www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Calls for changes to the laws governing gene technology in Australia have
been largely rejected in a new report, despite ongoing controversy over
genetically modified crops, April 2006 by Anna Salleh.

A review of the Gene Technology Act 2000, by a government-appointed review
panel, found there should only be minor changes to the Act, which it
outlines in a report released this week.

The review also calls for states to end their moratoria on genetically
modified (GM) crops.

"It was the issue that was raised at every forum - it was the hot issue,"
says review panel chair, environmental lawyer Susan Timbs.

The review rejects calls for the Act to be changed so that economic, social
and marketing impacts of GM crops could be considered.

And it agrees with GM researchers and industry that GM and non-GM crops can
co-exist.

The review also disagrees with some farming and consumer groups, that people
releasing GM organisms (GMOs) be made strictly liable for any detrimental
effects of their products.

More time to assess risky applications

But the review recommends some changes in the way the Office of the Gene
Technology Regulator (OGTR) assesses applications for the release of GMOs.

The review recommends the regulator be given more time to assess
applications for the commercial release of organisms deemed to be of
"significant risk".

Timbs says under the proposal this would provide more time for public
consultation.

But the time limit for assessing field trials would be reduced and industry
and researchers conducting low risk work with GMOs would have less
requirement to report their activities, Timbs says.

The review also recommends the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee
(GTTAC), which advises the OGTR on risks, should include people with
specific expertise in public health and environmental risk assessment.

Responses

Senator Stott Despoja, Australian Democrats' spokesperson on science and
biotechnology, says while the review makes a few recommendations to improve
the system, she disagrees with some of the findings.

"The report found a 'high level of transparency in relation to the
regulatory system', which appears to be contradicted by the lack of
information made available to the public on GM trials by the Office of the
Gene Technology Regulator," she says.

"The report also found the states' moratoria on GM crops to have
'detrimental rather than beneficial impacts (on markets)'. Given the
evidence of GM contamination of non-GM crops, and the lack of research into
the impact of human consumption of GM products, the states are showing an
appropriate level of caution in regard to this technology."

Professor Sue Serjeantson of the Australian Academy of Science says the Act
has provided a climate of community confidence about GMO assessment.

But she says the moratoria are a disincentive for research and means the Act
has failed to "capture the benefits of biotechnology for the Australian
community, industry and the environment".

She says the moratoria may not be in place if the community had "access to
quality information about biotechnology, the potential risks and benefits of
its application".

"This highlights the necessity for the OGTR to be involved in increasing
public awareness of GM technology, to assist the regulator applying the
Act."


[abc.net.au]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail