News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Tas bans GM crops until 2014 

Tas bans GM crops until 2014

25/11/2008 5:13:00 AM
Tasmania has defied the lead taken by its fellow Labor governments in NSW and Victoria, and most recently by the Coalition in WA, by announcing yesterday it would be extending its ban in genetically modified crops by another five years to 2014.

The move was immediately praised by anti-GM lobby group, the Gene Ethics Network, which says the Government has shown "real leadership".

Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, argued the move would "make the State’s primary produce even more desirable".

"Tasmania's GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian brand and is therefore vital to Tasmania's primary producers realising their full potential in international and interstate markets," he said.

"The markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green, high quality and safe.

"Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian brand even stronger.

"The decision by some other Australian States to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania's GMO-free status and that creates opportunities for even better access to prime markets across the globe."

The policy resulted from an exhaustive government inquiry that has all-party support for a GM-free stance.

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said the move was a win for farmers as there were now premiums for GM-free canola of between $75-90 a tonne.

"The Japanese, Indian and Middle Eastern markets all want GM-free products and are ready to pay the premium," he said.

"Genetically manipulated canola is a dead loss in NSW and Victoria, with only a handful of selected growers risking Roundup tolerant GM canola that puts them at the mercy of rapacious companies.

"Growers are charged an accreditation fee of $500 ($1,000 next year), a premium for seed, more expensive Roundup, and an end-point-royalty of $10.20/tonne ($20.40 next year).

"The new WA government should match Tasmania's GM-free stance and also reap the benefits."

Mr Llewellyn said the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) would be actively working with industry to investigate GMO-free seed production and other opportunities.

"Clearly, the growing demand in premium markets for non-GM food will also see a growing demand for non-GM seed stock for both crops and pastures that will flow into industries such as dairying and beef, to value-add to their products in the market place."

Tasmania’s GMO policy:

  • prohibits use of gene technology in commercial agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fisheries, bioremediation and pets;
  • does not apply to gene technology use in contained research and medical or non-agricultural industrial use where there is no risk of release to the environment;
  • allows specific authorisation of some types of research if risks of escape of GM organisms to the environment is low enough; and
  • prohibits import of viable GM organisms which could establish in the environment (eg GM canola seed);
  • does not prohibit import of non-viable materials derived from GMOs (eg feed containing GM soya bean meal).
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
25/11/08 Dear Sir Given the announcement that Tasmania have Banned G M crops for another five years causes me to wonder why our Victorian Government is so keen to allow it here! I have just concluded reading the report on the Showa Denko Tryptophan Disaster, followed by the Summary by John B Fagan Ph.D. This is the finale of a Court Case dealing with the deaths of thirty seven people and the permanent disablement of fifteen hundred others. So what? You might say, but given, that the conclusions were a body blow to Monsanto’s claims that G M is not harmful to humans, it is very pertinent to the discussions in your paper today. The summary damns the obfuscations of the FDA, and their bias towards G M foods. No farmer in his right mind would allow a Monsanto representative on his property after reading them. It should also send a shudder though all Australians to read just how far the big corporations will go in an attempt to deny responsibility. I implore all concerned Australians to read this report, instead of burying their heads in the sand!
Posted by Creeker on 25/11/2008 2:39:45 PM
Tasmanian farmers and consumers will be the real winners out of this commendable decision. I commend the decision makers for having he intestinal fortitude to stand up to the tactics of the GM proponents. It is a pity that other state and federal ministers cannot emulate the Tasmanian stance on GMOs.
Posted by ggwagga on 26/11/2008 5:30:33 AM
Go you good things - once again you are showing the mainland that you are the producers of the very best and tastiest food available downunder and I defy anyone to not try your produce and state uncategorically that this is not so. Therefore why the hell would you need to change to another tasteless tomato that grows twice the size in half the time? To think that the extra food is going to feed the world is hypocrasy - it only goes to feed the billions that are already overfed in any case and half of that will be wasted. I for one will source Tasmanian produce with great delight and now have many years to enjoy its fabulous untainted flavours.
Posted by krakkatinny on 26/11/2008 9:06:58 AM
It seems to me there is a place for both GM and non-GM. The mainland can carry the bulk of the crop as GM for the bulk of the world who aren't prepared to pay for a specialist lower yielding/higher input crop and Tas can produce the specialist non-GM crop at a premium. Win-win if you ask me.
Posted by Andrew Kennett on 26/11/2008 10:50:25 AM
It's interesting how an exemption has been given for the importation of GM Soya under the Tasmanian Moratorium. How insulting for farmers you can't grow it but the state will happily let companies import it for food use. Pathetic!! What a contradiction!!
Posted by allmattergreen on 26/11/2008 3:27:17 PM
Sorry Andrew Kennett, there is no place for the two crops to co-exist even with the Bass Strait between us. The oil produced from GM Canola is being mixed with other oils without the public being informed. It is being used in many areas without our consent because our weak governments have listened to Monsanto's pleas to oppose labeling. The reason is so obvious! G M ingredients on the labels means No Sales. One other thing Andrew. It has yet to be proved that G M crops are higher yeilding than Non G M. They have not been proved to be more drought resistant or salt tolerant either, as any research devoid of Monsanto's propaganda proves. Ninetyfive percent of ALL G M crops are grown in the US and Canada where Monsanto's extravagant claims were never properly tested by the FDA. As far as they were concerned if you don't drop dead after consuming G M product it must be O K for human consumtion! Well the latest conclusions from the Showa Denko Tryptaphon Disaster trial have blown those claims out of the water. We still have people quoting from the arguments used in the trial over ten years ago, and ignoring the final conclusions reached recently. There is little doubt that G M engineering caused all those deaths and disablements. The early claims that "faulty filtering systems" somehow were responsible were specifically ruled out. The important thing about this trial apart from the tragic loss of life was the exposure of the lies. How could we place any trust in a company with their record? How can we trust the testing done by the FDA in the light of the trial findings? Read it and weep!
Posted by Creeker on 27/11/2008 7:57:40 AM
While at it, Tasmania should also ban metal tools. Going back to the Stone Age would further enhance the island's rustic charm.

As for all those people objecting to GM, do not quote doubtful sources about GM dangers, but instead show peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Also, please stop growing all those 'conventionally bred' freak crops whose parent lines have been irradiated to trigger mutations.

Posted by 21st century on 27/11/2008 8:21:24 AM
Where can we read of the Showa Denko Tryptaphon Disaster trial?
Posted by Farmer Janet on 27/11/2008 4:25:24 PM
'Creeker' raises a really good point about the mixing of GM and non-GM derived canola oils.

The anti-GM brigade has always claimed that Australian canola exports to Japan will decrease with the introduction of GM canola. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of canola oil consumed in Japan is a blend of Australian and Canadian canola oil - a blend of non-GM and GM canola oil.

As for the Showa Denko incident, there is in fact no scientific evidence to link this disaster with genetic engineering. Creeker's comments are based on an assumption that tryptophan as a dietary supplement is safe and that only tryptophan produced by GE bacteria is unsafe.

He should look at this link, for more information: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-book-on-gmos-by-je ffrey-m-smith.html

Posted by Dr. Glenn Tong on 28/11/2008 7:17:38 AM
Farmer Janet, Just klick on, Showa Denko Tryptaphon Disaster on the Google search engine, and you can read all the final conclusions of the trial 2006 version, not the earlier stages of the trial which Dr Tong is so fond of quoting. He is correct when he says that it has not been "Scientifically proved" but here is the final conclusion reached by the court after ten years, "Considering the impeccable safety record from over 50 years of non-GE bacterial fermentation, there is no reason to believe that a mechanism other than GE generated the poison. Moreover, it was predicted, on theoretical grounds, before the accident, that genetic engineering can disturb the metabolism so that unexpected poisons are generated, and this prediction has been experimentally confirmed. For these reasons, it can be concluded with very great certainty that it was genetic engineering and nothing else that caused the appearance of the poison." The full conclusions of the court can be read, including the damning evidence exposing the behaviour of the FDA, one of the so called regulatory bodies who assure us that G M is "safe".
Posted by creeker on 28/11/2008 4:44:52 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Q: Do you believe the new board of Australian Wool Innovation can heal the rifts within the industry?

Yes
(26.9%)

No
(56.6%)

Undecided
(16.4%)

Total Votes: 438
Poll Date: 24/11/2008

11/12/2008 | Farm lobby groups will decide next week whether the future of farm representation will stay as it is or be broadened to bring in the big end of town.