A Submission to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee
August 2000
GENE TECHNOLOGY
We wish to make a submission to the Inquiry into the Gene Technology Bill 2000. The Inquiry's terms of reference are attached.
Our aims and aspirations -- such as a prosperous economy with full employment, sound environmental management, care for the disadvantaged and a tolerant and peaceful society -- are shared by the vast majority of Australians.
We believe that society's goals are best achieved through an efficient, competitive private sector, small but effective government, individual freedom with personal responsibility, and an open and peaceful exchange among nations.
We are totally independent. We do not accept any donations from political parties or grants from government.
We act as developer, test pilot and promoter of free market ideas. We take the view that the onus is on those who promote more regulation and government intervention to put a strong case that such measures are necessary and cost-effective.
Our approach is to address only those issues in the Terms of Reference in which we can offer useful insights. Our role in the gene technology debate has been one of examining the public policy issues on a matter that has assumed considerable public profile against our core beliefs.
We have published three Backgrounders on the subject;
- Risk Assessment and Decision-Making for Genetically Modified Foods
- Regulating Biotechnology: Some Questions and Some Answers; and
- Biotechnology and Food: Ten Thousand Years of Sowing Seeds, One Hundred Years of Harvesting Genes
In addition we have made two submissions to the government on different aspects of the matter:
- Proposed national regulatory system for genetically modified organisms: How should it work?; and
- Labelling Genetically Modified Foods. A Submission on Proposed Labelling Provisions for Genetically Modified Foods under Food Standard A18, December 1999.
In addition, we have published several press articles promoting our views.
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL AND THE REGULATORY BODIES
(a) whether measures in the Bill to achieve its object "to protect health and safety of people and to protect the environment" are adequate.
We believe the measures proposed are adequate. Indeed we are of the view that there is considerable overkill since the technology poses no threat to humans and is likely to improve environmental outcomes.
The environmental impact follows from the main feature of GM foods and other crops to date. These normally have genetic modifications to allow better properties in combating pests and chemical sprays designed to prevent weeds. They are also likely to allow for less waste in the crops (e.g. shorter stems) and to allow reduced consumption of water.
All of these features have a benign environmental effect either because they allow conservation of resources or because they allow crop production with fewer chemical inputs. There have not been be any superweeds developed as a result of the technology and scientific evidence rates such developments as highly improbable.
With regard to protection of people's health and safety, the new products have undergone greater testing prior to release than any previous food technology. Indeed, although all plant and animal food we now consume has been the creation of human induced cross breeding, no previous food has ever been subject to the oversight required of GM foods. And objectively, the latter should in fact warrant a reduced oversight since the genetic modification, which is somewhat hit-and-miss in traditional cross breeding techniques, is precise with gene technology. Specific genes can be introduced or changed without fear of also importing genes that may have adverse impacts.
We should also bear in mind that the technology has now been in common use, especially in North America for the past four years. It is likely that most North Americans eat GM food every day. Moreover, such is the nature of world food trade, and the ubiquitousness of soya (47% of which is GM (1)) in foods, it is also certain that virtually all Australians have consumed GM product. There is no case anywhere in the world of harm having been recorded from this consumption.
We do not believe that either the environmental conditions in Australia or the susceptibility of Australians to different foods is sufficiently unlike those elsewhere in the world to justify the additional level of testing that is being put in place.
The real issue is whether the extreme and unnecessary caution in permitting the adoption of this technology is creating harm through depriving consumers of cheaper and more nutritious food. These issues, of course, loom larger in developing countries where more expensive food may mean people go hungry or become susceptible to inadequate nutrition with consequent adverse health effects.
As improved and healthier foods become available through the GM route, delays in bringing these to market will have a particularly adverse effect. For example vitamin A enriched "golden" rice has the capacity to prevent tens of thousands of cases infant blindness in developing nations.
The overwhelming majority of scientists favour the technology. Some 3000 have signed a petition that says the "techniques ... can contribute substantially in enhancing quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment". And that, "The responsible genetic modification of plants is neither new nor dangerous".
To put all fears to rest, in the past few weeks, seven premier scientific academies, (including the Chinese and Indian science academies, the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences) have issued a joint report promoting the benefits of the technology and the need for it to feed a growing world population with increasing aspirations for food quality.
(b) whether the proposed regulatory arrangements and public reporting provisions will provide sufficient consumer confidence in the regulation of the development and adoption of new gene technologies
The procedures announced and presently in place are, in our view, designed solely for public re-assurance purposes. As outlined above, the technology itself should warrant less oversight of the new products than that traditionally required -- which is to say no oversight.
It is likely that all new GM foods introduced in Australia will have first been introduced in countries like the USA with robust assessment requirements and bureaucratic procedures and skills that are unmatched anywhere in the world. This doubles the surety of the safety of the products, a safety that already has a high degree of insurance in view of the reputations and financial penalties that firms marketing these products place at risk.
In addition the new Regulator is to be totally independent of Government. The Regulator will have extensive powers of investigation and will be adequately funded. In addition, the Ministerial Council, the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee and the Gene Technology Advisory Committee will offer further assurances.
All this said, there are likely to be those who will wish to oppose the technology at all costs. Some of these express opposition to the technology by destroying trial crops in deliberate attempts to prevent the knowledge being gathered.
We believe the Government has leaned over backwards to put in place suitable machinery to offer Australians a guarantee that the GM food they eat is safe and wholesome and that GM crops have a benign environmental effect. Some people will not be satisfied by such levels of assurance because of an ideological opposition to the technology -- an opposition frequently grounded in deep-seated hostility to "big business", "capitalist exploitation" or other epithets for the free market system which has brought us our present levels of prosperity.
Others may prefer to avoid GM foods for similar reasons to vegetarians who avoid meat or those who seek only "organic" foods. Many would regard such choices as eccentric but they are freely made and based on the individuals' value systems the rights to which nobody should deny. However, the rights of people to such choices should not require others to bear unnecessary costs.
These matters have come to a head in the debate on labelling. To make a clear statement that a product does not contain any GM material (and processed foods contain hundreds of ingredients) would entail a vast cost, while bringing no benefit in terms of health. Doubtless some of those calling for increased labelling are doing so in the hope that the increased costs will abort the development of the technology.
If some consumers want to avoid GM foods, sufficient demand for the absence of these ingredients will cause suppliers to make the products available. This already happens with "organic" foods. Some, including many organic food producers, have called for labelling where any of the food might include GM substances. This is ironic since organic food producers could not agree to a standard that guaranteed their produce to be 100% organic -- it is impossible to be certain of an absence of an admixture of modern technology.
The best solution is to leave niche suppliers to market non-GM products to the customer (if they can do so truthfully). The rest of us can also buy the products we want without having a needless cost imposed. Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers did not adopt this position during their August 2000 meeting and have opted for a system that requires labelling although not on such a comprehensive basis as called for by some opponents of the technology.
OTHER ISSUES
liability and insurance issues relating to deliberate and accidental contamination of non-genetically modified crops by genetically-modified crops and how those issues are being addressed in international regulatory systems
Accidental contamination is a highly emotional issue. The very use of the word "contamination" in this context gives an impression, perhaps intentionally by some parties, of at best "adulteration" and at worst "pollution" or "putrefaction". We need to bare in mind that there is absolutely no health issues with the products under discussion.
Nonetheless, some governments, especially that of France, appear to have gone to extraordinary costs in destroying fields where inadvertent admixtures of GM seed at levels of less that one percent have been discovered.
Liability for GM foods has not become an issue. This is because all foods presently available are "substantially equivalent" to existing foods. Nobody has sought insurance and no insurance provider would be in a position to offer it.
the validity and practicability of any proposed clause allowing individual States the right to opt out of the scheme and the implications of such an option in the context of Australia's international trade and related obligations
Individual States cannot pass blanket legislation to require an absence of GM in the crops they produce. Freedom of interstate commerce is guaranteed under the Constitution (article 92). It is possible for areas to opt for a GM free position as a means of promoting themselves into niche markets, though this is unlikely to be practicable on a whole state basis. If this were to be attempted on a wide scale, as the advantages of GM products became apparent, individual farmers would wish to take advantage of the increase in productivity and would appeal against any decision by a state jurisdiction to deny them that opportunity.
Attachment
INQUIRY INTO THE GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL 2000
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Senate has referred the following matter to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2000.
The provisions of the Gene Technology Bill 2000, with particular reference to:
Objectives
(a) whether measures in the Bill to achieve its object "to protect health and safety of people and to protect the environment" are adequate;
(b) whether the proposed regulatory arrangements and public reporting provisions will provide sufficient consumer confidence in the regulation of the development and adoption of new gene technologies;
The Office of Gene Technology Regulator
(c) the structure of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and its assessment processes compared with other proposed stakeholder models and similar overseas bodies;
(d) whether the powers and investigative capability of the OGTR are adequate to ensure compliance with conditions imposed in licences;
(e) whether the proposed cost recovery and funding measures for the OGTR are appropriate and will allow for adequate resourcing of the Office;
Other proposed bodies
(f) the role and membership of the proposed Ministerial Council;
(g) the functions and powers of the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee and the Gene Technology Advisory Committee;
(h) procedures for review of decisions and, in particular, the rights of third-parties to seek review of decisions;
Other issues
(i) liability and insurance issues relating to deliberate and accidental contamination of non-genetically modified crops by genetically-modified crops and how those issues are being addressed in international regulatory systems;
(j) the validity and practicability of any proposed clause allowing individual States the right to opt out of the scheme and the implications of such an option in the context of Australia's international trade and related obligations; and
(k) the alleged genetically-modified canola contamination in Mount Gambier and the processes followed by the Interim Office of Gene Technology in investigating and reporting on the allegations.
ENDNOTE
1. EU Directorate of Agriculture, Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector, Brussels, 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment