John Radcliffe

Home › Publications › ATSE Focus › 2006 › Radcliffe

Australia must reap the benefits of GM technology

Humankind has a long history of resistance to change. There are many examples. Galileo’s astronomical discoveries confirmed the theory of Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun but he was forcibly obliged to recant during the Inquisition. After nearly 150 years, Darwin’s evolutionary theories are still being disputed by a small minority in American courts. The introduction of the grain harvester (“stripper”) in Australia was resisted by opponents strewing wire through the crop to render the technology ineffective. More recent Australian examples have included a 10-year delay to the introduction of food irradiation, continued pockets of resistance to fluoridation of domestic water supplies and a disinclination to accept the need for a long-term radiation storage repository despite being the world’s largest exporter of uranium. Controversy currently surrounds proposals in several drought-prone regional cities to improve reliability of access to water resources by introducing water recycling. There is evidence that the community can require up to 30 years – effectively a generational change – before new technologies are widely accepted. The value of superphosphate fertilisers in agriculture was established in the 1880s but they were not widely accepted until the 1920s. Automobiles, airline travel and computers took 30 to 40 years to become widespread after the first reliable examples had been introduced. Opposition to change can include fear of the unknown, distrust of the change agents, threats to the holders of the prevailing wisdom, personal or commercial self-interest and often, political opportunism. The consideration of change is about the net benefits from the trade-offs between benefits from a new technology based on sound science versus the risks associated with it. Yet the consideration can too easily become dominated by perceptions driven by emotional assertions and strongly held faiths and beliefs. All the evidence suggests that these limitations are most effectively overcome by having the wider community accept the necessity to address the merits of an issue, having a say in the decision and thereby achieving ownership of the decision reached rather than a decision being bureaucratically determined and an “education program” mounted to drive acceptance. Within Australia, the introduction of genetically manipulated organisms was managed from 1987 by scientists themselves, through a non-statutory body, the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC). Its role was to review “any experiment involving the construction and/or propagation of viroids, viruses, cells or organisms of novel genotype produced by genetic manipulation which are either unlikely to occur in nature, or likely to pose a hazard to public health or to the environment”. From 1987 to 1999, it dealt with 1681 small-scale contained experiments, 13 large-scale contained experiments, 109 deliberate releases and two activities with a risk of unintended release. The first major industry to adopt genetic modification (GM) was the cotton industry, with the introduction of varieties containing a single Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) gene to provide resistance against heliothine insects (Helicoverpa armigera and H. punctigera). Initial approval to proceed was given by the then National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (NRA) in the absence of any other mechanisms. The industry, which had been using 15 to 20 insecticide spray applications in a growing season, was quite sensitive to the public’s perception of chemicals and spray drift and also cognisant of the capacity of the pests to develop chemical resistance. Through self-management, the cotton industry has successfully used rotations of chemicals over many years to ensure that pesticide resistance does not become established. When a genetically modified single-gene insect-resistant variety was introduced in 1996, use was restricted to 30% of the planted area with large areas of refugia to minimise any genetic resistance developing in the insect population. Pesticide use on the GM varieties was reduced by more than half. More recently, two-gene resistance has been introduced into varieties, greatly reducing the probability of resistance developing. Nearly 80% of the Australian cotton crop is planted to GM varieties with pesticide applications reduced by 60% to 75%, and a 90% reduction in the use of endosulfan. Although cotton is primarily a fibre crop, cotton seed oil and meal routinely enter the food chain and no adverse health effects have been reported. There has been no significant public concern arising from the use of Bt cotton in food. Government involvement developed at a relatively late stage following a 1992 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review entitled Genetic manipulation – The Threat or the Glory. Despite GMAC having generally worked effectively through peer pressure among the scientists, there were nevertheless mounting pressures to establish statutory regulation, partly caused by some early progeny from a porcine genetic manipulation project being disposed of to the local abattoirs and potentially into the human food chain after the project was completed, and partly due to concerns about the appropriateness of the then NRA regulating in the area of gene technology, as some future applications would likely lie outside of its scope. This led to a convergence of the competing endeavours of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Department of Environment, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and state governments. An agreement was reached in 1997 to establish a statutory regulatory scheme to review and endorse proposals for genetic manipulation. In the event, the Department of Health, which had been a late arrival into this particular policy arena, was given carriage of the regulatory responsibility in recognition of the primacy of ensuring there were no significant risks to human health. The passage of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Commonwealth) to create the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and the transparent processes for the evaluation of genetic manipulation proposals attracted relatively little controversy at the broad community level, despite the considerable resistance to the technology that had been building in Europe at that time. The experience with subsequent proposals to grow soybeans, maize and canola has been less sanguine. Concerns, particularly driven by some organic farming, anti-globalisation and environmental lobbies, have resulted in opposition to the introduction of GM varieties of these crops through the potential for threats to the genetic purity of non-GM crops through the “adventitious presence” of GM contaminants from pollen flow and contamination during handling and storage; a perception that non-GM crops have a market premium over GM varieties; an absence of evident consumer benefits; publicity given to several incidents where industry researchers had failed to fully meet OGTR management standards; and lack of clarity about liabilities flowing from the use of GM varieties. These issues in turn generated insecurity, confusion and lack of trust in GM technologies among farmers who were primarily worried about security of market access if GM crops were introduced. As a consequence, although the OGTR had approved, for example, the commercial introduction of two GM canola varieties, the states have legislated for a moratorium on planting GM crops, require effective crop and grain handling segregation and/or provide for the declaration of GM-free areas. The result of these various state interventions has been to bring about a substantial reduction in investment in GM crop research and development, as represented by the decline in the number of crop-related applications to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (Figure 1). In 2004, 8.25 million farmers across 17 countries grew 81 million hectares of GM crops, with 60% assigned to soybeans, 23% to maize (corn), 11% to cotton and 6% to canola. Research is continuing on GM applications in other crops. The area sown to GM crops is increasing at 10% per annum. This does not suggest any a lack of faith in GM crops among our competitors. To date there is no evidence that non-GM crops trade consistently at a premium over GM crops, nor is there any evidence that GM crops are unable to be traded at competitive prices. Farmers are forgoing the environmental benefits of minimum or no-till farming through being denied access to herbicide-resistance genes. Australian farmers are at a disadvantage when compared to their Canadian and US counterparts, who are selling canola, wheat and barley into the same overseas markets as Australia without having expensive GM/non-GM segregation systems. Apart from the benefits for farmers, there are other health-related GM-based improvements being developed to benefit consumers such as high vitamin A rice, low glycaemic index barley and oilseeds with long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Facing highly competitive and often distorted international markets for agricultural exports, Australia’s rural producers, as price takers, have continued to see terms of trade decline. Recent forecasts indicate that Australian producers will need to aggressively increase productivity to offset falls in prices as the full impact of large volumes of lower-cost agricultural exports from GM-adopting countries such as Argentina, Brazil and China have their effect. The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics has estimated that by not adopting GM technology, Australian farmers will forgo $3 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Despite almost weekly letters to the rural press from one or two opponents of change, most farmers are now realising that Australia cannot afford to forgo the benefits of genetic modification technology.