THERE'S been a moratorium on genetically modified crops in Tasmania since 2001, but could co-existence between non-GM food crops and GM food crops work?
A senior consultant at Macquarie Franklin, Thom Goodwin, said the State’s debate on GM needed to move forward, and co-existence could be the answer.
He told delegates at a Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) farm business update in Launceston today that the majority of Tasmanians had adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach on GM food crops, but this was sending out mixed messages.
Macquarie Franklin was commissioned by the State Government last year to examine the potential market advantage of Tasmania’s GM free status.
The moratorium was put in place by the State Government under section 21 of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act, which allowed States to establish GMO-free zones for marketing purposes.
Mr Goodwin said Macquarie Franklin used GM-free canola to demonstrate the example of Tasmania’s GM-free status - and look for any tangible benefits.
“The only tangible benefit of Tasmania’s GM-free status we could identify was the production of GM-free canola seed and some GM-free canola being shipped to Japan,” he said.
The total farm-gate value of GM-free canola was estimated to be $1.9m each year.
But Mr Goodwin said if States without a moratorium also produced GM-free canola and exported to same consumers as Tasmania, what was the point of difference?
“This led us to conclude Tasmania’s point of difference was the brand image associated with the moratorium itself. That is the promotion of Tasmania’s clean, green, GMO-free status,” he said.
These benefits were difficult to quantify, with some people suggesting the advantages partly centered on being able to dodge GM animal feed.
“Tasmanian beef is marketed as GM-free, mostly to Japan. However others States are able to avoid GM animal feed too,” Mr Goodwin said.
There were diverging views within industries about the merits of GM-free brand signals, he added.
“The GM-free image is all about being clean and green, but it is unclear whether GM-free component really has an impact,” he said.
After discussion with a range of stakeholders, he said Macquarie Franklin concluded that businesses using a GM-free status to support branding, contributed less than 5pc of Tassie’s agriculture value.
While a small group of producers in Tasmania were exploring the benefits of gene technology, the majority did not see the benefits either way.
“The problem with different signals is that it may be viewed by outsiders as disunity,” he said.
“Agriculture has the most to gain and lose from GM policy, yet there is disunity within industries over the issue - and disunity means death.”
He said this disunity could allow outsider groups with specialist interests to use the “divide and rule” tactic – and own the GM debate, retaining the status quo.
While Mr Goodwin said there was no doubt some consumers would resist GM food and a market for GM-free foods would continue, he said the industry needed to figure out how big these markets were likely to be.
“Will these consumers pay a premium? And more importantly, what are we giving up?” he said.
He said the debate needed to consider Tasmanian dairy farmers who currently paid levies that were used for research into GM pastures.
“These farmers are prohibited from participating in GM trials and the technology when it becomes commercialised,” he said.
Dairy Futures CRC are currently developing two GM technologies, including white clover and high-energy ryegrass. The GM ryegrass is expected to be released commercially by 2015-2020, with modelling estimates suggesting the technology will boost farm productivity by $200 per hectare per year.
But the State’s moratorium means its dairy farmers will not have access to this technology.
“The majority of Tasmania’s dairy products are sold as commodities, so there would be no market advantage in using non-GM pastures, and no market advantage from Tasmania’s GM free status,” Mr Goodwin said.
If dairy farmers in other States had access to GM ryegrass and had a lower cost of production, Mr Goodwin said it would change the GM debate in Tasmania.
Some delegates at the GRDC update in Launceston also raised the point that the poppy industry’s inability to grow GM varieties as a result of the moratorium could hamper its productivity, particularly if States such as Victoria could get a hold of the varieties.
Mr Goodwin said this situation would be concerning.
While the moratorium on the State’s GM-status is set to expire in November, he did not expect policies to change.
But he hoped the industry would look at other options.
“What I am arguing for is we move beyond this ‘wait and see’ approach,” Mr Goodwin said.
“Could industry advocate for the co-existence of non-GM food crops and GM food crops?"
He said these were the questions that need to be answered to move beyond the status quo, and to reclaim the debate.
The sector also needed to determine how GM and non-GM-free producers could co-exist before advocating changes to the moratorium, Mr Goodwin added.
