Supplementary Report - Australian Greens: Senator Bob
Brown
I support the vast majority of the recommendations made by
the Senate Committee on the Gene Technology Bill 2000 (“Bill”). The report's recommendations
constitute a significant improvement on the original Bill.
The recommendation to include the Precautionary Principle in the Objects of the
Bill is an essential recognition of the
significant risks inherent in gene technology.
However the report's recommendations do not match the degree of
uncertainty that surrounds GMOs and their release into the wider environment.
The risk to human health and the environment posed by gene
technology is poorly understood and is the subject of scientific controversy at
the highest levels. Furthermore, the economic risk that GMOs pose to Australia
is underestimated. I strongly object to the assumption that the adoption of GE
will have automatic benefits for Australia's
farming community, while internationally the consumer preference for GE-free is
expanding rapidly.
In many cases, for example in the need for all GMOs to be
licensed, for proponents to obtain adequate insurance to cover any consequences
of their GMO releases, and for there to be disclosure provisions, the
recommendations are not sufficiently strong to meet the Bill's central object.
Recommendations suggesting rather than prescribing appropriate action are
inadequate given the significant shortcomings in the self-regulating industry's
modus operandi to date. In other
critical areas such as the need for a five-year freeze and to sign and
implement the Biosafety Protocol, where clear recommendations for action are
required, the report is silent.
In order to achieve the Bill's
object 'to protect health and safety of people and to protect the environment'
the following recommendations should be added to the report:
A five-year freeze
I support a moratorium, of at least five years, to apply to
the import of all GM products and the release of all GMOs in Australia.
The Australian environment and economy should not be subject to the risks that
the release of GMOs poses in a climate of great uncertainty. Once released,
self-replicating GMOs offer no possibility for recall. No evidence exists on
the long-term impacts to human health of the consumption of GE foods or to the
environment of the release of GMOs. Time is required to evaluate the practical
experience of other countries that have adopted GE. Time is also required to
observe the market response to GMOs. If the international consumer preference
for GE-free continues to grow (especially in key Australian markets such as Europe,
Asia and the Middle East), there
may be a significant cost associated with exposing Australian farmers to the
risk of losing their GE-free status permanently.
Recommendation
That Australia
implement a 5-year freeze on the import of all GM products and the release of
all GMOs.
The Biosafety
Protocol
The Biosafety Protocol has been agreed to by 130 countries.
The Protocol will establish internationally agreed environmental protection
measures for trade in GMOs and promote informed handling of GMOs to minimise
risks associated with oversight. As a member in good standing of the United
Nations Convention on Biodiversity, and as a trade partner of many countries
increasingly concerned about the GE status of imports, it is essential that Australia
sign and implement the Biosafety Protocol as soon as possible.
Recommendation
That Australia
sign and implement the Biosafety Protocol.
State, Territory and
Local Government Opt-out Clauses
The Bill makes no provision
for State, Territory or local governments to prohibit the release of GMOs
within their jurisdictions. Communities should have the right to determine
whether they are willing to accept the risks associated with the release of
GMOs. It is important to have a
centralised regulatory system where the primary responsibility for regulation
of GMOs rests within the Gene Technology Regulator ("Regulator"). However State, Territory and Local Governments
must have the power to prevent the release of GMOs in their jurisdictions where
they determine that the proposed dealing is inappropriate.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to
provide State, Territory and local governments with the explicit power to
prohibit dealings with any GMOs or GM products within their respective
jurisdictions.
A One-Stop Shop (the OGTR to be responsible for all GMOs)
I am concerned that the creation of a multi-layered
regulatory system may result in inadequate government oversight being provided
for certain dealings with GMOs and GM products. The Bill's
provision for extensive exemptions from license requirement (for example for
tertiary institutions and State agencies) is unacceptable.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to
require all dealings with GMOs (including transgenic GMOs involving human DNA)
to be licensed by the Regulator. There should be a single licensing procedure
that applies to all GMOs. The Bill
should be amended to remove all exemption provisions and the provisions
relating to notifiable low risk dealings and the GMO Register. The definition
of GMOs should be amended to ensure that all GMOs are required to adhere to the
licensing procedure.
Recommendation
That prior to the enactment of the Bill,
further consideration be given to the feasibility of introducing a 'one-stop
shop' model, having regard to the operational effectiveness of the proposed
'gap-filler' arrangements. If the 'gap-filler' arrangements are retained, the Bill
should be amended to require the Regulator to consult with existing regulatory
agencies about all proposed dealings with GMOs and GM products. The Bill
should be amended to ensure that the Regulator and all State, Territory and
local governments have the power to prevent the approval of a dealing with a
GMO or GM product by another regulatory agency which they consider is
appropriate.
Insurance for GMO
dealings
The persons involved in the development, use and release of
GMOs and GM products should be responsible for the adverse effects that these
dealings have on the environment and on the interests of other members of the
community. Distribution of the costs associated with the use of gene technology
amongst those persons who benefit from its application is dependent upon the
availability of suitable insurance.
The Insurance Council of Australia has noted that:
“There is a lack of
reliable loss experience history (associated with genetic engineering) and
means for calculation of likely loss patterns.
This absence of data inevitably promotes a fundamental doubt over the
insurability of such risks.”[610]
So persons involved in the development, use and release of
GMOs and GM products may not have satisfactory insurance.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to
require all persons responsible for dealings with GMOs to have insurance to
cover the risks associated with the dealings.
Recovery for loss and
environmental harm
Primary producers who are reliant on their GE-free status
should not suffer economically as a result of genetic contamination from
dealings with GMOs and GM products.
Organic and conventional non-GE primary producers may have difficulties
recovering damages for genetic contamination in tort. Persons should have the
right to recover adequate compensation for loss or damage suffered as a
consequence of genetic contamination.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to ensure
that persons who suffer loss or damage as a consequence of a breach of the Act
have the right to recover compensation in an action against the persons
responsible.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to
ensure that persons responsible for the release of GMOs into the environment
are liable for any consequent damage to the environment.
Recommendation
That the Bill
be amended to provide for the establishment of a compensation fund for the
purposes of:
- compensating
persons who suffer loss or damage as a result of the development, use or
release of GMOs and GM products; and
- remedying
any damage done to the environment as a result of the development, use or
release of GMOs or GM products.
This fund should be financed from
contributions made from those involved in the development, use and distribution
of GMOs and GM products.
Full Site Disclosure
of all GMO dealings
The recommendations made by the Committee do not guarantee
that commercial in confidence information will not compromise the objectives of
the Bill and the transparency of the regulatory
regime. Anything short of full disclosure of all dealings with GMOs is
unacceptable.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to
require all applications for the approval of a dealing with a GMO to disclose
the size and location of the proposal, and to require that these details be
made publicly available.
Direct notification
of a proposed GMO dealing involving intentional release to local residents and
producers
Non-GE producers are exposed to the economic risk of genetic
contamination by all GMO releases. It is therefore necessary that all persons
residing or involved in agricultural industry within the distance over which
GMO gene exchange could possibly take place are directly notified of all
proposed dealings involving an intentional release of a GMO into the
environment. Furthermore, these persons should have the opportunity to make
submissions on the proposed GMO dealing.
Recommendation
That the Bill be amended to require the Regulator to notify
all persons who reside within a 15km radius of the location of a proposed
dealing involving the intentional release of a GMO into the environment of the
proposal, and invite their submissions on the proposal.
Senator Bob Brown
(AG, Tasmania)