NSW in a parallel universe on GM crops

In early June a bill was introduced in the New South Wales parliament to extend the moratorium on genetically modified crops for a further ten years. It passed quickly, facing no opposition in either house.

The bill retains the power of the NSW government to block the cultivation of genetically modified crops after they have been approved by the Commonwealth government. In fact, there is a blanket prohibition on the cultivation of all GM food crops unless they have been specifically approved by the minister for primary industries.

The legislation is said to be consistent with a 2001 agreement between the Commonwealth and states which means the Commonwealth ensures genetically modified organisms are safe for people and the environment while the NSW government oversees “market or trade issues”. If that makes no sense to you, you’re not the only one.

Despite the lack of opposition, quite a few members had something to say about the bill. There were speakers from the government, opposition and minor parties.

Government speakers implied the bill was needed to pacify still-fearful stakeholders, while arguing it provided a “clear path to market”, as recommended by an expert review in 2007. They also claimed it was consistent with the NSW Farmers Association’s desire to provide choice for growers to produce whichever crop they wish and its suggestion that the legislation may be unnecessary in ten years’ time.

The opposition acknowledged the aim was to “preserve the identity of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops for marketing purposes”, but then recited a long list of supposed health and environment risks of GM crops, none of which had anything to do with markets.

One opposition spokesman said that as a former consulting agronomist, he thought the objectives of the GM industry could be achieved “by improving the science in agriculture”, particularly by rectifying mineral deficiencies in the soil. He saw this as an alternative to genetic modification. Another said caution was justified to avoid a similar situation to cane toads.

The Greens said the bill should restrict GM crop cultivation even further. Their concern, among others, was the potential for “contamination” by GM canola of non-GM crops, particularly organic crops. They supported the idea of farmers having a choice as long as it did not include genetically modified crops.

GM crops have been grown in Australia since 1996. In 2010 they were grown in twenty-nine countries by 15.4 million farmers on 148 million hectares. Yet somehow, none of that seemed to be relevant. The NSW parliament has decided to operate in a parallel universe.

Several speakers stated that canola was the only GM food crop grown in NSW, apparently unaware that cottonseed oil from GM cotton is used for cooking. Nobody seemed to understand that GM food and ingredients are imported, competing with local produce.

Despite airy statements about support for agriculture, nobody gave any thought to the impact of the bill on international competitiveness. Several mentioned that only eight per cent of canola grown in NSW is genetically modified, while 70 per cent of the canola traded worldwide is genetically modified, but nobody saw any problem with that.

A couple of people mentioned the potential of gene technology in positive terms, including the possibilities of wheat with more nutritional starch content, salt-tolerant wheat, sugarcane with altered sugar content, pineapples resistant to blackheart and virus-resistant papaya. But nobody drew any connection between these and the bill.

Similarly, nobody tried to reconcile the supposed clear path to market with the fact that the minister continues to have the right of veto over whether a GM crop can be grown and that gaining such approval is strewn with obstacles.

On that, the Act requires the industry to demonstrate it has identified the requirements of key domestic and international markets, identify the threshold levels for accidental or unintended presence of GM traits in food plants, establish a supply chain management process to address accidental or unintended presence thresholds, and show it has obtained any relevant approvals or other authorisations regarding the importation of GM food.

Fairly obviously, this means a group of entrepreneurial growers wanting, in the future, to take up an opportunity to grow a GM crop already found by the Commonwealth to be safe, will still face immense barriers – including convincing their own industry to support them. It requires neither brains nor courage to say no.

The NSW government has limited expertise in agricultural trade and almost none in international trade. That would not be a problem if it allowed markets to operate normally. The only reason it got involved in regulating GM crops was because of fears that canola growers would lose market access. As one speaker acknowledged, that has not eventuated and fears have subsided. But getting a government to stop regulating something is a lot more difficult than getting it to start.

As I have written previously, declining productivity in agriculture is quite a problem. The former Chief Scientist of Australia, Professor Robin Batterham, recently told a conference that even our national security may depend on growing more food to feed expanding populations, so as to limit civil unrest resulting from rising prices. And yet our productivity growth has been zero to negative for years.

A recent Australia Farm Institute study of private sector investment in agricultural research and development recommended the removal of restrictions on GM crop development and the rationalisation of GM crop R&D approval processes, to help address this.

Yet a GM crop that is confirmed to be safe by the Commonwealth cannot be grown in NSW without ministerial approval, with fines up to $137,500 and two years’ imprisonment for anyone who does so. Departmental inspectors also have the power to enter and inspect premises to determine whether the Act is being complied with.

Australian agriculture faces many obstacles, including droughts, floods, pests, fires and the vagaries of currency fluctuations and long distance freight. But none of these compare to ignorant, interfering governments. They are in a class of their own.