The Agricultural and Food Policy Reference Group recommends lifting GM Moratoriums
In brief: Allens patent attorney and lawyer Dr Rob Silberstein reviews the recent report on the agriculture and food sector and GM Moratoriums in Australia.
- A strong call for various state governments to lift the moratorium on GM crops
- World trade issues
- Consequences of retaining the moratoriums and recommendations for the future
The public debate regarding many facets of genetically modified (GM) foods is not new, and regularly receives flurries of media attention. In February 2006, a report by the Agricultural and Food Policy Reference Group (Reference Group) to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was published. The title of the report is Creating our Future: Agriculture and Food Policy for the Next Generation (the Report).
Speaking broadly about the agriculture and food sector, the Reference Group reported that the sector 'has an impressive record of operating successfully in the domestic market and the intensively competitive and frequently distorted international markets. It has achieved this success by adapting to unrelenting change, through technical and managerial innovation, strong leadership, and improved policies and strategies.' With that background, the Reference Group embarked on the bold task of identifying the principle issues and challenges that need attention for the agricultural and food sector to be successful over the next 10-15 years. The Report canvassed a wide range of issues from winning in international markets, research, development and innovation, education skills and labour supply, bio-security and quarantine, and a range of other relevant and related issues.
A strong call for various state governments to lift the moratorium on GM crops
Among the many issues canvassed by the Report was that relating to agricultural biotechnology. Noting that the 'commercial use of genetically modified crops is increasing rapidly, with 81 million hectares cultivated globally in 2004', the Reference Group suggested that 'if these [Australian state] moratoriums continue while other countries proceed with GM technology adoption, potential gains of between $1.5 to 5.8 billion in gross national product will be lost over the period to 2015'. Presently, all states and territories (except Queensland and the Northern Territory) have legislated to varying degrees against growing GM crops.
Apparently, the only GM crops commercially grown in Australia are cotton and blue carnations. Globally, most traits that have been commercialised to date cover insect resistance and herbicide tolerance and, according to the Reference Group, many more traits are under development 'including crops to withstand salinity and drought, more nutritious feed crops and foods that contain specific nutrients that are important for human health, such as Vitamin A and omega-3 fatty acids'.
Some of the arguments raised by GM moratorium proponents are, according to the Reference Group, without significant foundation. For example, some proponents argue that there are marketing advantages in being GM free. However, the Reference Group explains there is little evidence 'that price premiums can be gained from segregating GM and non-GM canola, and GM products appear to be finding ready markets'. The United States, Canada and Argentina are all major competitors of Australia in the global grain market and each are substantial producers of GM crops. Contrary to this argument by proponents of GM moratoriums, none of these three competitor countries have had any difficulty maintaining their global market shares.
Furthermore, some arguments from the proponents of GM crop moratoriums concentrate on possible environmental and food safety concerns. According to the Reference Group, however, the likely position is the complete opposite: GM crops offer potentially significant health and environment benefits. The Reference Group explain, for example, that the 'adoption of GM varieties has transformed the Australian cotton industries environmental performance, reducing insecticide use by 70 per cent over the past decade'.
On the whole, the Reference Group is of the view that 'the lack of informed public debate has stalled progress in GM technology in Australia and hampered the development and application of agricultural biotechnology more broadly'.
Other proponents of the GM crop moratoriums have identified a concern that allowing GM crops to be grown would impact on the growth and continued success of cultivated non-GM crops. Trials to assess this and other associated concerns have apparently been contemplated by some of the States' proposed moratoriums. For example, a gene technology policy review position paper issued by the Tasmanian Government in February 2003 (recommending that the moratorium on commercial release of agricultural genetically modified organisms will continue until mid-2008), recommended that 'open air trials on genetically modified non-food crops be permitted subject to existing requirements'.
World trade issues
On 8 February 2006, ABC Victoria published an article suggesting that the European Union (EU) could be forced to trade in genetically-modified food and crops after its moratorium was found to have breached world trade rules. Apparently, Australia's three main competitors in the global grain market – United States, Canada and Argentina – had complained to the World Trade Organisation that the ban by the EU and six member states was not based on science and damaged potential exports deals. At this stage, it is unclear whether the EU will in fact be forced to trade in GM foods and crops. It will also be interesting to see whether this objection will have an effect on other countries, and the various Australian states and territories, that are continuing to pursue GM moratoriums.
Consequences of retaining the moratoriums and recommendations for the future
The Reference Group argued that not only would 'the capacity of Australian farmers to remain globally competitive [be] unquestionably threatened by continued bans in restrictions on cultivating GM crops, but the competition from our competitors, such as China and North America would increase substantially over time.' The Reference Group also argued that 'the imposition of the GM moratoriums has seen investment in vital research and development in agricultural biotechnology withdrawn from Australia, and research staff move overseas'.
Ultimately, the Reference Group recommended that:
- state and federal governments should give a higher priority to communicating the benefits of current and emerging agrifood biotechnology, and to publicising the robustness of the regulatory regime for the safety of research.
- agriculture and food business should work with governments to facilitate the rapid uptake of agrifood biotechnologies.
- state governments should lift their moratoriums on the commercial use of GM crops immediately.
It will be interesting to see the response of state governments to the recommendations in the Report over the coming months. The persuasiveness and strength of the Report certainly provides a valuable wake up call for various proponents for GM moratoriums. In some respects, it is disappointing to note that many of the people who the Reference Group have identified as engaging an uniformed public debate may not be made aware of the existence of the Report.
For further information, please contact:
- Dr Trevor DaviesPartner, Allens Arthur Robinson Patent & Trade Marks Attorneys,
Sydney
Ph: +61 2 9230 4007
Trevor.Davies@aar.com.au
