Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3204 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

or animal feed are addressed under the national gene regulatory scheme or the national framework for food safety regulations. In other words, don't you worry about that; it's all in hand. But obviously the community and many people and organisations all over the world disagree with that, and this committee made a number of recommendations which basically just ask for more work to be done to ensure that the processes were rigorous and accountable.

Australia and this government are not addressing the inadequate hazard assessment processes or the lack of independent and rigorous scientific testing. It has basically taken its hands off the wheel, defying overseas trends where governments are becoming more cautious and interventionist. We know that all is not well with this technology and we also know that Monsanto and other transnationals are extremely powerful in terms of political influence in the United States and, it appears, in Australia.

For example, through the acquisition of companies, Monsanto is the leader in this field of genetically modified organisms technology and is attempting to or has recoded the plant DNA of wheat, rice, potatoes, soybeans, cotton and corn, and has made efforts to control the global water supplies and forestry products. The particular DNA codes Monsanto is developing via purchasers have the plant terminate after it produces an edible product and thus no second-generation seeds are produced from the science.

In essence, the technology patent system of Monsanto turns seeds into machines so they can be patented. Today the top 10 seed companies control 30 per cent of the global seed trade. These 10 companies have been consolidating their power and control by forming partnerships and agreements with each other.

For example, Monsanto, since 1996, has spent $8.4 billion in establishing agreements and taking over other companies that have DNA codes, databases, patents, cross-pollinating procedures and/or access to food seed markets. Why is it, I wonder, that, even though there have been obvious and serious problems identified with the technology, governments continue to ignore the problems and adopt a blindly optimistic approach?

I will detail for the benefit of members some of the concerns that have been raised to make this point clearer. Biotech is being sold around the world on the basis of a myriad of claims and promises, almost all unproven. One of the most successful pieces of hype is that GE crops are producing bumper crops. Another assumption is that GE crops are being rapidly taken up by American farmers because they're helping them compete economically.

Greatly reduced use of agrochemicals and hence environmental benefits is a third major claim made for GE crops by the biotech industry, but this has been challenged by scientists. A report by Dr Charles Benbrook, Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready soybean yield drag from the university-based varietal trials in 1998, showed clearly that the problems with this technology are greater than previously understood as regards:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .