GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:11): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today the Democrats and the Greens are working cooperatively to introduce bills on the same day to express our respective parties' concerns about the continued pressure on our agricultural and food sectors to switch to genetically modified crops. The Democrats have a proud record on the issue of genetically modified food and crops. In 1996, I introduced a bill to require the labelling of both genetically modified food and irradiated food. I was a member of the parliamentary Social Development Committee at the time it undertook an inquiry into biotechnology. The committee produced two associated reports, one on health and the other on food, which dealt specifically with GM foods. That committee reported to the parliament in October 2001.

The majority of the committee was not willing to rock the boat and, although it reported on the risk of toxicants being produced in the food as a consequence of genetic manipulation, it made recommendations merely about the need for further research. I found myself in the position of having to present dissenting recommendations. Recommendation 9 of the committee stated:

The state government, through its delegate on the ministerial council, to ensure that the commercial release of GM food crops is undertaken under strict compliance with licence requirements.

That was not acceptable to me then, nor is it now. I dissented, with the following recommendation:

Where a majority of producers and consumers in a specified area so indicate their desire for such action, the state government to declare a five-year moratorium on the release of genetically modified material in that area.

Recommendation 11 of the committee stated:

Protocols be developed in conjunction with producer organisations for the handling of genetically modified produce and the segregation of that material from the mainstream, where there is a commercial or scientific justification.

My alternative recommendation removed the reference to 'commercial or scientific justification' and added the words 'and that no release of genetically modified material be permitted until such protocols are established'. By the way, at this point (that is, six years on from that) those protocols still do not exist.

My former colleague, Ian Gilfillan, then went on to introduce a number of bills. In 2000 it was the Genetically Modified Food Labelling bill; in 2002 it was the Gene Technology Temporary Prohibition bill; and twice in 2003 it was the Gene Technology (Responsibility for the Spread of Genetically Modified Plant Material) bill.

The pressure created by the Democrats within the parliament, along with that created by lobby groups in the community, resulted in the establishment of a House of Assembly select committee chaired by the current Minister for Primary Industries (Hon. Rory McEwen). In July 2003, the final report of that select committee was released and its principal recommendation was that legislation be introduced to prevent the release of genetically modified crops into South Australia's agricultural system until issues regarding the protection of the state's market position are resolved. To quote from Mr McEwen's media release in regard to one of the key recommendations:

...that the commercial release of GM crops should not be permitted until industry can guarantee co-existence to satisfy market demands for GM, non-GM and GM-free products. This will require the use of secure segregation and identity preservation systems that are rigorous, robust and cost effective.

He expanded on that recommendation with this comment:

For industry to meet the conditions of successful co-existence, the whole of the production and supply chain, from seed producers to marketers, will need to work together to resolve a number of significant issues.

I have quoted the Hon. Mr McEwen because the fact is that those supply chain issues have still not been resolved. In 2004, the government introduced the legislation recommended by the select committee, and that is the legislation I am amending today. Money talks, and we should all be extremely wary of the smooth talk of big chemical agri businesses. They have invested a lot of money in genetic engineering and want to recoup that investment. We should always remember that. They have their spin doctors to get out the message about the potential benefits.

At the time the Social Development Committee was conducting its inquiry, those companies were selling us the line that they could solve the problem of vitamin A deficiency in developing countries with their GM patented rice. The only problem with that argument, it was revealed to us, was that a person with vitamin A deficiency would need to eat at least 10 kilograms per day of that said GM rice to relieve their symptoms. I think you would die of overeating under those circumstances, and we are talking of developing countries where people could not afford to pay for 10 kilograms of rice.

Now we are being tantalised with the prospect of drought and salinity tolerant crops, but a prospect is all that it is. After two decades, the giant chemical companies are no closer to patenting such GM crops, but it is dangled invitingly in front of us as we search for technical solutions to some of the huge environmental problems facing us. But we should not be fooled: we should treat their claims with the greatest of scepticism, remembering always the massive financial gains they have to make if they can dominate the market.

I remain unconvinced of the safety of genetically modified food. I think that all members recently received a letter and book from nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM. She sent us all a copy of a book called Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Food, by Jeffrey M. Smith, who was here last week. Mark Parnell and I extended an invitation to all members to meet Mr Smith and be briefed on the issue, and I know that some members attended. That book, if people have not yet read it, is worth looking at. I will read some headings from the contents page. In section 1 of the book there is evidence of reactions in animals and humans as follows:

GM potatoes damage rats; rats fed GM tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died; rats fed BT corn had multiple health problems; mice fed GM BT potatoes had intestinal damage; workers exposed to BT cotton developed allergies; sheep died after grazing in BT cotton fields; inhaled BT corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans; farmers report pigs and cows become sterile from GM corn; 12 cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed BT corn; mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems; mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas; mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells; Roundup Ready soy changed cell metabolism in rabbit organs; most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks; soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK soon after GM soy was introduced; rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers; twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty linked corn; GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice; eye witness reports animals avoid GMOs and a GM food supplement killed about 100 people and caused 5,000 to 10,000 to fall sick.

I want to deal with just one of those, namely 'Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks'. I first found out about this at a public meeting I attended at the beginning of September and was shocked by this and by photos of two rats—which are of palpable different sizes—one fed on the soy product and the other not. I will read part of what the study was about, as follows:

Flour from Roundup Ready GM soy was added to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing. After weaning at 13 to 14 days the rat pups diet was also supplemented with soy flour. Within three weeks of birth 25 of the 45 (that is, 55.6 per cent) rats from the GM soy group died, compared with only three of 33 (9 per cent) from the non-GM soy group, and three of 44 (6.8 per cent) from the non-soy controls. Pups from the non-GM soy group weighed on average 13 per cent more than those whose mothers consumed GM soy.

Research has also noted a high level of anxiety and aggression in both the females and young pups from the GM groups.

When the offspring of GM-fed rats in Ermakova's study were mated, they did not produce offspring. This apparent sterility persisted whether or not they continued to feed on GM soy. When the female offspring were mated with male controls they did conceive. The size of the litters, however, was about 25 per cent less than controls.

They then did this trial another two times, and continuing:

The combined results for all 221 rat pups used in the three experiments yielded an offspring mortality rate of 51.6 per cent for the GM soy group, 10 per cent for non-GM soy, 15.1 per cent for GM soy protein isolate and 8.1 per cent for non-soy controls.

They observed that there may have been, for instance, contamination in the soy flour that was used; however, when the supplier of food to that laboratory introduced GM soy into the basic formulation that basically stopped any further testing, they were unable to continue those tests.

What Jeffrey Smith has to say is that the study is preliminary, the number of rats was small, the feed was not evaluated and the organs were not analysed. Given the concerning nature of these results, it is really important that this study be replicated, but it is extremely difficult for research institutes anywhere in the world to do this because of the power that the multinational chemical companies have over university researchers.

We have Dr Judy Carman here in Adelaide who has had scurrilous comments directed at her and the quality of her research by the multinational companies, involving the academic institutions that she works for. So, with that sort of thing it becomes very difficult for researchers to take it on, knowing that questions will be levelled about their capacity to do research.

For those who do not want to look at those health effects, I suggest we take a more pragmatic approach, which is to look at the straight economic facts. We in South Australia have a market advantage at the present time by keeping our agricultural system GM free. Many countries in Europe and Japan, in particular, which imports a great deal of our grain, have switched to our products because the US and Canada switched to GM. It is an unfortunate thing that the parent act which I am amending, when it was introduced in 2004, included this rider with the government's report:

In accordance with the commonwealth/state regulatory framework the bill's purpose is not to regulate GM crops for reasons of human or environmental safety.

It is a great pity that our government ever entered into such an agreement with the commonwealth and other states; that is, an agreement to exclude the issues of human and environmental safety as the basis of this legislation. If that is the framework that we are forced to work within, let us talk about the economics. The arguments are there in terms of the prices we are getting now for non-GM canola, and I believe we are also similarly getting good prices for non-GM barley.

A few weeks ago a Japanese delegation visited South Australia and they provided copies of a petition to the officers of this parliament. That petition represented 2.7 million Japanese consumers telling us that if we introduce GM crops here in South Australia—it does not matter how few of them—it will be assumed that all of the crops emanating from South Australia are contaminated with GMOs and they will switch to other sources of supply. Section 5 of the current act allows the Governor to designate areas in the state where GM crops must not be grown. In turn, the schedule in clause 1(2) states:

A regulation under section 5 that comes into operation in the manner contemplated by subclause (1) will, unless it has already expired or been revoked, expire on the fourth anniversary of the commencement of this act.

Happily, such regulations were put in place for a GM moratorium in South Australia, but they expire at the beginning of April 2008 (a little over four months away). So, if the moratorium is to continue in existence, an amending bill is required, and quite urgently.

This bill amends schedule 1 to extend the moratorium for another five years, which is what consumer groups are asking for; it is what the Japanese have told us that we should do and it is what will continue to give our farmers a commercial advantage. By introducing this bill today, members will have two months to consider the proposal and vote for it when we return in February, as the time constraints will be cutting in by then and we will need to get any bill to the House of Assembly for their consideration so that it is passed before the end of March and can then be enacted so that the moratorium continues.

I urge members to consider supporting this bill because the jury is still out on the health impacts of GM food, and while there is doubt, the moratorium should be extended. We would not introduce a pharmaceutical product onto the market without extensive testing, none of which has been done in relation to the health impacts of GM food. If for no other reason, and that is the reason that I am constrained to address in terms of the parent act that I am amending, let us keep a moratorium in place because of the commercial advantage this gives to South Australian farmers.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.