A basic principle in the classification of GMO foods is fundamentally flawed and "has failed miserably" at protecting public health, a study argues. The error has allowed companies to market potentially dangerous GMO products.

The principle itself is known as 'substantial equivalence' and is the basis for the safety protocol used by most international food regulators. It works off the idea that if a new food product (GMOs in this case) are found to be similar to an already-existing non-GMO product, then it can be treated the same with regard to safety regulations.

However, the Australia-based Permaculture Research Institute has revealed that new studies, independent of the biotech industry, are showing up "glaring differences" between GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts, suggesting the concept of substantial equivalence is flawed.

"This makes a mockery of the regulatory principle of 'Substantial Equivalence' which has facilitated approvals of GMOs with practically no protection for public health and the environment," writes a study published on Friday.

At present the international regulation bodies that use the principle include the World Health Organization, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization.

READ MORE: GMO assessment has ‘failed’ at protecting public health