The usual suspects and the media on the streets of Hobart to protest against lifting the ban

Jan Davis’ Tasmanian Country column today

Last Friday was the deadline for submissions to the state government on whether it should maintain the moratorium on genetically-modified organisms in Tasmania. This date on the calendar drew the usual suspects and the media onto the streets of Hobart to protest against lifting the ban.

Meanwhile, at TFGA, we studiously examined the ramifications of the GM ban, looked at the good, the bad and the ugly, and came to the conclusion that the moratorium should be continued, for the time being. In fact, this seems to be the general consensus. A few groups have argued for a continued and indefinite ban; but I haven’t actually heard anyone suggesting the current moratorium be lifted. So what was there to protest about? Perhaps the usual suspects needed a day out.

The key issue that needs to be understood in this debate is that the only ground on which a moratorium can be imposed is if it can be shown there is a specific market advantage in so doing. The science is settled – and there is no other legal basis for such a decision.

So, in coming to a policy position, we have confined our consideration to the issue of marketing.

There is an existing exemption for poppies and other pharmaceutical crops under the current moratorium. The only other viable GM crop for Tasmanian farmers at this point of time is canola, but in the overall scheme of things it is not really suited to our conditions. The dairy industry would prefer that we kept our options open in order to access GM grasses that may improve productivity.

The contrary position is that Tasmania is supposed to benefit economically from its GM-free status. There is a great deal of propaganda and little factual data to back that assertion. However, setting that aside for the moment, it becomes a matter of balancing the aforementioned good, bad and ugly. Our considered view is that we should hedge our bets: don’t prolong the moratorium indefinitely; monitor the evolution of gene modification technologies; and monitor trends in the marketplace and among consumers for GM produce.

We recognised that, clearly, opinion is divided within the community and within the farming sector over the use of GM crops; but is also divided about the purported benefits of Tasmania having GMO-free status, particularly with respect to any tangible benefits to farmers.

Some producers consider the moratorium a marketing advantage. Others are concerned that the industry is losing productivity and competitiveness due to the inability to access GMO technologies.

Whatever the view, it is unarguable that the government has dropped the ball in this. When the initial moratorium was introduced, the government argued its position on the basis that it would commit funds to marketing and promoting our GM-free status to improve the opportunity for farmers to achieve a price premium. They have never done that – so any costs have all been borne by the farming community. That is simply not acceptable going forward – and any extension of the moratorium needs to be backed with government investment in this clean green price premium they keep talking about.

We also believe that people have little understanding of what ‘genetic modification’ and ‘genetic engineering’ actually means and the government has not followed through on a promised information campaign to explain it since it imposed the moratorium in 2004.

So, to summarise, what the TFGA says is that, because there is a limited range of GM products available to the Tasmanian agriculture sector and there is little obvious market demand for GM products, we accept that the moratorium should remain in place for the time being, with some conditions.

We reserve the right to reassess this position in light of changes in markets and technologies that may occur. The exemptions under the Genetically Modified Organisms Control Act 2004 should remain in place, particularly for poppies or other crops for pharmaceutical purposes and research provisions for non-food plants. The current five-year cycle for reviewing the moratorium is too long in terms of advances in research and changing market trends. We support two to three years. We also want the government to acknowledge the real and potential financial impacts that the GMO moratorium has on farmers – and put their money where their mouths are, like farmers do every day.

As I said, opinion among farmers is divided, so there is no right answer to this. However, we believe we have adopted a sensible and rational approach; and that this deserves acknowledgement by all concerned.
Jan Davis, TFGA: Tasmanian Country column today