Genetic Modification

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:32): Earlier this year, the day before the federal election, the Liberal Coalition announced the planned deregulation of some new genetic modification techniques and the organisms that are produced as a result by seeking to classify them as being non-GM. These include SDN-1 techniques and dsRNA techniques. In April of this year, our health minister—I presume it was at a meeting of health ministers—did not oppose these regulations and, as such, they are now being laid on the table in the federal parliament.

Numerous scientific papers have been published showing that SDN-1 techniques are not as precise as previously thought and can have numerous off-target effects, such as affecting other genes in the organism. Indeed, I note that the European Union's Court of Justice has ruled that this technique needs to be assessed for safety in the same way as the previous techniques. New Zealand will regulate organisms derived from these techniques as GMOs. Over 60 international scientists have signed a statement calling for them to be strictly regulated.

There are many organisms that could be quickly released into the Australian food supply if this technique was deregulated. They include crops such as wheat, rice and canola, fruit such as strawberries, grapes and apples, vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes and cucumbers, animals such as fish, sheep, chickens, pigs and cows, microorganisms such as yeast used in making bread, beer and wine, bacteria used to make yoghurt, and viruses. I have also had concerns raised with me that unskilled bio-hackers may be able to alter genes in bacteria and viruses in their own kitchen and then release those microbes—all without any government oversight.

Meanwhile, the aim of dsRNA methods is to put a small section of dsRNA into an organism such as a plant or an insect by methods such as spraying, dipping, injecting, using a virus or by eating something that contains dsRNA. This process can silence or activate genes. One use would be to kill insects by silencing genes in them. The deregulation means that dsRNAs can be released into the environment and into people's food without determining how they may affect other organisms, including people, and whether any changes to gene expression can be inherited.

I understand there is no consensus that organisms produced by these methods are safe for your health. Indeed, the Public Health Association of Australia, the peak health body in Australia, has called for these techniques to be regulated. Deregulating these new techniques, and the organisms that are produced using them, means that these organisms can enter your food without any safety assessment, including for any allergic, toxic, reproductive or cancer-causing effects. There will be no labelling either, so you will be eating them whether you want to or not.

Deregulation also means that the GMO can be planted without any requirement for farmers to be told that the crop was developed using such techniques without determining how easily that organism could spread and without any need to segregate it from non-GMOs. There will also be no requirement for any assessment or environmental harm before release.

I understand that the DNA and dsRNA sequences developed using these techniques will be patented. This means that wherever the sequences land, they can be covered by patent rights. The patent holder, therefore, can enforce their patent rights. In the USA and Canada, this has resulted in farmers whose crops were contaminated with past versions of GM crops being sued for growing GM crops without a licence.

The situation in Australia could potentially be worse. Under our existing end point royalty system, a positive test of the patented material in a farmer's product gives the patent holder the legal right to deduct their user fee from the farmer's produce payments. Even a presence of as low as 0.01 per cent could result in a positive test and any subsequent action against the farmer is entirely at the patent holder's discretion.

If an agricultural spray contains patented dsRNA, any spray drift onto a neighbouring farm could result in the affected farm's produce being affected by patent rights. If a GMO spreads to the fields of an organic farm, the farm could also lose its organic status. Farmers who object to this fee being deducted from their payments will need to take legal action against the patent holder to try to recover their money.

Most importantly, if it is approved, it will occur without any need to assess the economic impact on our exports. If Australia deregulates these techniques, it does not mean that importing countries have also deregulated them. In many countries, these products will still be considered as either approved or unapproved GMOs.