A FEDERAL inquiry into agricultural innovation has received a range of submissions, with many sharing key themes including the need for increased research and development.
AusBiotech's submission to the House of Representative’s Agriculture and Industry Committee inquiry said several areas of government regulation continue to “retard” domestic and international investment into Australian agricultural biotechnology research and commercialisation.
The submission said the existence of State moratoria against the planting of GM crops also continued to have “a profound impact on the erosion of business investment into agricultural biotechnology”.
It also recommended federal government engagement with State government counterparts to develop stable and consistent application of policy and regulation covering farmer’s right to grow and sell GM crops.
“Bayer CropScience and Monsanto each invested over $20 million to develop GM varieties suitable for the Australian agricultural environment prior to the introduction of the State moratoria,” the submission said.
“Despite getting approval for the commercial release from the OGTR the existence or threat of State moratoria mean that companies lack confidence that the return on their Australian investment will be realised.
“Whilst there are indications that the WA government will repeal the GM Corps Free Areas Act 2003, the WA Shadow Minister for Agriculture has stated that if elected the opposition would reintroduce a ban on planting GM crops.
“It is unlikely that any single factor has a greater impact on public investment in agricultural biotechnology in Australia than the uncertainty created by indecisive State moratoria against GM crops.”
AusBiotech also called for a government review of GM thresholds in organic certification based on the recent legal test case involving neighbouring Kojonup farmers Mike Baxter and Steve Marsh.
They said the Australian National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Product was inconsistent with Australian government policy regarding food labelling and regulations of Australia’s key trading partners.
AusBiotech said Australia’s Food Standard Code allowed for up to a 1pc threshold for the accidental presence of an approved GM food ingredient – but the National Standard stated that GM products are not compatible with organic and bio-dynamic management practices and are not permitted under a parallel production system.
“Organic certifiers have interpreted the National Standard as a ‘zero tolerance’ to the presence of GM materials on the farm or in the produce,” the submission said.
“This interpretation was recently the subject of the damaging WA Supreme Court case of Marsh v Baxter in which an organic farmer, Mr Marsh, who lost his farms organic status due to the accidental presence of GM material from a neighbouring farm, sought a permanent injunction to restrain his neighbour Mr Baxter from ever again growing a GM canola crop in paddocks adjacent to Mr Marsh’s property.
“The consequence of the internationally-inconsistent National Standard has been the unjustified personal and public costs that resulted from the WA Supreme Court case that followed.
“The high-profile case also has broader implications by undermining confidence amongst growers who are balancing the adoption of new technology that may provide an on-farm productivity improvement, with the uncontrollable risk that through adventitious or accidental means a contamination may occur leading to protracted and highly-public litigation.
“AusBiotech recommends that the Department of Agriculture review the requirements of the National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce and request the Organic Industry Standards and Certification Committee introduce reasonable thresholds for GM materials into the standard that are in harmony with international benchmarks.”
CSIRO points to biological technologies
The CSIRO submission said Australia’s agri-food and fibre sector was poised for “significant growth” with demand doubling in key export markets and significant domestic market growth over the next 30 years.
But CSIRO also warned Australian agriculture faced significant competition in capturing those opportunities.
“Rates of agricultural productivity increase have slowed over the last 20 years and Australia’s net agri-food exports have changed little over that period, despite significant market growth,” CSIRO said.
“Food imports have more than doubled over the last 20 years.”
CSIRO said the biological revolution had been 30 to 40 years in the making with many outputs already delivering value in production systems, such as pest resistant cotton and herbicide tolerant crops.
“We see a new surge in crops, pastures and potentially animals becoming available delivering higher value products - such as cereals with enhanced health attributes, novel aquaculture breeds and feeds, designed plants with bio-industrial applications etc,” CSIRO said.
“Regardless of whether the route to market happens via a GM or non-GM pathway, there is no doubt Australia’s agri-food/fibre industries will not remain competitive without leading edge biological technologies.”
CSIRO also cited the Australian cotton industry – and in particular GM adoption – as a case study in successful agricultural innovation.
It said cotton’s $2.5 billion per annum export industry would not exist without science-based innovation and “productivity has not stalled”.
“Yields have improved at 2pc year-on-year, greater than in any other agricultural industry in Australia – 45pc of the improvement due to better varieties and 55pc due to better management,” the CSIRO submission said.
“Cotton growing has become more efficient.
“Irrigation water use has dropped by 30pc in the last 15 years and pesticide use has reduced by 80-90pc with the use of GM varieties.
“A value chain approach that retains a focus on a differentiated high value quality end product, achieved via multi-disciplinary science teams extending from plant breeding to farm management to textile science.”
R&D essential
GrainGrowers' submission said technology was driving the profitability for Australia’s $15 billion grains industry, which generates employment for more than 179,000 people.
GrainGrowers said R&D into biotechnological improvement of grains and GM crops was essential to the industry’s sustainability particularly due to increasing challenges around natural resource management and changing climate conditions.
“The responsible and strategic application of biotechnology by the agriculture sector can result in significant benefits for Australian farmers, the environment, consumers and the Australian economy as a whole,” GrainGrowers said.
“Scientific bodies and regulators around the world - including the Office of Gene Technology Regulator - have continued to declare GM crops and the food they produce as safe.
“However, the challenge for uptake continues with community and market acceptance.
“Unfortunately, this is the case for many emerging agricultural technologies.”
GrainGrowers said moratoria on the commercial release of crops had ongoing implications for agricultural productivity.
Those bans have prevented farmers from adopting GM crops with regulatory approval, and reduced private sector investment in developing varieties adapted to Australia’s conditions, they said.
“This divide between Federal approval of a technology and State regulation of its use is reducing the potential for increased private-sector agricultural R&D investment in Australia,” the GrainGrowers submission said.
“More importantly, these regulatory barriers are limiting the ability for farmers to choose the way in which they farm.”
Red tape burden
The Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA’s submission said government policy settings are crucial to engendering the businesses confidence required to invest in agricultural innovation.
The PGA said according to the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia, it costs US$136 million to bring a new GM crop to market, most of which went towards gathering the data required, by the regulatory system.
“Considering that the World Health Organization says that ‘no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such (GM) foods’ and the European Commission has said ‘that biotechnology is no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies’, the Commonwealth Government should actively reduce the costs of regulating GM crops to remove disincentives to innovation in plant breeding,” PGA policy officer Ian Randles said.
Mr Randles also referred to the Institute for Public Affairs ranking Australia 124th of 144 countries on the burden of government regulation, in the most recent World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report.
“It seems likely that the increased burden of government red tape adds to the cost of entrepreneurial activity and suppresses innovation,” he said.
“Much of this regulatory activity appears to be connected to the ‘precautionary principle’.
“Regulation that is based on potential adverse consequences, rather than a credible threat of harm, stifles innovation by preventing market-based trial-and error, learning and experimentation.
“Regulation is singularly unable to predict the future and it can prevent entrepreneurs with new ideas from entering into markets and testing these ideas.”
