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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3203 ..

The science review panel has also warned that we must be cautious in drawing general conclusions, as these observations were based on relatively few field experiments. Yet this is exactly what Australia chose to do. The Democrats support a more cautious approach of the precautionary principle, as no corner should be cut when we are dealing with the issues of the food we eat and the environment we live in.

The scientific panel warned of major gaps in the knowledge of environmental effects of genetically modified crops and called for more research before new GM crops were approved for commercial release. It found that the longer term impact on biodiversity and wildlife, soil ecology and pesticide use was uncertain and needed to be more certain before crops were commercialised. We need to do that longer term research work.

Australian farmers are yet to embrace genetically modified crops, with a new survey by Biotechnology Australia showing that an overwhelming 74 per cent of farmers said they would not consider growing genetically modified crops; 49 per cent said they were generally opposed to GM crops, while 23 per cent said they were supportive; and 17 per cent said they were agnostic on the issue.

Farmers in that survey were particularly worried about consumer resistance with GM crops followed by performance in the paddock and access to markets with GM bans. There was also a concern about the flow of pollen from GM plants and the resistance to weeds. Again, I make it clear that these issues are yet to be sorted out in the Australian context. Farmers in Australia tend to be conservative people, but they will always pick up the technology where they have confidence in it from an environmental point of view and if there is an economic benefit.

Those issues are yet to be proved in Australia—yet to be proved to our farming community and to our consumers. For example, the Network of Concerned Farmers believes that smart promotion and industry interests backing GM crops have misled many farming groups and the federal government. Ms Julie Newman from the network has said, “GM benefits are doubtful but the risks are very real.” She goes on to say that there is a high market sensitivity to very low levels of GM contamination in any of our produce.

One of her group’s key concerns and one shared by some grain handlers is the time and effort that must go into segregating GM crops from GM-free crops. I quote the former British environment minister, Mr Michael Meacher, who warned:

There are several lessons that Britain can, and should, learn from the Canadian experience. The most important is that “co-existence”—a framework to ensure that organic and conventional farming can survive and prosper alongside GM farming—is a mirage.

Our governments need to take account of that. The evidence coming from Canada and the evidence being collected by the environment minister of Britain is showing that the road we are going down could ultimately end up to be a blind alley for Australian farmers.

We are still in a position where governments firmly believe that once a science based gene technology regulator has made a decision, all the commercial decision making

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