Tasmania's GMO Moratorium: 17 Good Reasons (original) (raw)
Related papers
Public Submissions to the GM Independent Report, Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA), 2019
The present review of the Independent Review of the South Australian GM Food Crop Moratorium (Anderson, 2019) reports 14 alternative findings. It reveals that the so-called Independent Review is not independent at all and thus it falls at the first hurdle. Kym Anderson is a long term vocal advocate of genetically modified crops and has expressed such views regularly over the past two decades. The Independent Review was commissioned by the South Australian Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development. There were 216 public submissions, of these, 78% (n=168) were for retaining the existing Moratorium, 18% (n=39) were for scrapping the Moratorium, and 4% (n=8) were undecided. 100% of the food available in Australian supermarkets is GM-free which mirrors the sentiments of Australian consumers, which are against GM-food; and Australian supermarkets are all aware of such sentiments. South Australia (SA) has a 'clean and green' image. This image serves SA well for food production, trade, tourism, education and migration. GMOs would damage SA's clean and green and smart image and can thereby be economically detrimental to the state. The Independent Review proposes that GM canola is the sole candidate for uptake were the GM Moratorium to be scrapped. The GM canolas (Round-up ready, TT) proposed for SA are herbicide-dependent crops relying on regimes of multiple toxic herbicide applications. Glyphosate is a carcinogen and triazine is banned in Europe. These are chemicals that are dangerous to the health and wellbeing of animals, including humans, and the environment, and prescribing their use can be expected to increase SA's health costs and future environmental clean-up costs. GM agriculture is an example of privatising the profits and socialising the costs. Australia is the world leader in organic agriculture and accounts for 51% of the world's certified organic hectares, and, of this, South Australia is the leading organics state in Australia accounting for 40% of Australia's certified organic hectares (and 20% of the world's certified organic hectares). Organic produce sells at a price premium-usually in the range of 10% and 110% (compared to non-organic). This contrasts with GM canola which sells at a price penalty of 7%. These price premiums and price penalties reflect market sentiment-what the market wants and what the market does not want. The GM Moratorium has a social licence and is serving SA well and should be maintained on economic and social grounds. The Independent Review should be rejected.
International Conference on Agriculture, Environmental and Rural Development (AERD-2020), 2020
Australia's island state of Tasmania is marketed as 'clean and green', and sometimes as 'clean and green and smart'. These sentiments underpin the positioning of the state as both a tourist destination and as a premium food producer. Tasmania has maintained a GM Moratorium since 2001, and has excluded genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the state since then. Australia accounts for 0.4% of the world's GMO agriculture hectares (Fig.1). Tasmania's GMO Moratorium is consistent with Australian consumer sentiment that GMOs are not safe, and international consumer sentiment that GMOs are to be avoided. In the late 1990s, and before Tasmania's GM Moratorium was in place, there were Monsanto and Bayer field trial sites (n=57) of herbicide-resistant GM canola across the state. For the two decades since those GM trials finished, and while the GM Moratorium has been in place, the trail sites have been monitored by the state government because of "the likely persistence of GM canola seeds in the soil". Audit reports have been conducted annually by the Tasmanian Government. A timeline of the audit outcomes reveals that despite the efforts to exterminate the trial crops, GM canola has persisted in the environment, and, even after the passage of two decades, some trial sites still report the presence of volunteer (rogue) canola plants (Fig.2). The conclusion is that any jurisdiction considering allowing GM crops, needs to considerGM crops as an invasive species and to put in place appropriate biosecurity mechanisms. Reversal of introduced GMOs can be expected to be difficult, and perhaps even impossible. A strategic plan of how a GMO introduction may be reversed needs to go hand in hand with any GMO approval and subsequent environmental release. To reinstate a GM-free environment, unless a strategic plan with a clearly formulated recall pathway, including a clear endpoint and assurances, is in place, a jurisdiction is left with ongoing auditing and/or extermination challenges.
GMOs and organic agriculture: Six lessons from Australia
Agriculture & Forestry, 2015
GMO moratoria are in place in Australia, in some states and not in others. Is co-existence possible between organic farming and GMO farming? And if so, under what circumstances? Australia has more certified organic land than any other country, with a reported 12.0 million hectares of certified organic land compared to the world total of 37.5 million hectares. In a recent court case, an organic farmer lost his organic certification because of GMO contamination. A total of 325 hectares of his 478 hectare farm were contaminated with GM canola blown from a neighbouring property, and this resulted in the decertification of most of the farm. The organic farmer sued his neighbour, a GMO farmer, on the basis of nuisance or negligence, he sought damages for loss of income, and he sought an injunction to rein in his neighbour‟s future GMO farming practices. The case ran before the Supreme Court of Western Australia over three weeks and it generated more than 1000 pages of transcript. The case was dismissed in its entirety, in a 150 page judgment, and is now subject to an appeal. This paper examines the judgment, in the light of the trial transcript of this landmark case, with the view to determining the implications for the future of organic farming and GMO farming, and in particular to ascertain what lessons can be learned from this litigation.
Economic Impacts of Two GM Crops in Australia
Australian commercial cotton growers have employed Genetic Modification (GM) technology since 1996, exploiting two insect protection Bt traits and one herbicide tolerance trait. About 90% of the cotton crop is now GM. This has helped economic sustainability, cost reduction, and environmental stewardship. Complex new regulations affecting GM crop commercialization were introduced into Australian parliaments in 2000-2004. Under this legislation, the Australian canola industry's innovation with GM methods has been severely penalized. Australian vegetable oil exports now face world markets where nutritionally enhanced cottonseed and soybean oils, and cost advantaged Canadian canola oil will all compete with advantages over Australian canola.
GM crops & food, 2018
Incorporating socio-economic considerations (SECs) into national biosafety regulations regarding genetically modified (GM) crops have opportunity costs. Australia approved the cultivation of GM canola through a science-based risk assessment in 2003, but allowed state moratoria to be instituted based on potential trade impacts over the period 2004 to 2008 and 2010 in the main canola growing states. This analysis constructs a counterfactual assessment using Canadian GM canola adoption data to create an S-Curve of adoption in Australia to measure the environmental and economic opportunity costs of Australia's SEC-based moratoria between 2004 and 2014. The environmental impacts are measured through the amount of chemical active ingredients applied during pest management, the Environmental Impact Quotient indicator, and greenhouse gas emissions. The economic impacts are measured through the variable costs of the weed control programs, yield and the contribution margin. The environmen...
2013
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
GMO agriculture versus organic agriculture – Genetic trespass, a case study
Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference, 2014
Western Australia (WA) has maintained a moratorium on the growing of genetically modified crops since 2003. An exemption was granted in 2008, for growing GM cotton, only in a specified remote region of the state. A general exemption was declared in 2010 for growing GM canola anywhere in WA. In a public review, over 400 submissions were received by the government with over ninety percent arguing for retaining the ban on GM crops, while Monsanto, Dow Agrosciences and the Grain Research and Development Corporation argued for lifting the moratorium. Many submissions argued that segregation of GM and non-GM crops would fail and that the doctrine of “mutual co-existence” was unsafe. In the first year of GM canola in WA, the certified organic mixed farm of Steve Marsh was contaminated with GM canola seed which was allegedly dispersed from a neighbouring farm which had planted GM canola in 2010. Marsh lost his organic certification due to GM contamination. Marsh has sought redress by consen...