Jason Cole, a researcher for Cornucopia who compiled the data for the infographic. "We think these conscious eaters will appreciate the infographic created by Cornucopia to help them make their purchasing decisions."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unveiled: GMO Labeling Opponents Come Out of the Shadows - Cornucopia Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
October 22nd, 2013 Natural/Organic Brands No Longer Hiding Behind Lobbying Organization The Cornucopia Institute releases shopper's guide: pro/con I-522 brands Proposition I-522, a citizen's initiative on the November 5 ballot in Washington state that would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages, has become the most expensive initiative campaign in the state's history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast Facts on Food Waste The following data was used by Do Something! to calculate the new national food waste figure of $8 billion: To better understand community knowledge, attitudes and b…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SpoonLed - Youth Food Movement Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lead the change and flip off food waste like a boss!

# data[].attributes.headline
Why I live a zero waste life | Lauren Singer | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.subject
Why I live a zero waste life | Lauren Singer | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why I live a zero waste life | Lauren Singer | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.headline
How To End The Food Waste Fiasco | Rob Greenfield | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.subject
How To End The Food Waste Fiasco | Rob Greenfield | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To End The Food Waste Fiasco | Rob Greenfield | TEDxTeen

# data[].attributes.headline
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food

# data[].attributes.subject
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Genetically Modified Food Facts - WMNews Ep. 27

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Genetically Engineered Foods Should be Labeled: Gary Hirshberg at TEDxManhattan 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gary Hirshberg is Chairman of Stonyfield Farm, the world's leading organic yogurt producer, and Managing Director of Stonyfield Europe, with organic brands in Ireland, and France. Gary serves on several corporate and non-profit boards including Applegate Farms, Honest Tea, Peak Organic Brewing, Late July, The Full Yield, SweetGreen, RAMp Sports, Glenisk, the Danone Communities Fund and the Danone Livelihoods Fund.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US health regulators have given the thumbs up to the sale of genetically modified salmon, making it the first genetically modified animal in the world to be grown for human consumption.

After an approval process that took nearly 20 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the genetically modified (GM) salmon posed no health risks and they could find no reason not to approve it.

But the Australian food safety regulator, Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), issued a statement to Australian consumers, saying the GM salmon had not been approved for sale in Australia.

FSANZ said they had not received an application to approve GM salmon, meaning it cannot be sold in Australia either as a whole product or as a processed food or ingredient.

Any application would require the regulator to conduct its own safety assessment, the FSANZ statement said.

Cutting harvest times

The salmon, developed by biotechnology company AquaBounty, is a type of Atlantic salmon that has been injected with a gene from Pacific chinook salmon to make it grow faster. The salmon can reach plate size in 18 months, compared to the usual three years. AquaBounty's CEO Dr Ron Stotish said the FDA's tick of approval was a "game-changer that brings healthy and nutritious food to consumers in an environmentally responsible manner".

The decision has angered environmental and food safety groups, with Friends of the Earth saying the "frankenfish" had "no place on our dinner plates". The Center for Food Safety said it intended to sue the FDA and block the approval.

But Professor Dean Jerry, an aquaculture geneticist at James Cook University, said consumers had nothing to fear from GM salmon.

"Despite a barrage of misinformation, comprehensive scientific review has shown that the GM [salmon] is safe to consume and the impact to the environment under the conditions of farming imposed are low," he said.

Aussie growers reject GM salmon

The Tasmanian Salmon Growers Association (TSGA) responded to the FDA's approval by issuing a statement reassuring the Australian public the salmon produced by its members have not been genetically modified.

"TSGA members do not produce salmon which have been genetically engineered," the statement said.

Adam Main, CEO of the TSGA, told CHOICE Aussie salmon growers had "absolutely no interest whatsoever" in farming genetically modified fish.

Main expects other salmon growers around the world to take the same attitude and reject GM salmon, even if it proves more economical to farm.

"We don't see there will be any ripple effect out of the US in the way salmon will be produced around the world," he said.

But the door opens for other GM animals

The FDA's approval of GM salmon will undoubtedly pave the way for regulatory agencies around the world to consider genetic modification of other animals.

"Possibly the most significant impact of this decision by the FDA will be the corresponding approval of a number of other GM fish that have been produced in other parts of the world," said Graham Mair, a professor in Aquaculture at Flinders University.

"It is likely that other agencies have been waiting for the FDA verdict before approving other GM fish."

Friends of the Earth say at least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish, along with chickens, pigs and cows are currently under development

Friends of the Earth say at least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish, along with chickens, pigs and cows are currently under development, but it's not clear if the animals would be destined for human consumption or if any are awaiting FDA approval.

At least one biotechnology company has stated it's currently developing cattle that don't have to be dehorned and pigs that don't need to be castrated.

Labelling is key for consumers

Much of the debate in the US following the FDA's approval has centred on labelling.

Labelling of the GM salmon would be voluntary in the US, as the FDA saw no difference in its nutritional characteristics and considered it be as safe to eat as conventional salmon.

But many people object to GM foods not just out of health concerns, but also for environmental and ethical reasons. Mandatory labelling provides these consumers with the power to make an informed decision at the checkout.

In Australia, GM foods, ingredients and additives must be labelled with the words "genetically modified" if they contain new DNA or protein that their conventional counterparts do not.

Labelling is also required when the genetic modification results in the food having altered characteristics, such as an increase in a particular nutrient.

Highly refined foods, such as sugars and oils, derived from genetically modified plants and animals generally don't need to be labelled, as the processing usually removes the DNA and protein from the food.

Canola oil derived from crops engineered to be resistant to a herbicide, for example, doesn't need to be labelled as GM.

More information on the labelling of GM foods in Australia can be found on the FSANZ website.

Would you eat it?

Despite the approval, AquaBounty still have a long road ahead of them in getting their GM salmon onto the dinner plate.

Many supermarket chains in the US have said they wouldn't stock the salmon in response to consumer fears about the product.
What do you think? Would you eat a "frankenfish"? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Ethical eating

Interested in sustainability and ethical issues surrounding your food and want to know more?

Paddock to plate tells you all you need to know about how your beef makes its way onto your dinner plate

Sustainable seafood guide will help you make the right choices at the local fishmongers.

Our look at kangaroo meat will help you decide if it's an ethical alternative to other red meat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GM salmon approval reignites genetically modified food debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US health regulators have given the thumbs up to the sale of genetically modified salmon, making it the first genetically modified animal in the world to be grown for human consumption. After an approval process that took nearly 20 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the genetically modified (GM) salmon posed no health risks and they could find no reason not to approve it.

# data[].attributes.body
Information about GM food in Australia by the Victorian Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some foods include ingredients (for example, soy beans) that have been genetically modified (GM), or are made using ingredients derived from GM organisms (for example, GM yeast). GM ingredients come from organisms that have had their genetic material altered using non-traditional breeding methods known as gene technology.

Traditional methods of genetic modification have been used for centuries through conventional breeding practices (such as the selective crossing of plants for preferred traits) and since the 1930s, by exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation to generate new or enhanced traits.

Today's genetic modification is a much more targeted process and can involve the transfer of genes from unrelated species. Genes used for genetic modification may come from a range of organisms, including bacteria, plant or animal species.

How genetic modification works

Gene technology, sometimes referred to as genetic engineering, is faster than traditional breeding and provides ways of introducing very precise changes to genetic material resulting in the expression of desirable traits.

These changes may involve the transfer of properties of a single gene from one organism to another. For instance, some genes may produce herbicide or insect resistance, or improve crop yields, and these can be transferred into food crops such as corn or canola.

Existing GM crops

The GM crops grown in Australia with approval from the relevant authorities are canola (also known as oilseed rape) and cotton. GM canola grown in Australia is resistant to certain types of herbicide. GM cotton has been modified to be resistant to certain types of cotton pests.

In other countries, several other GM crops with a wide range of new properties are being grown. New GM varieties are also currently being developed and tested national and internationally. For example, in Australia, GM crops are being developed to be able to withstand drought.

Sources of GM food and ingredients in Australia

GM whole foods such as soy, maize or sugar beet may be used as ingredients in food. None of these GM crops are grown in Australia, but some products for sale in Australia may contain imported GM ingredients.

The main sources of GM foods in Australia are:

imported GM soya - can be found as an ingredient in a wide range of foods such as chocolate, potato chips, margarine, mayonnaise, biscuits and bread

cottonseed oil made from GM cotton - made from GM cotton, is used by the food industry in Australia for frying, in mayonnaise and salad dressings

imported GM corn - can be found as an ingredient in imported foods such as breakfast cereals, bread, corn chips, gravy mixes, corn oil, corn flour and corn syrup

imported GM sugar beet - can be used to produce sugar.

There are currently no approved imports of fresh GM fruit or vegetables in Australia. Any application to import and sell products like this in Australia would have to go through a strict approval process.

Regulation of GM foods and ingredients in Australia

All GM foods available in Australia, which include products containing GM ingredients, must comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code).

GM foods and ingredients are subject to a mandatory pre-market safety assessment by the government food regulator called Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) before they enter the country and before they are used in foods for human consumption.

GM foods and ingredients are regulated in the Code under Standard 1.5.2 - Food produced using gene technology. The FSANZ assessment investigates:

nutritional content

toxicity (using similar methods to those used for conventional foods)

tendency to provoke any allergic reaction

stability of the inserted genetic material

whether there is any nutritional deficit or change in the GM food or ingredient

any other unintended effects of the gene insertion

a GM food will only be approved for sale if it is assessed as being safe and as nutritious as its conventional, non-GM counterpart.

More details about FSANZ can be found here.

Regulation of GM crops in Australia

The regulation of GM crops is the responsibility of both the Commonwealth and State Governments. There are currently suspensions on the commercial growing of GM crops in South Australia and Tasmania. Victoria lifted its suspension on the growing of GM crops in 2008.

All work related to GM organisms must be approved by the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The OGTR carries out thorough risk assessments on any applications for work on or the release of GM organisms, including a focus on the environment, and human health and safety.

Two GM crops, in addition to their conventionally bred counterparts, are currently grown commercially in Australia (canola and cotton). The commercial cultivation of these crops has been approved by the OGTR. There is extensive research underway in Australia on potential new crop traits, in particular traits to adapt to climate variability (such as drought tolerance).

Where to get help

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Tel. (02) 6271 2222

TechNyou (formerly the Gene and Nanotechnology Information Service) Tel. 1800 631 276

Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Tel. 1800 181 030

Things to remember

All GM foods sold in Australia have been assessed as safe by Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Labelling of GM foods is required by law.

Content Partner

This page has been produced in consultation with and approved by: Department of Health and Human Services - RHP&R - Health Protection - Food Safety and Regulation

Page content currently being reviewed.

Content on this website is provided for education and information purposes only. Information about a therapy, service, product or treatment does not imply endorsement and is not intended to replace advice from your doctor or other registered health professional. Content has been prepared for Victorian residents and wider Australian audiences, and was accurate at the time of publication. Readers should note that, over time, currency and completeness of the information may change. All users are urged to always seek advice from a registered health care professional for diagnosis and answers to their medical questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some foods include ingredients (for example, soy beans) that have been genetically modified (GM), or are made using ingredients derived from GM organisms (for example, GM yeast). GM ingredients come from organisms that have had their genetic material altered using non-traditional breeding methods known as gene technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Currently, the only genetically modified food crops produced in Australia are canola and cotton, but a variety of other GM foods can be imported and used as an ingredient in packaged foods. Foods where GM ingredients are highly refined do not need to be labelled as containing GM products.
COTTON
Genetically modified cotton has been grown commercially in Australia since 1996.

The cotton has been modified so that it is insect resistant, herbicide tolerant or both.

Cotton seed from GM cotton is crushed to produce cotton seed oil, which is widely used for cooking. Cottonseed meal can be used in stockfeed.
CANOLA
GM canola, modified for herbicide tolerance, was approved for commercial production in Australia in 2003.

However the states in which canola was being grown at the time placed bans -- bans which were only lifted by NSW and Victoria in 2008. WA also currently allows commercial growing of GM canola crops.

Canola oil is used in margarine-type spreads, dairy blends and as an ingredient in tinned and snack foods. Canola meal is often used in stockfeed.
IMPORTED GM FOODS
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), allows manufacturers to use a wide range of GM food ingredients imported from overseas. These include specific GM varieties of soybeans, corn, rice, potatoes and sugarbeet.

GM soybean products are used as ingredients in many processed foods, such as bread, pastries, chocolates, potato chips, margarine and mayonnaise. Soy lecithin (additive 322) is used as an emulsifier in spreads, cakes and confectionery. Soybean meal is often used in stockfeed, particularly for pigs and poultry and in supplements for dairy cattle.

GM corn products can be corn oil, cornflour or corn syrup; used in snack foods, fried foods and confectionery. It is also used for cattle feed.

GM potatoes can be used in processed products such as snack foods. However fresh GM potatoes cannot be sold in Australia.

GM sugar beet can be used as sugar in some imported processed foods
TRIALS
Field trials of pineapple, papayas, wheat, barley and sugarcane are underway in Australia. These products have been modified for insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, color, oil production, sugar composition, flowering and fruit development.

Gene technology research is also underway in Australia on bananas, rice and corn.
GM TECHNOLOGY IN ANIMAL FARMING
CSIRO says researchers are using gene technology to improve the efficiency of animal production. This research, carried out by universities, Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) and CSIRO, uses the natural genetic variation in livestock populations to selectively breed animals that produce more meat, milk and fibre.

Animals can be fed the approved GM products mentioned above.
GM FOOD LABELLING
GM food products on sale in Australia and New Zealand - either as a whole food or as an ingredient in a processed food - must have their GM status identified if introduced genetic material or protein is present in the final food. However, there are exceptions.

- Foods where GM ingredients are highly refined, such as cooking oils, margarine, sugars, starches, chocolate, baked goods. Many processed foods fall into this category.

-Foods made at bakeries, restaurants and takeaways.

-Foods from animals that are fed GM feed.

- GM labelling laws allow companies to include up to one percent of GM organisms in food without labelling it GM, as long as the GM is there "unintentionally" or by accident.

In Australia, there are currently no approved GM fresh foods, such as fruit and vegetables.

Should they ever be approved, FSANZ's regulation states that they must be displayed with a tag disclosing their GM status.
MORE DETAILS:
Foods approved for sale in Australia and NZ by FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand)

List by OGTR (Office of the Gene Technology Regular) of current licences for GM foods approved for sale in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Currently, the only genetically modified food crops produced in Australia are canola and cotton, but a variety of other GM foods can be imported and used as an ingredient in packaged foods. Foods where GM ingredients are highly refined do not need to be labelled as containing GM products.

# data[].attributes.body
Consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies

# data[].attributes.headline
Curtin University: Sustainable Engineering group

# data[].attributes.subject
Curtin University: Sustainable Engineering group

# data[].attributes.body
Publications on sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Publications, sustainability, industrial ecology - Sustainable Engineering Group (SEG) | Curtin University, Perth, Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information on publications by the Sustainable Engineering Group (SEG) at Curtin University

# data[].attributes.body
A report from Victoria (2007)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Local, Seasonal, Ecological Food Direct From Your Farmer