The Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc

1 Introduction

The Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc. (IHER) is a not-for-profit research institute with an interest in genetically modified (GM) organisms, particularly those destined for food. Its directors hold the following degrees: ordinary degrees in Medicine, Science and Agriculture, Honours Degrees in Agricultural Science and Organic Chemistry, a Master of Public Health, and PhDs in Plant Genetics and Medicine. The Directors have training and expertise in plant science, agriculture, medicine, chemistry, biochemistry, nutrition, epidemiology and biostatistics.

2 Submission

The Bill provides for the designation of areas of the State for the purposes of preserving for marketing purposes the identity of certain crops according to whether they are GM or non-GM. It also provides for the implementation of certain requirements in order to ensure that market requirements are met for the identity of crops.

The Bill therefore acknowledges the on-going rejection of foods made from these crops by consumers, as there would be no requirement for this Bill if consumers had embraced GM foods. Given this strong, consistent and ongoing consumer rejection, the IHER considers that the Bill should be more realistic in its approach to the market than it is at present. At present, the Bill allows GM crops to be grown anywhere in the state except where an area is determined to “opt-out”, and then only for one particular crop at a time. A more sensible marketing position would be to have the whole State being GM free, with a given region then needing to “opt in” to grow GM crops. This is because at present, the whole state is GM free and can market its produce freely. Once sections of the state plant GM crops, it becomes harder to find markets for the State’s crops.

In this Bill, the decision as to whether the area can or cannot plant a given GM crop is determined by an Advisory Committee. It does not provide for the general public or farmers to participate in the decision-making process. The Bill also doesn’t permit review of decisions that have been taken. We believe that this is unjust and is likely to create a backlash for the SA Government. Given the on-going rejection of growing GM crops by large sections of farmers and the political sensitivity of pushing a decision onto local farmers, we contend that a more sensible approach would be to permit farmers to decide by local poll whether they wish to grow GM crops in their area. Local governments in SA are now elected by a system of postal voting. The same local government areas using the same lists of voters and the same postal method could be used to make a decision for a given area by simple majority of local residents whenever local council elections are called.

Furthermore, the Advisory Committee holds a considerable amount of power in the decision-making process and therefore should be chosen carefully. It consists of persons, who in the eyes of the Minister, have expertise in seeds and propagation, crop production, handling transportation and storage of crops and marketing. As this Bill is about the requirements of the market, it makes sense to also have representatives of consumer groups (eg the Australian Consumers Association), food exporters, food wholesalers and food retailers. Furthermore, other Advisory Committees have been accused of having a pro GM bias. Whether these Committees are in fact biased or not, this government may have this accusation levelled at it unless the Bill clearly stipulates this Committee to have equal pro and anti GM representatives on it. This perception of bias may be a particular risk for the Minister as the Committee members are chosen by the Minister. In order to determine whether Committee members are pro GM, nominees should sign a document stating whether they or their workplaces have either received funding from GM companies or undertaken GM crop research, before they can be appointed to the Committee. Those that have accepted funding or have done research should be regarded as having a vested financial interest in GM crops and should therefore be regarded as pro-GM. In this regard, the CSIRO should be seen to be an entity with a vested financial interest in promoting GM crops, as it has been prominent in undertaking research on, and commercialisation of, GM crops, has patented several genes and has business relationships with GM companies such as Monsanto. In a similar way, various entities on the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide should be regarded as having a vested commercial interest in GM crops. Ideally, the safest option for the minister would be to have most, if not all, of the Committee members completely independent from a vested financial interest in GM crops. This is particularly important as Section 13 (Validity of acts) allows for a situation where a key decision could be made by the Advisory Committee on the basis of one deciding vote, only for that voter to subsequently declare a conflict of interest, knowing that the vote cannot subsequently be made invalid by “a defect in the appointment of a member”.

This Bill and the need for segregation have come-about because many consumers are not willing to eat GM foods. Consequently, the non-GM market has stipulated a threshold, above which, GM contamination of the crop will result in the crop being regarded as GM. However, different markets have determined different thresholds. Some markets may specify zero contamination, or 1% or 5%, in line with labelling requirements. We contend that the only sensible marketing position is to use the lowest threshold of no detectible contamination as much of the market demands it. This position also ensures that the crop could be sold anywhere in the world. Furthermore, legal opinion has been provided that “non-GM”, “GM free” and similar terms are equivalent to no GM content whatsoever, rather than a percentage of GM contamination.

Whether no detectible contamination or some other threshold is adopted by the State, non-GM crops will be under threat of contamination by GM crops to a level above that threshold. For the many markets demanding zero detectible contamination, non-GM crops will be threatened by ANY contamination. The non-GM and GM crops do not need to be the same crop type for this to occur. For example, a wheat crop may contain 2% admix of canola. If this canola is GM, the farmer may lose his GM-free status for his wheat crop. This leads to considerable problems with costs and liabilities from planting GM crops near non-GM crops. At present, most of these costs and liabilities are borne by the non-GM farmer. We contend that this is unjust and may cause considerable farmer unrest. A far more equitable position is to have the GM farmer bearing the costs and liabilities of his actions. This is no different to a farmer with white sheep finding that his neighbour’s black ram has entered his property and impregnated his sheep, producing black lambs of lower value than the expected white lambs. The farmer with the white sheep can obviously sue the owner of the black ram for damages, as the owner of the black ram should have maintained his fences and gates to keep his black ram on his property. Similarly, the GM grower should be the one who should be required to set-aside land for buffer zones and to ensure that these buffer zones are of sufficient size to ensure that his GM crop doesn’t pollinate non-GM growers’ crops and that his volunteer GM plants do not grow on non-GM growers’ land. Furthermore, any contamination costs to GM farmers and to the State are likely to be well beyond the fine of $100,000 proposed. If the maximum fine is $100,000, the Government will effectively be required to cover much of the remaining costs. Given this and the potential losses to non-GM growers from contamination, which includes the potential rejection of an entire shipment of grain to a non-GM importer, and the costs of a clean-up of contamination, the GM farmer should also be required to take-out insurance to cover any losses and to show evidence of this insurance before being permitted to grow the GM crop. This is particularly important as we are aware of a legal opinion that states that GM crop patent holders are generally multinational companies and may not have assets in Australia, making it difficult to sue them through Australian courts.

Non-GM crops will need to be subject to identity preservation systems and testing for the presence of GM DNA. Identity preservation systems may extend to having to use separate silos and harvesting equipment. A monitoring system should also be established to keep records of which farmers have been growing which GM crops, so that if contamination is found, the farmers responsible for it can be found. The Bill provides for the use of authorised inspectors to carry-out inspections, but there is no provision as to how often an inspection should occur. Provision should be made in the Bill for an inspection for every farm growing a GM crop at least once every growing season. At present, many of these costs will probably be borne by the SA Government. However, in the same way that farmers planting GM crops need to pay a “technology fee” to the developing company so that the company can recover the cost of development, the GM farmer should be required to pay a “monitoring fee” to the SA Government to recover the costs of monitoring and surveillance.

Similar to the licensing agreement that a GM farmer must sign with a GM company to grow a GM crop, we therefore propose a process where a GM farmer would apply for a licence from the SA Government to grow a GM crop in SA for a growing season. The licence would require evidence of insurance to cover liability arising from the crop. A licensing fee would cover costs associated with administration, monitoring, surveillance and inspection. Similar to the licensing agreement with GM companies, the farmer would agree to inspections by an authorised officer to ensure that he was complying with the conditions of the licence. The licence could be revoked or not renewed for the next growing season if the farmer was found to be not compliant with the provisions of the Act, or had contaminated other crops. Such an arrangement would provide the Government with a ready means of identifying farmers planting GM crops, which GM crops were being planted and where they were being planted. It would also ensure that insurance had been obtained before planting, it would reduce costs to the SA Government and ensure compliance with the Act.

The SA Government also needs to be aware of problems with testing for GM contamination, particularly for Section 25 (Evidentiary provision) of the Bill. There are currently two groups that can test for GM contamination in Australia. One is in Sydney and specialises in crops. The other is in Melbourne and specialises in food. The Melbourne group has been accredited by NATA (the National Association for Testing Authorities Australia) to be able to give a yes/no determination on GM contamination, but has not been given accreditation to be able to determine the percentage of contamination. The latter test is required for marketing purposes. The Sydney laboratory has not been given accreditation for either test. As NATA has not even begun to determine the criteria for accrediting laboratories for percentage contamination, the accreditation process is expected to take many months, possibly years. Therefore, at present and for the foreseeable future, no Australian laboratory can properly certify whether the level of GM DNA in a crop, truck, silo or shipment is above or below a given percentage. Therefore, if GM crops are grown, non-GM crops cannot be grown to meet market specifications and much of this Bill is not enforceable. We believe that the Government should not permit the growing of any GM crops in South Australia until this is resolved.

In Part 1, Section 3 (Interpretation), we request that the Bill also covers the transportation of the GM plant or any part of it, particularly seed, as evidence from other countries shows that GM plants have been dispersed along roadways and into farmers fields from seeds leaving transportation trucks. In the same section of the Bill, the last line states that “the particular crop is not to be harvested for sale”. We would prefer that this be strengthened by adding the following to it: “Nor is any part or product of the crop to be sold.” The reason for this is that the OGTR sometimes permits some products from trial sites to be sold even though other parts of the “crop” as such can’t be sold. For example, the lint from trial GM cotton sites can be sold to be used in tampons and wound bandages even though little or no safety testing has been done on the GM cotton crop at this stage of it’s development. We regard this as an unsafe practice.

3 Summary

The IHER requests the following changes to the Bill:

· The Bill should better reflect the reality of market rejection of GM crops.

à The State should be declared to be GM-free except where a majority of farmers in an area vote to allow GM crops into their area.

à Due to market and legal requirements, no detectible GM contamination should be required in a non-GM crop.

· Given the amount of power vested in the Advisory Committee, greater care should be taken over the choice of its members.

à The Committee should have representatives from people who are familiar with the GM/non-GM market such as consumer groups, food exporters, food wholesalers and food retailers.

à Committee members should consist equally of persons with pro- and anti-GM views.

à Committee nominees should sign a document before appointment stating whether they or their workplaces have either received funding from GM companies or undertaken GM crop research. Those that have accepted funding or undertaken research should be regarded as having a vested financial interest in GM crops and therefore should be regarded as pro-GM. These groups include the CSIRO and various entities on the Waite campus of the University of Adelaide

· The Bill should have provision for the participation in decisions by the general public and farmers and to permit a review of decisions taken.

· The GM-farmer should bear the costs and liabilities of his actions.

à The GM grower should have buffer zones set-aside of sufficient size to ensure that his GM crop doesn’t pollinate non-GM growers’ crops and that his volunteer GM plants do not grow on non-GM growers’ land.

à The GM farmer should have evidence of insurance to cover all potential costs and liabilities before planting.

à Authorised inspectors should inspect the GM farmer’s farm at least once every growing season.

à Similar to the licensing agreement that a GM farmer must sign with a GM company to grow a GM crop, GM farmers should apply for a licence from the SA Government to grow a GM crop in SA for a growing season. The licence would require evidence of insurance to cover liability arising from the crop. A licensing fee would cover costs associated with administration, monitoring, surveillance and inspection. Similar to the licensing agreement with GM companies, the farmer would agree to inspections by an authorised officer to ensure that he was complying with the conditions of the licence. The licence could be revoked or not renewed for the next growing season if the farmer was found to be not compliant with the provisions of the Act, or had contaminated other crops. Such an arrangement would provide the Government with a ready means of identifying farmers planting GM crops, which GM crops were being planted and where they were being planted. It would also ensure that insurance had been obtained before planting, it would reduce costs to the SA Government and ensure compliance with the Act.

· The SA Government should not permit the growing of GM crops in the State until this Bill is enforceable, that is, until non-GM crops can be grown to market specifications in the presence of GM crops, that is, until a laboratory in Australia has been accredited by NATA to give accurate measures of the amount of contamination of non-GM crops with GM DNA.

· The Bill should also cover the transportation of GM crops or any part of them, particularly seeds.

· No part of trial crops should be sold.

Submission

to the

South Australian Government

on the

Genetically Modified Crops Management Bill 2003