Submission to: The Gene Technology Ministerial Council Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000
Protect the choice to farm GM-free. Protect the choice to eat GM-free.
Thankyou for the opportunity to submit to the review of the Gene Technology Act 2000.
I submit my remarks initially as a mother and daughter. As the primary carer of young children and aging parents, my focus over the past two decades has been the health of the family, making food choices that best meet their individual needs. Or so I thought !! Until recently, I was completely unaware of genetically modified crops and food and that unknowingly we could have been eating GM food. What have I subjected my family to? What is the long term effect? So began my self-education, but the strong pushback has been alarming!! So many scientists around the world have been sacked, sued, sidelined or slandered for showing doubt about the health safety of GM crops and food, including Pusztai, Chopra, Seralini, Carasco. Others have called for a moratorium on GM crops and food, including the Institute of Science in Society http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php ,and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.
I submit my remarks also as a science and mathematics graduate, a teacher, and an IT professional.
I am also a member of Just Food, a consumer network, and the GM-free Australia Alliance. My remarks concern GM crops and GM food. I make no comment about GM in medical applications as I rely on the regulatory regime of pharmaceuticals and the care arrangements of the medical profession to have the necessary stringent protocols in place.
The creation of GM food by cross-species genetic transfer assisted by bacteria, viruses and antibiotics, is radically new science in the hands of multinational chemical companies. Genetic engineering contravenes the millennia of vertical genetic inheritance and respect for nature’s species barriers. Risk mitigation should be paramount. Why the secrecy? Why the media silence? Why the lack of independent testing? Why the lack of peer-reviewed studies? Why the lack of labelling? Why the lack of education? Why the lack of monitoring? Why the lack of traceability? Why the lack of appropriate legislation? Why the lack of compensation considerations?
Allowing the usual rigours of scientific and technological processes to be bypassed on the vague notion of “substantial equivalence” is more to “assist the path to market” of GM, rather than to protect the public interest. The role of the public regulator is to protect the public interest.
The E.Coli breakout in Europe is a clear example of how difficult it is to trace the source of food-related illness. How would we know if GM foods are safe? Why do we not know where the GM farms are? Why does traceability stop? Why do we not have “derived from” GM labelling? The GM industry knows. Why are they permitted to declare the details “Commercial in Confidence”? Many markets, especially in the EU, request GM-free produce. Beekeepers are supposed to declare that their bee hives are not within a 5-10km radius of GM crops. Sensitive sites such as organic farms are supposed to protect themselves from contamination from GM crops. How can they do this when the location of the GM crops is not known? Unconditional and unrestricted GM licences are NOT workable and must NOT be granted.
The mantra of the GM industry is co-existence, yet GM crops are predatory. The implementation of GM crops is designed to contaminate due to the secrecy and the lack of responsibility and accountability by the GM industry. The evidence of contamination is mounting worldwide. See the GM Contamination Register which includes Australian events: http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
In 2010, the US Department of Justice and US Department of Agriculture held an inquiry interviewing farmers across the United States. GM crops and corporate control of agriculture is NOT working. The people, the communities and the US economy are SICK and GETTING SICKER. From figures on its own website, Monsanto claims to “rarely” sue farmers for patent infringement, but on average in the US, Monsanto sues one farmer a month !!! Australia should NOT follow this model. Listen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1axAqJGEXI
In Canada, the only organic canola that can now be grown is isolated on Prince Edward Island. There is currently a pre-emptive class action against Monsanto to prevent farmers being sued. Australia should NOT follow this model.
Monsanto is repeatedly ranked by Covalence as the least ethical company in the world. Monsanto has shareholder class actions against it for overstating its worth to the stock exchange. It has farmer class actions against it for overstating the yield of Roundup Ready 2 trait. Yet the WA government has entered into partnership with Monsanto by selling off almost 20% of the public plant breeding company InterGrain to develop GM wheat. Is this legal? Where is the due diligence? Is this serving the public interest?
The canola standard that was put in place in Australia in 2008 gives no recognition to GM-free canola, no recognition to organic.
This surely is not legal?
I will conclude with an excerpt from a recent letter in the Countryman by a WA farmer:
In rural communities there is increasing tension and conflict as farmers take up the OGTR approved GM canola. People feel strongly because they know the Act does not protect them. The regulators do not require independent testing, they do not take into account the significant evidence of health impacts reported, they do not allow for the many scientists alternative views, they ignore the gene pollution being created, and they base their approvals on the flawed concept of substantial equivalence.
These regulations inform farmers that the GM grain grown is safe to feed animals and deliver into the food chain. Yet the shaping of these regulations has been described as corrupt to the core and anyone who has read “The World According to Monsanto” will know exactly how and why this has eventuated.
The fight is out in the communities between consumer and farmer, farmer and neighbour, members within organizations and soon to be in legal courts. It is divisive and unnecessary and a clear failing of governance and of the Act. People need to know this and act to protect food, farms, the environment and communities.
Original submission in PDF format (PDF 134 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