1.$851,890 Government handout to GM companies
2.Gene Technology Act Review: a failed report

The assumptions in a previous Australian study, along the lines being proposed (item 1) were dismissed by economists like Richard Denniss, deputy director of the Australia Institute, as reading like a pro-GM wish list rather than a careful assessment of the real state of play.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5831

GeneEthics Network Director, Bob Phelps says of the current proposals, "This cash cow for corporate interests is the opening salvo in another wasteful taxpayer-funded government/industry PR campaign to trash the GM-free values held by most Australian family farmers and shoppers."
---

1.$851,890 Government handout to GM companies
Media release, GeneEthics Network, May 1, 2006

Commonwealth Government grants of $851,890 for gene technology studies, announced last Friday by Agriculture Minister McGauran, are designed to justify the fast tracking of genetically manipulated (GM) crops and foods into Australia. The money is from the $3.8 million Biotechnology Strategy for Agriculture, Food and Fibre, part of the National Biotechnology Strategy, a government misallocation of scarce resources needed for higher priorities.

"This cash cow for corporate interests is the opening salvo in another wasteful taxpayer-funded government/industry PR campaign to trash the GM-free values held by most Australian family farmers and shoppers," says GeneEthics Network Director, Bob Phelps.

"These in-house studies, by the Bureau of Rural Sciences, the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and the private sector, exclude the public and independent experts," he says

"The eight reports will be published only after they are massaged in secret with a GM-friendly corporate spin that justifies the marketing of GM seeds and foods, and 'the introduction of GM canola' by Bayer and Monsanto," he says.

"The disinformation strategy will target the popular state and territory moratoria which have been placed on commercial GM canola until 2008 at least, to effectively create a national ban on this contaminating crop," he says.

"The study of economic threats to organic farming from GM contamination is just window-dressing, as the biggest challenge of GM canola would be to conventional GM-free growers who do not have the organic industry's closed-loop marketing and identity preservation systems to protect them," he says.

"The GM industry wants to release commercial GM canola immediately and then force conventional GM-free canola growers to market their crop as GM, by burdening them with extra costs to test, segregate and market as GM-free," he says.

"Like the North American experience, Australian farmers are now discouraged from saving and replanting their own seed. Once committed, if GM canola arrives the commercial GM-free varieties will soon become unavailable. Choice would end but there would be no escape," he says.

"A Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report has already found that GM canola contamination would end Australia's competitive advantage for GM-free canola in Europe and Asia, and that other grain and oilseed markets would also be at risk," he says.

"RIRDC also concluded that the maximum likely benefit from GM canola would be just A$28 million per year. That's a lot of pain for little gain," he says.

"The National/Liberal Coalition government rides roughshod over GM-free sentiments and plans to sell out family farmers and shoppers to corporate interests, at public expense," Mr Phelps concludes.

More comment: Bob Phelps 03 9347 4500 (O) 03 9889 1717 (H) 0408 195 099 (M)

Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran has announced $851,890 for eight major gene technology studies to cover:

1. the value of biotechnology for insect pest and weed control in the cropping sector, including experiences with GM cotton;
2. the potential for GM crops to serve as factories for pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, including a review of recent developments world-wide;
3. examining the implications of using gene technology in the oilseeds industry;
4. developing an overview of the value of using biotechnology tools (excluding those GM organisms that are final products) in Australia's primary industries;
5. developing an up-to-date information package on GM canola that covers the particular concerns of government, industry and the wider community;
6. reviewing international market access for GM canola, including regulatory arrangements in countries important to the world canola trade;
7. a pathway to market for GM canola, including identifying the measures needed to address concerns about its commercial introduction; and
8. the economic impact on the organic farming industry of introducing GM crops into Australia, including the treatment of GM organisms in organic certification systems.
---

2.Gene Technology Act Review: a failed report
Media release, GeneEthics Network, May 1, 2006

The Gene Technology Act 2000 Review Panel report, issued on Thursday, ignored most of the 280 submissions made to them and instead recommended weaker laws on Genetically Manipulated Organisms (GMOs). The report backs the GM industry's agenda, despite many flaws in the regulatory system and its implementation which we asked the panel to fix.

"We reject the recommendations that: 'the Act be amended to include powers for the relevant Minister to issue a special licence in an emergency' (Rec 4.2) and 'S provide capacity for the Commonwealth to declare a thing a GMO by regulation for a limited period in an emergency.' (Rec 9.3)," says Director of the GeneEthics Network, Bob Phelps.

"Responding to emergencies is important, but the report makes no recommendations on the need to prevent GM disasters before they arise, even though there have been many instances of mismanagement, accident and unauthorised GMO releases in the past twenty years," he says.

"If these recommendations were enacted, infringements of GM laws would be regularised and excused retrospectively without penalty, making the monitoring and compliance provisions of the Act even more meaningless and poorly enforced than they are now," he says.

"For instance, the proposed changes would fully legitimise the governments' decision last year to legalise GM contamination after it was found in conventional canola, by retrospectively adopting contamination thresholds of .9% in grain and .5% in seed,"