Food Standards (Application A1156 – Food derived from Super High Oleic Safflower Lines 26 and 40) Variation

Overview

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, enacted by the Australian Parliament, governs the functions of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), including the development and variation of food standards. The Authority is empowered to consider applications for the creation or amendment of food regulatory measures, including standards, as outlined in Division 1 of Part 3 of the FSANZ Act. In response to Application A1156, the Authority has approved a draft variation permitting the sale and use of food derived from genetically modified safflower lines 26 and 40, which are noted for their high oleic acid content. The Authority's approval follows a single round of public consultation, deemed sufficient given the anticipated minor impact on business and individuals, thereby omitting the requirement for a Regulation Impact Statement. The proposed amendment to Schedule 26 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code aims to incorporate these high oleic acid safflower lines into the food supply, subject to specific labelling requirements to ensure consumer awareness.

Scope and Application

The legislation F2019L00038 pertains to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, specifically concerning the approval of a draft variation to Schedule 26 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to permit the sale and use of food derived from genetically modified safflower lines 26 and 40. The Authority, under Section 13 of the FSANZ Act, has approved this variation, which applies to food products derived from the specified genetically modified safflower lines. The application process followed the stipulated procedure in Division 1 of Part 3 of the FSANZ Act, including a round of public consultation, and did not require a Regulation Impact Statement due to the anticipated minor impact on business and individuals. This Act applies to entities involved in the production, sale, or use of food derived from the genetically modified safflower lines, ensuring compliance with the labelling requirements and standards set forth in the Code. The geographic reach of this Act is national, applying across Australia and New Zealand, and it does not incorporate any documents by reference. Exemptions or exclusions from this legislation are not specified in the explanatory statement.

Key Provisions

The primary operative section of the legislation is Item [1] of the draft variation, which amends Schedule 26 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Specifically, Item [1.1] introduces a reference to Item 9(a) of the table to subsection S26—3(4) in subsection S26—3(2), mandating that any food for sale consisting of or containing super high oleic safflower lines 26 and 40 must adhere to the labelling requirements stipulated in section 1.5.2—4 of the Code. Additionally, Item [1.2] inserts Item 9 paragraph (a) into the table to subsection S26—3(4), which references the same safflower lines, thereby allowing the sale and use of food derived from these lines in compliance with Standard 1.5.2. The Act imposes several obligations and requirements on parties and entities it governs. Firstly, any food products derived from the specified genetically modified safflower lines must comply with the labelling requirements outlined in section 1.5.2—4 of the Code. This ensures transparency and informed consumer choice by clearly identifying the presence of these high oleic acid safflower derivatives in food products. Furthermore, the Authority's approval process, including the mandatory public consultation, ensures that the development or variation of food regulatory measures is transparent and considers public input. Failure to comply with the labelling requirements or the sale of food derived from the specified safflower lines without adhering to the standards set out in the Code may result in civil or criminal consequences. The legislation does not explicitly detail the penalties for such breaches, but they could include fines, product recalls, or other enforcement actions under the FSANZ Act. The maximum penalties would depend on the specific nature and severity of the breach, as well as any applicable provisions within the overarching FSANZ Act. Given that the proposed variation is deemed to have a minor impact on business and individuals, a Regulation Impact Statement was not required. This decision is consistent with the Authority's assessment that the changes will not significantly affect stakeholders. However, any adverse impacts that do occur would need to be managed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FSANZ Act. Finally, it is important to note that this instrument is exempt from the requirements for a statement of compatibility with human rights, as it is a non-disallowable instrument under section 94 of the FSANZ Act. This exemption means that the Authority did not need to demonstrate how the draft variation aligns with human rights obligations.