GMO: We supported a continuation of the existing moratorium; Merc, TC columns …

Someone famous once said ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’; and that’s spot on the money. It clearly wasn’t meant to be simple either.

On face value, the government’s announcement last week of an open-ended ban on production of genetically-modified organisms has little downside. It has certainly has been presented as being a no-brainer for those who believe in a clean, green future for Tasmania; and anyone who has questioned the wisdom of this decision has been depicted as red-necked and evil.

Not surprisingly, nothing is that simple.

First up, I need to be clear about the TFGA’s position in this matter. Our submission to the government’s review last year can be viewed on our website ( http://www.tfga.com.au/index.php?cID=1 ).

Despite statements to the contrary, we supported a continuation of the existing moratorium – not because of any scientific proof of problems, but because of the current situation in our industry. The reality is there are currently no genetically engineered products ready for market that are suited to our Tasmanian farming sector. We know there are some close to market-ready, so we suggested a shorter moratorium (say three years) with some trigger points for review. If research delivered game-changing opportunities, like those we can see on the horizon for poppies and dairy pastures, we wanted the chance to have a close look at costs and benefits on a case by case basis to see if the grounds for the moratorium still held.

Let’s be clear on this – we supported a continued moratorium; there was no suggestion of any lifting of the prohibition on GM products for anything other than non-food crops; and the proposition was that any change would be considered on a case by case basis on the balance of strong benefits to the farmer, the agriculture industry and the state as a whole.

This position was supported by the majority of farmers, and of farming organisations. It was also supported in principle by the state government’s own Food Industry Advisory Council.

We’ve heard a lot over the past week about Tasmania’s clean green brand, and about the benefits a ban on GM products brings. We’re told that our farmers get a price premium for their products on the basis of the fact that they’re branded as Tasmanian and that customers value our GM free status.

If, as some would have us believe, there is a price premium already being paid for the fact that we are GMO-free, where is the proof of that claim? The government’s own research and advice clearly concludes that, while there are some small market segments which may be achieving some price advantage, these are the exception rather than the rule.

The vast bulk of product grown by our farmers is in commodity products like dairy powders, processed vegetables, wool, poppies, grains etc that are shipped in bulk to markets across the country and the world. They are not branded as Tasmanian products. Often, they are mixed with product from other suppliers and could not be branded even if we wanted to go down that path.

Our participation in these bulk markets is based on our farmers keeping their costs of production below the price that buyers will pay. That in turn means using the most productive and efficient inputs – whatever they may be.

If the rest of the world has access to the best available seeds, fertilisers, grass varieties, etc, and we say ‘no, we won’t have a bar of them’, that might make Tasmanian consumers feel good but, in the longer term, it will make many farmers – and industry sectors – unviable.

That’s not to deny the cachet of the high value products that we grow and make. These are in demand, and some farmers and producers are achieving enviable returns. However, it is simply not possible for all products and all producers to be in those markets.

Having said that, we must work with the cards we are dealt. If this is the politician’s decision, then the government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

For more than a decade now, the government has promised Tasmanians that it will seek to promote and exploit our GM-free status with a marketing campaign. Yet there has been no investment in developing this value proposition, let alone promoting it. The generic ‘Brand Tasmania’ concept isn’t sharply focused enough or sufficiently well-funded to deliver the necessary outcomes. The government needs to put significant dollars on the table for this – now.

If Tasmania is to be a GM-free state, then why do we allow GM products into the state? The government needs to legislate to ban any GM products being sold in Tasmania. You have to be consistent; otherwise the ban simply harms our local farmers.

The government has said it supports GM research being conducted here; and that it sees opportunities for non-GM research to deliver equivalent efficiency gains. Industry won’t invest scarce research dollars in a marketplace as small as Tasmania. So, if either of these propositions is to be delivered, then the government must commit substantial funding to both of these objectives.

We’re ready and willing to have these discussions with the state government about how it intends to meet these requirements – and we will certainly be holding them accountable to delivering on these expectations.

Jan Davis’ Tasmanian Country column today (Fri)

We were shocked at the government’s announcement of an indefinite ban on use of genetically modified technology in Tasmania last week.

Despite what you may have read, the TFGA supported the GMO moratorium being continued, not because of any scientific proof of problems, but because of the current situation in our industry.

However, the reality is there are no genetically engineered products ready for market that are suited to the Tasmanian farming sector. We know there are some close to market-ready, so we suggested a shorter moratorium (say three years) with some trigger points for review.

If research delivered game-changing opportunities, like those we can see on the horizon for poppies and dairy pastures, we wanted the chance to have a close look at costs and benefits on a case by case basis to see if the grounds for the moratorium still held.

Most farmers supported this position, as did the government’s Food Industry Advisory Council. This indefinite ban was far beyond the consensus position and can not be aligned with the government’s own commissioned research.

A report prepared for the Minister by DPIPWE acknowledged that there was broad acceptance that the moratorium was about markets and brand. However, views differ as to the extent to which GM freedom is a factor in market acceptance and in consumers’ preparedness to pay a premium for products.

A Macquarie Franklin report commissioned by the government last year estimated that less than five per cent of producers are using the GM moratorium as a specific component of their marketing and branding and few products attract any price premium.

The FreshLogic group undertook market research for the government on this matter said freedom from GMOs was one of a range of second-tier attributes consumers considered when purchasing. However, they ranked it behind better known ethical attributes such as Australian grown and organic – and these are obviously not specific advantages for Tasmanian farmers.

It said Tasmania’s markets were ambivalent about the state’s GM-free status.

There is little indication of a price premium generated by the GM-free attribute in the domestic market. Less than 20 per cent of consumers rank GM freedom as a consideration in purchasing decisions and it cannot be certain they will pay more for it.

The researchers also found Asian consumers do not have a high level of recognition of GM foods. The underlying perception of GM foods in these markets was that they are not good for human health; but consumers were not prepared to pay a price premium for GM-free products.

The vast bulk of product grown by Tasmanian farmers is in commodity products like dairy powders, processed vegetables, wool, poppies and grains. They are not branded as Tasmanian products. Often, they are mixed with product from other suppliers and could not be branded even if we wanted to go down that path.

Our participation in these bulk markets is based on our farmers keeping their costs of production below the price that buyers will pay. That in turn means using the most productive and efficient inputs – whatever they may be.

Denying farmers access to the best available seeds, fertilisers, grass varieties etc might make Tasmanian consumers feel good; but, in the longer term, it will make many farmers – and industry sectors – unviable.

For more than a decade, the government has promised a GM-free marketing campaign – yet they have done nothing. The generic ‘Brand Tasmania’ concept isn’t sharply focused enough or sufficiently well-funded to deliver the necessary outcomes. The government needs to put significant dollars on the table for this – now.

If Tasmania is to be a GM-free state, then why do we allow GM products into the state? The government needs to legislate to ban any GM products being sold in Tasmania. You have to be consistent; otherwise the ban simply harms our local farmers.

The government has said it supports GM research being conducted here; and that it sees opportunities for non-GM research to deliver equivalent efficiency gains. Industry won’t invest scarce research dollars in a marketplace as small as Tasmania when there is such a strong anti-GM message. So, if either of these propositions is to be delivered, then the government must commit substantial funding to both of these objectives.

Many countries now promote their primary products as ‘clean & green’. The phrase has lost the meaning it once had. To have any substance, our claim now needs to be backed up by hard evidence and greater marketing efforts. We’re certainly going to be holding the government accountable for delivering on these expectations.

The TFGA’s submission to the review can be viewed on our website.