Unnecessary, costly hurdles threaten crop innovation

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce referred the inquiry to the House of Representatives Agriculture and Industry Committee last August which has received 101 submissions to date and is being chaired by SA Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey.

The Committee has been asked to inquire and report on technology’s role in increasing agricultural productivity in Australia and look into new practices but also any barriers to the adoption of emerging technology.

A public hearing on Monday in Canberra heard evidence provided by representatives from the Australian Controlled Traffic Farming Association, Southern Farming Systems, GrainGrowers, CropLife Australia and Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre.

CropLife Australia CEO Matthew Cossey said the importance of innovation on the biotechnology side of his industry was “extraordinary”.

Mr Cossey said more than 20 years ago Australia’s first commercial genetically modified seed was planted and today almost 100 per cent is GM making the product a “shining example of what innovation in agriculture can achieve”.

“Thanks to GM cotton and changes in farming practices, farmers have halved their use of water and have significantly improved the sustainable use of crop protection products,” he said.

“Since that first GM seed was planted so many years ago, farmers have increasingly turned to GM crops, specifically canola and cotton in Australia, as they experience the agronomic, financial and environmental benefits.

“And the future of GM crops is exciting.”

Mr Cossey said insect resistance, stress tolerance and higher yields were some of the other crop traits in the pipeline to benefit farmers, while healthy fatty acids in canola and reduced saturated fats in sunflowers were “truly exciting for consumers”.

“Research undertaken by the industry also includes salt and drought tolerant crops, as well as improved biofuel crops,” he said.

But Mr Cossey warned bringing a new GM trait to market was a “significant financial and time investment” and governments needed to be in tune with the potential innovation benefits to agriculture and humanity.

“An international survey undertaken by the UK based Phillips McDougall consultancy firm, found that it takes 13 years research and development and US$136 million to develop each new GM crop trait and again approximately one-third of that cost is just to meet regulatory expenses,” he said.

“So often innovation isn’t about needing more from government – it’s about government removing unnecessary and costly hurdles, or not putting them in in the first place.

“Ensuring regulatory systems are timely and efficient and make decisions on credible science and evidence is essential.”

In quoting US science communicator Neil de Grasse Tyson, Mr Cossey said “the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it”.

“However whether humanity can benefit from science and innovation in agriculture in the future will depend on the regulatory systems we impose on them,” he said.

But Gene Technology Regulator Dr Robyn Cleland has warned the Committee public awareness of gene technology has declined in recent years.

In an inquiry submission for the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) Dr Cleland said when the regulatory scheme was first established in 2001, public interest and concern was greatest in relation to the environmental release of GMOs, especially GM crops.

She said in 2003 the consultation process for the early decisions on environmental release of commercial GM canola attracted “significant public interest” via 727 submissions.

But a 2014 decision on a commercial GM canola variety release only attracted 17 public submissions, she said.

The ORGT submission cited a survey of community attitudes released in June last year, which suggested public awareness of gene technology had declined in key areas.

The report prepared for the OGTR concluded there had been a “general drop in awareness and support for gene technologies” - in particular for GM foods and crops - since the last study in 2012

The report said most support or rejection of GM food and crops was “conditional” and likely to move based on regulation or scientific evidence of safety.

“Only 15 per cent of the population are so against GM foods that they would never change their stance,” it said.

“The data also indicates that that knowledge and awareness of GM issues can be shallow, with moderate awareness of what GM crops are being produced around the world, for instance, but not a strong ability to identify which ones are grown in Australia.

“This indicates that GM is a low-level of general background noise issue for many people, indicating that they pick up the general thread of topics, without knowing particulars.”

The report said there’d been a significant drop in support for growing GM crops in a person’s State from more than 50pc support in 2007, 2009 and in 2012 to a low of 38pc in 2015.

“There is generally low awareness of organisations that are responsible for the regulation of GM in Australia, with a significant don’t know response (37pc),” it said.

“When asked about the rules and regulations relating to GM, and whether they were sufficiently rigorous and complied with, there was majority agreement but also significant don’t know responses.”

Dr Cleland said there was a steady stream of field trials for research and development on GM plants including cotton, canola, wheat, barley, sugarcane and ryegrass in relatively simple herbicide tolerance traits to more complex ones like drought and salinity tolerance.

She said other work relevant to agriculture was at various stages in the research and development pipeline including early stage development of live GMO veterinary vaccines and GM animals.

“I have recently approved a commercial GM vaccine for chickens but there have been no environmental releases of GM animals in Australia to date,” the submission said.