Release food labelling guidelines: Greens

The Australian Greens have urged the early release of recommendations aimed tightening the nation's food labelling laws.

The review, which is likely to provide a big shake-up of labelling policy in Australia, began in October last year and is not expected to deliver its final report until early 2011.

But on Friday, the review panel is due to make a presentation before the Australian New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting in Adelaide.

Greens health spokeswoman Rachel Siewert said it made sense for the final report and its recommendations to be released before then, because consumers continue to be duped.

Her major beef - and one of the key concerns surrounding the review - lies with the labelling of genetically-modified (GM) foods.

"Our current system is nothing short of misleading," Senator Siewert said in a statement on Thursday.

"It is practically impossible to know from current labelling whether or not GM products have been used in food production."

She said there were simply loopholes that allowed foods such as oils, sugars and starch to be sourced from GM crops.

"We're not even told if the meat we buy comes from animals raised on GM crops, because there is currently no legal requirement for this to be on the label.

"People should have the ability to easily determine which products contain GM ingredients, so that they can make informed choices."

The Greens and independent senator Nick Xenophon have already introduced a bill in the upper house that seeks to crack down on labelling laws, although it has yet to be debated.

Senator Siewert urged the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), which will make a decision on the public release of the report, to ensure consumers are kept in the loop.

Greenpeace later added its voice to the call, noting that more than 30,000 Australians had signed a Right to Know petition urging better labelling laws.

"It is crucial the government releases the panel's recommendations to the community as early as possible," campaigner Claire Parfitt said in a statement.

"Releasing it publicly once decisions are already made is an insult to the many thousands of people who gave input to the review."

The review received more than 6000 submissions during public consultations, which attracted about 550 people, and 550 formal written submissions in the second consultation phase.