Scientists comment on proposed GM moratorium in South Australia

Leading South Australian agricultural scientists are alarmed by a proposed Bill by South Australian Democrat Ian Gilfillan to place a five-year moratorium on GMOs in South Australia.

The Bill was tabled in the South Australian Legislative Council on Wednesday July 17, according to a spokesperson from Gilfillan's office.

A statement by the group of 11 scientists, who included Prof Rick Roush, CEO of the Weeds CRC, and Prof Peter Langridge, research director of the CRC for Molecular Plant Breeding, as well as a number of other prominent and internationally known plant and agricultural scientists from South Australia, was released on Tuesday.

The statement outlines the scientists' growing concern that politicians and the general public are being misled by false information from anti-GM lobbyists including Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, who recently toured Australia.

Schmeiser addressed South Australian members of parliament last week. Although some media reports have touted Schmeiser as an expert on GM, his main claim to fame comes from losing a lawsuit to Monsanto earlier this year, over his use of their Roundup resistant GM canola seed without paying.

Schmeiser claims that his seed stock was contaminated by cross-pollination by neighbouring farms growing the GM variety, however the Federal Court of Canada found him guilty of knowingly using the variety and ordered him to pay more than $C150,000 in damages and costs.

Gilfillan's proposed Bill would put a five year moratorium on all GM plant material other than GM carnations and GM plants grown in a secure research environment, in order to preserve the identity of existing non-GM crops.

This would not only prevent any commercial release of GM crops, but also field trials of any other GM crops under development.

Hi main reason for introducing this Bill, according to his speech to the SA Legislative Council, is to protect export crops, due to the increasing sensitivity of international markets to GM foodstuffs and GM contamination of foodstuffs, as well as the possibility of cross-pollination.

But Gilfillan also made mention of the Schmeiser case, and espoused his views on Monsanto's business practice, including reference to "secret police."

Gilfillan did not return calls from Australian Biotechnology News.

"What we're hoping is that [the SA parliament] will slow down and take a harder look at it," said the Weed CRC's Roush.

Roush said that the most worrying aspect was that politicians had been listening to people who were not basing claims on fact, while ignoring the scientists and their evidence.

"Adelaide has built a strong international reputation in agricultural science and biotechnology," read the scientists' statement in part. "But some of our local politicians prefer to take their advice from questionable overseas lobbyists without even bothering to check their credibility."

"Ironically, world-leading research to investigate possible environmental and commercial risks of GM canola has been conducted in Adelaide, with the world's largest and most detailed study of pollen flow in canola published recently after very careful peer evaluation in the prestigious international journal Science."

The canola research indicated that, while pollination of plants in fields up to three kilometres away did occur, it did so at an extremely low rate, with less than 10 seeds in 100,000 carrying the herbicide resistant gene.

However, while scientists have said that the study demonstrates that exclusion zones and realistic tolerance limits are adequate; anti-GM lobbyists have argued that this proves that GM and conventional farming cannot co-exist.

Roush said that of all crops grown in Australia, canola is clearly the most worrisome when it comes to the possibility of becoming a superweed, so this study could be described as the worst case scenario for gene flow from GM crops.

But he didn't believe that it warranted a complete ban on GMOs in South Australia.

"If the concern is about canola, then have a moratorium on canola GMOs," he said.

The scientists' statement expressed concerns that the benefits of GM crops were being ignored.

They also claimed that the proposed moratorium would have far-reaching effects on SA agriculture, including creating a false impression that a large GM-free export market existed.

Roush said that in Canada, claims that growing GM canola had ruined the market were untrue, and in fact canola exports had increased by 25 per cent in 2000-2001, the highest levels ever, despite a large proportion of the crop being GM.

A moratorium for five years would put SA well behind the pack when it was finally lifted, as the introduction of GM technology was a slow and highly regulated process and rapid adoption would be unlikely.

The South Australian Farmers Federation (SAFF) has also criticised the proposed bill.

While the Federation is neither pro- nor anti-GM, it does not want to stifle research.

Gary Burgess, chairman of the SAFF Gene Technology Taskforce, noted that the ban on GMOs in New Zealand had decimated their research industry, and said that SAFF did not want to see the same thing happen in SA.

He also pointed out the cost involved in enforcing a quarantine system to regulate the moratorium.