Submission on the GENE TECHNOLOGY ACT REVIEW by Margaret River Consumers for GM Free Food.
The view of our group 'Consumers for GM Free Food' is that the OGTR assessments are not serving the needs and aspirations of the Australian community. A review of any public surveys shows that the vast majority of the Australian public wants to eat food which is GM free. In the face of this opposition why have so many GM crops been accepted by the OGTR.
The same can be said for our trading partners with countries like the European Union increasing in opposition to these foods over the longer term so even our trade will feel the impact of these outrageous decisions being made by the Office of Gene Technology. The question becomes; whose interest does the Gene Technology Act serve?
Unscientific nature of the Assessments
The OGTR assessments are not scientific but operate under a so-called 'science-based' and 'case-by-case' system. These tags are used to justify an unscientific and ad hoc approach to data collection and assessment methodologies.
We consider the independence of this regulator needs to be examined.
There needs to be a review of the protocols and reliability of the methodology of The Gene Technology Act.
There is a need to look more closely at the relevance of evidence tendered in support of applications. We say with because we are concerned at the ease with which new transgenic crops have been assessed and accredited in Australia - GM crops which many other countries have banned.
Data from contemporary, controlled experiments conducted in Australia should be the basis of assessments. Instead, the OGTR (also FSANZ) generally rely on the assessments of an ad hoc suite of data from out-dated and questionable overseas company generated 'trials' or 'tests' (not experiments) to license products.
All interested parties should have full access to all the data and information about the scientific experiments, to enable the independent evaluation and monitoring of the experimental design, methodologies, processes and experimental data.
Accessibility of Data
A key flaw in the system is that the applicant's data is not available to the general public. Without this data, no independent outside assessment of applications is possible. The documentation published by the OGTR is framed so that the risks and hazards of proposed dealings are made to seem better understood, more predictable and more manageable than they really are.
The necessity to travel to Canberra to photocopy the files is impractical and expensive, and is an unreasonable barrier to full community participation in the OGTR system.
There are no good reasons to keep data secret when it comes from genuine scientific experiments on the risks to health and the environment.
Data supporting applications should always be very scientific and public, to improve transparency and accountability.
It is very unsatisfactory that OGTR allows information to be kept secret. The results from trials on GE canola within Australia remain secret. Why? Surely the public have the right to know exactly what the results of these trials were especially given the unethical nature of the company involved.
To be transparent, the OGTR should be required to always publish a full statement of reasons for granting a DIR licence, with time for further public comment prior to any licence being issued.
The Onus of Proof
The burden of evidence-based proof for the environment and public heath, safety and efficacy of the GMO should rest entirely on the applicant for a licence.
Peer reviewed scientific evidence which conforms to the requirements of a genuinely scientific system should be necessary in order to discharge this requirement.The fact that this isn't required leaves the public angry that our food security is being treated in such a cavalier fashion.
By denying the interested public access to all the information, the present system unreasonably places the onus on the interested public and regulators to produce evidence that shows conclusively why a licence should NOT be granted. Once again the public interest is being disregarded in favour of the corporations. The Act requires urgent reform.
The Precautionary Principle
The OGTR appears to consistently ignore the precautionary principle which should be fully integrated into the GT Act, as it is in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
We cannot see how the OGTR can proceed on the basis of 'credible scientific hypotheses' when no experiments are required to provisionally accept or refute such hypotheses.
I hope our submission has made it clear that we feel the OGTR does not act transparently, and does not act in the interests of the Australian public. In face we are very disturbed at the way the Act seems to favour multinationals at considerable cost to the integrity of the Australia food system. We hope that as a result of this review Australia will have an Act based on scientific principles, which is transparent and gives opportunities for the public to be engaged in the decision making.
Thanks you for the opportunity to comment
Consumers for GM Free Food
Original submission in PDF format (PDF 86 KB)
In this section
- Occasional papers series
- Plasma Fractionation Review
- Regulatory Plan 2007-08
- Regulatory Plan 2008-09
- Regulatory Plan 2006-07
- Department of Health Reconciliation Action Plan
- PHERP Review Reports
- Margaret River Consumer for GM Free Food Submission to the review Gene Technology Act 2000
- 2002 Reviews of the National HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C Strategies and Strategic Research
- 2006 Aged Care Homes Survey
- 2006 – 2007 Jurisdictional Summary Report against the National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (NSFATSIH)
- A National Aboriginal Health Strategy: An Evaluation 1994
- Alcohol and other drugs: a handbook for health professionals
- Alerting the community to the link between illicit drugs and mental illness: developmental research
- An analysis of research on preventing falls and falls injury in older people: Community, residential care and hospital settings (2004 update)
- Anorexia nervosa: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Building on success 1: a review of gay and other homosexually active men's HIV/AIDS education in Australia
- Building on success 2: towards a national strategy for HIV/AIDS health promotion for gay and other homosexually active men
- Building on success 3: the Commonwealth Government response to towards national strategy for HIV/AIDS health promotion for gay and other homosexually active men
- COAG mental health early intervention measure - early childhood component: study to scope potential service delivery
- Coping with depression: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Council Of Grain Grower Organisations submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Deakin University submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 review
- Deep vein thrombosis and air travel
- Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) - Medicare Australia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
- Discussion Document Towards a Fourth National HIV/AIDS Strategy April 1999
- Drug and Alcohol Service Report (DASR): 2006-2007 Key Results
- Drug and Alcohol Service Report (DASR): 2007-2008 Key Results
- Evidence of effective interventions to improve the social and environmental factors impacting on health: Informing the development of Indigenous Community Agreements
- Falls prevention activities for older people: a national stocktake
- Gene technology Act 2000 review from Guy Izzett
- gettin em n keepin em
- Government response to the House of Representatives Inquiry into Indigenous health: 'Health is life'
- Innovative grants program: project summaries
- MAIF Guidelines - Marketing Of Infant Formulas Via Electronic Media
- Measuring Remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) Revised Edition. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 14
- National evaluation of the Sharing Health Care Initiative demonstration projects
- National HIV/AIDS Strategy 2005-2008: Implementation Plan
- National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Context July 2003
- National strategy for heart, stroke and vascular health in Australia
- Panic disorder and agoraphobia: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Principles for the consideration of interactions with health care professionals for the purpose of interpreting the MAIF Agreement
- Public discussion paper - Adoption of the Globally Harmonised System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in Respect to Domestic and Consumer Chemicals Including Pesticides
- Quality Use of Pathology Program (QUPP) Historical Reports
- Reforming the Australian
health care system:
the role of government. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 1
- Regulatory Plan 2009-10
- Regulatory Plan 2010-11
- Regulatory Plan 2011-2012
- Review of 2011 Gene Technology ACT (2000) - Public Submission
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 by Anne Goddard
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 from I F Turnbull
- Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 from Slater & Gordon Lawyers on behalf of The Safe Food Institute
- Royal Perth Hospital Comments on the Gene Technology Review 2000
- Self-harm: Australian treatment guide for consumers and carers, 2005
- Stigma and discrimination
- Strong Fathers Strong Families
- Submission by Anne Goddard regarding Terms of Reference in the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission by Dr Monica Leggett to the Gene Technology Act 2000 review
- Submission by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission by The University of Newcastle for the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Bayer CropScience to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from AgForce to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited reviewing the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from an Individual to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from an Individual to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from AusBiotech to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act)
- Submission from Beatrice Ludwig to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act
- Submission from Croplife Australia to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foresty to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Elizabeth Hamilton to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Graham Wearne to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from Individuals at the Institutional Biosafety Committee to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review
- Submission from Individuals to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Monsanto to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Nuseed Australia to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Peter Olson to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from Queensland Institute of Medical Research to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Australian Seed Federation to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and The Commonealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act (2000)
- Submission from the Gene Technology Interdepartmental Committee to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the GM-free Australia Alliance to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Grains Research and Development Corporation to the 2011 Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia WA Inc to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the National Farmers' Federation review to the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Producers Forum to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission from the Western Australian Farmers Federation Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review by Mary Gardner
- Submission to the Gene Technology Act 2000 Review from the Minister for Primary Industries and Water
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Phil Aitken
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Organic and Biodynamic Meats
- Submission to the Review of Gene Technology Act 2000 from Tracey Skippings
- Sumbission from Individuals from the Wambyn Organic Olive Farm for the Gene Technology Act 2000
- Sumission to the Department of Health and Ageing from the Pioneer Hi-Bred Australia Pty Ltd to the Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act)
- Technology, Health and Health Care. Occasional Papers: Health Financing Series Volume 5
- The Ageing Australian Population and Future Health Costs: 1996-2051. Occasional Papers: New Series Number 7
- The Australian Government Response to the 2002 Reviews of the National HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C Strategies
- The Dairy Industry Submission to the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Acy 2000
- The National Hepatitis C Strategy 2005-2008
- The National Slips and Falls Prevention Project
- The Quality of Australian Healthcare: Current Issues and Future Directions. Occasional Papers: Health Financing Series Volume 6
- The Use of Antibiotics in Food-Producing Animals: Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in Animals and Humans
- Training frontline workers: young people, alcohol and other drugs
- Using Mathematical Models to Assess Responses to an Outbreak of an Emerged Viral Respiratory Disease
- Valuing the past ... investing in the future- Evaluation of the National HIV /AIDS Strategy 1993-94 to 1995-96
- Trachoma Surveillance Report 2006 to 2010
- Regulatory Plan 2005-06
- Regulatory Plan 2004-05
- Regulatory Plan 2003-04