Genetically Modified Canola

In 2008, the major gene technology debate is likely to cover the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) canola (Brassica napus). Canola seeds contain an oil that is used in some margarine and as cooking oil.

In 2003, the Commonwealth Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) licensed the commercialisation of two types of GM crop: Bayer’s InVigor canola and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready canola. Despite these licenses, the commercialisation of GM canola has not proceeded because all states except Queensland have put in place moratoria against GM canola or against GM crops in general. The moratoria were imposed in response to the preferences that some countries have for GM crops to be grown, processed and transported separately from non-GM crops, and because of concerns about genetic modification in general.

The Howard Government strongly supported the commercialisation of licensed crops. Its agriculture minister agreed with the findings of the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry report, A national market access framework for GM canola and future GM Crops. The report supported growing GM crops in parallel with conventional crops, and expressed concern that, if the moratoria were not lifted, farmers would not be able to increase their international competitiveness. With the release of GM canola: an information package, then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Peter McGauran stated that:

Australian farmers stood to gain significantly from the introduction of GM technology … The study concludes that Australia’s main competitor, Canada, has been growing GM canola for 10 years without any appreciable loss of market share or prices, while enjoying significant agronomic benefits.

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has supported gene technology provided that, as well as conveying economic benefits, GM crops are safe for the environment and human health, and the developer is responsible for the onus of proof. States should be able to ‘implement and manage moratoria on the commercial production of GM crops’.

In 2007, Victoria, New South Wales , Tasmania and South Australia began reviews of their current bans. In November 2007, Victoria and NSW agreed to lift their bans. Western Australia’s moratorium is in place until 2009, although its Seeds Amendment Bill 2007 would allow its Agriculture and Food Minister to prohibit GM seed.

The Bureau of Rural Sciences report, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, notes both the benefits of GM canola and the problem of segregation of GM and non-GM crops. If bans are lifted, segregation and the traceability of GM crops will be required. Trading partners such as Japan require non-GM crops, and Japan receives 41 per cent of Australia’s canola. This market could be compromised. Victoria is currently examining trade implications.

Health, economic and environmental concerns are reflected in the various submissions to Victoria’s review of its ban. Issues include dissatisfaction about regulations governing liability for GM contamination, as well as the quality of decision-making. On the other hand, there are arguments that GM plants specifically designed for Australian conditions will help deal with unwelcome factors such as drought. A possible example of this is Bayer’s Canola-grade GM HT Indian mustard.

The Commonwealth, states and territories are parties to a Gene Technology Intergovernmental Agreement. There is a national regulatory framework for the release of GM organisms into the environment, including recently amended Commonwealth legislation in response to an independent Statutory Review.

In the near future, taking account of reviews of the various state moratoria, the Australian Government and the states will need to devise strategies together to deal with the issue of GM canola in Australia, and overcome potential trade and environmental risks.