Summary of issues raised in submissions received from prescribed experts, agencies and authorities on any matters considered relevant to the preparation of a Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for DIR 108
The Regulator received a number of submissions from prescribed experts, agencies and authorities on matters considered relevant to the preparation of the RARMP. All issues raised in submissions relating to risks to the health and safety of people and the environment were considered. The issues raised, and where they are addressed in the consultation RARMP, are summarised below.
| Summary of issues raised | Comment |
|---|---|
In preparing the RARMP the Regulator should consider:
|
These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The potential for expression of the introduced genes to lead to increased spread and persistence of the GM canola in the environment was assessed in the context of a commercial scale release in Risk Scenario 2 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. The potential for harm due to expression of the introduced genes in other related plants, including non-GM herbicide tolerant canola and weedy species, as a result of gene transfer was assessed in Risk Scenarios 3 and 4 and were not identified as risks that warranted further assessment. |
| Council has resolved to take neutral position on the use of GM crops. | Noted. |
| For marketing reasons, Council does not support the growing, storage and transport of GM crops within the Shire. Council noted that there is no current legislative power that enables any Council Officer to enforce the implementation or policing of this Policy. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Some areas may be designated under State or Territory law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM or non-GM crops (or both) for marketing purposes. However, marketing issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. |
| The DNA of these plants has been altered and there have been no long term studies regarding the human health impacts of these products. | This issue was considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. Toxicity of the parental GM canola lines to humans is considered in Section 5.4.1. The conventionally bred GM canola proposed for release is not expected to be any more toxic than the parental lines as the same genes will be expressed. The proteins encoded by the introduced genes are well characterised and are not known to be toxic or allergenic. The potential for allergic reactions in people, or toxicity in people and other organisms, as a result of exposure to GM plant materials was assessed in Risk Scenario 1 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. |
| Some of the products containing GM canola include baby foods, potato chips and biscuits. | FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. FSANZ has approved the use of food derived from GM InVigor® canola and GM Roundup Ready® canola for human consumption. These approvals also cover GM InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola. |
| GM foods seem to be largely exempt from labelling requirements. | FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. |
| The commercial release of GM canola into the environment may impact on non GM growers. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Based on the information presently known, Council continues to object to the growing of genetically modified (GM) crops in its area. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. The Regulator must not issue a licence unless satisfied that risks can be managed to protect human health and safety and the environment. |
| LGA deals with issues resulting from this product escaping bulk transport vehicles when carting along the roadway after harvesting. LGA has had reports of GM canola growing on roadsides and concerns about who is responsible for cleaning up/containing the re-growth. Given that 90% of our roadsides have a conservation rating of high to very high, anything that can be done to minimise the risk of grain regeneration on our roadsides is appreciated in order to: a) Reduce farmers worries about cross contamination & b) Council concerns about eradication of the product on its roadsides. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The potential for expression of the introduced genes to lead to increased spread and persistence of the GM canola in the environment, including non-cropped disturbed habitats such as roadsides, was assessed in Risk Scenario 2 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. Further information on the control of volunteer GM canola on roadsides can be found in the Control of roadside canola volunteers fact sheet, available on the OGTR website. |
| GM canola is a concern for ratepayers who want the municipality to be a GM free zone. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. The Regulator must not issue a licence unless satisfied that risks can be managed to protect human health and safety and the environment. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and the currently available scientific information, in the context of the large scale of the proposed release, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. Some areas may be designated under State or Territory law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM or non-GM crops (or both) for marketing purposes. However, marketing issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. |
| Due to variance of opinion, consensus by Councils on at least a regional basis must be attained. Continued haphazard and separate applications and/or approvals from/for various companies cannot be supported. | The Gene Technology Act 2000 allows a person to apply to the Gene Technology Regulator for a licence authorising specified dealings with one or more GMOs. The Regulator must consider an application and must issue the licence, or refuse to issue the licence, within a specified time period. Each application for a DIR licence is assessed on a ‘case by case’ basis. |
| In recent times there have been various media articles highlighting difficulties of treating roadside vegetation that is now immune to easy chemical treatment. It is suggested that this vegetation is GM. | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The potential for expression of the introduced genes to lead to increased spread and persistence of the GM canola in the environment, including non-cropped disturbed habitats such as roadsides, was assessed in Risk Scenario 2 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. Further information on the control of volunteer GM canola on roadsides can be found in the Control of roadside canola volunteers fact sheet, available on the OGTR website. |
| LGA has adopted the precautionary principle as set out in the guiding principles of the Environment Protection Act. Hence it opposes trials of GM canola due to uncertainties and potential impacts of GMOs on health, environment and agriculture within our area. Concerned there is a lack of scientific certainty around the cumulative and compounding impacts of further modifying canola and/or products. | These issues were considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and the currently available scientific information, in the context of the large scale of the proposed release, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| LGA is yet to be convinced that the release of GM products without significant direct benefits to public health should be permitted. Motto of “pure” provides a market advantage. Do not support growing, storage or transport of GM crops within this area in direct opposition to this marketing strategy. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Some areas may be designated under State or Territory law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM or non-GM crops (or both) for marketing purposes. However, marketing issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. |
| Expect secure safeguards to be in place to prevent escape from trial areas and to ensure bees do not spread GM canola to other areas. As there is a concern that canola is considered a high risk crop for pollen mediated gene flow, further research is required to resolve that issue. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. Application DIR 108 is for the commercial release of GM canola. The potential for harm due to expression of the introduced genes in other canola plants as a result of gene transfer was assessed in Risk Scenario 3 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. This Risk Scenario included consideration of canola pollination by honeybees. Risk to human health and safety and the environment from the proposed release are assessed to be negligible. Therefore, the Regulator has not proposed any limits or controls to restrict the release. |
| LGA has significant variation in topography, soil, water and other physical attributes. Therefore locations of trial crops need to be disclosed to provide further meaningful response, particularly from people familiar with the area where the release could take place. | Application DIR 108 is for the commercial release of GM canola in all commercial canola growing areas of Australia. |
| LGA believes it is important that any GM application should receive a broad public notification/opportunity for comment so that informed choices can be made by more than just the regulators and those supporters for GM releases. | The Act requires extensive consultation on all DIR RARMPs with a wide range of experts, agencies and authorities, and with the public. The public invitation to comment must be published in the Commonwealth Gazette, in a national newspaper and on the OGTR website. The Regulator routinely exceeds these requirements by publishing the invitation to comment on the RARMP in regional newspapers as well as sending it to people and organisations that have registered on the OGTR mailing list. In finalising the RARMP and making a decision on whether or not to issue a licence, the Regulator must have regard to the submissions received. |
| Limited if any commercial growing of canola in the Shire and no expertise within council on this specialised subject. No comment is offered. | Noted. |
| Council not involved in managing GM crops and has no expertise with regards to a response. Suggests consulting Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA). | WALGA has been consulted. |
| Any impact on honey bees and honey production/labelling? | This issue was considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. The GM canola proposed for release is the product of conventional breeding between GM canola lines already assessed and approved by the Regulator for commercial release. The toxicity of the parental GM canola lines was discussed in Chapter 1. This discussion included consideration of toxicity to people, including via honey, and toxicity to honeybees. The potential for allergic reactions in people, or toxicity in people and other organisms, as a result of exposure to GM plant materials was assessed in Risk Scenario 1 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. The hybrid canola proposed for release is not expected to be any more toxic or allergenic than the parental lines. FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. Products derived from InVigor® x Roundup Ready® are approved by FSANZ for use in human food. |
| Any impact on aquatic weeds? | This issue was considered in Chapter 1 of the RARMP. Apart from the herbicide tolerance traits, the GM canola has the same characteristics as non-GM canola and other already approved GM canola varieties.Brassica napus is not known to be able to hybridise with any aquatic weed species under natural conditions. Therefore, pollen mediated gene flow to aquatic species is highly unlikely. |
| Any impact of associated excessive use of Roundup then impacting on native vegetation and waterways? | Roundup Ready® canola, tolerant to glyphosate, is already approved for commercial release under DIR 020/2002. Issues relating to the use of herbicides are outside the scope of the Regulator’s assessments. The APVMA has regulatory responsibility for the supply of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides, in Australia. |
| Any different impact if it strayed onto roadside reserves or Council land? | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The potential for expression of the introduced genes to lead to increased spread and persistence of the GM canola in the environment, including non-cropped disturbed habitats such as roadsides, was assessed in Risk Scenario 2 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. Further information on the control of volunteer GM canola on roadsides can be found in the Control of roadside canola volunteers fact sheet, available on the OGTR website. |
| Are there likely to be any changed impact on hayfever sufferers? | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The GM canola proposed for release is the product of conventional breeding between GM canola lines already assessed and approved by the Regulator for commercial release. The potential for allergic reactions in people, or toxicity in people and other organisms, as a result of exposure to GM plant materials was assessed in Risk Scenario 1 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. The hybrid canola proposed for release is not expected to be any more toxic or allergenic that the parental lines. |
| Is this likely to impact on the amount of canola crops being grown at once? Amount of synchronized sediment run-off and even more mono-culture? | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. Application DIR 108 is for the commercial release of GM canola in all commercial canola growing areas of Australia. The RARMP for this release concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. Therefore, the Regulator has not proposed any limits or controls to restrict the release. If approved, this GM canola could be grown in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and WA. However, State government requirements imposed for marketing reasons would currently prevent this GM canola from being grown in SA and Tasmania. The introduced traits are not expected to alter the geographic range of where canola is currently grown. |
| Based on the precautionary principle, the approval of potentially high risk developments such as the commercial release of GM canola, should not occur until public and environmental safety can be guaranteed and the community has had an opportunity to be informed about and respond to risks they may be subjected to. Taking into account the uncertainty, more comprehensive safety assessment processes and extensive public consultation are required prior to the commercial release of this product. | These issues were considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. The Act requires extensive consultation on all DIR RARMPs with a wide range of experts, agencies and authorities, and with the public. The public invitation to comment must be published in the Commonwealth Gazette, in a national newspaper and on the OGTR website. The Regulator routinely exceeds these requirements by publishing the invitation to comment on the RARMP in regional newspapers as well as sending it to people and organisations that have registered on the OGTR mailing list. In finalising the RARMP and making a decision on whether or not to issue a licence, the Regulator must have regard to the submissions received. |
| Health risks that the release of GM canola may pose through consumption of food products or derivatives should be considered. The rights of the community to choose whether they consume GM foods based on an adequate labelling and measures to prevent contamination of non-GM crops. The wider community should be informed about the ingredients, and GM content, of the foods they consume. While noted that both InVigor and Roundup Ready have already been licensed for commercial release separately the two should be assessed separately as per the FSANZ’ case-by-case basis, rather than being covered by existing approvals for each separate component. Given the difficulty of identifying all of the unintended expressions of genetic modification, it would be prudent for FSANZ to adopt amore rigorous safety assessment. Need for GM foods to be subjected to clinical trials in the same way pharmaceutical drugs are, including routine use of oral toxicity studies in animals. Some such studies have found evidence of adverse health effects. | These issues were considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. Toxicity of the parental GM canola lines to humans is considered in Chapter 1, Section 5.4.1. The conventionally bred GM canola proposed for release is not expected to be any more toxic or allergenic than the parental lines as the same genes will be expressed. The proteins encoded by the introduced genes are well characterised and are not known to be toxic or allergenic. The potential for allergic reactions in people, or toxicity in people and other organisms, as a result of exposure to GM plant materials was assessed in Risk Scenario 1 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. Products derived from InVigor® x Roundup Ready® are approved by FSANZ for use in human food. For more information on FSANZ GM food assessments, see FSANZ website. |
The impacts to flora and fauna of herbicides use on herbicide resistant GM crops and cross contamination to nearby crops should be considered. Herbicides have a range of undesirable environmental impacts, including:
|
These issues were considered in Chapter 1 of the RARMP. Issues relating to the use of herbicides are outside the scope of the Regulator’s assessments. The APVMA has regulatory responsibility for the supply of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides, in Australia. The development of herbicide resistant weeds was discussed in Chapter 1, Section 5.5.3. Herbicide resistance is managed by the APVMA under conditions of registration for the use of agricultural chemicals in Australia. |
| Impact on organic farms adjacent and/or in proximity to GM crops should be considered. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Do not have a formal position on this issue as there is no cropping area within the municipality. | Noted. |
| Notes that FSANZ has approved this canola to be used for human consumption. As this product will be used in food it should be clearly indicated on any labelling so that consumers can make informed choices | FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. Products derived from InVigor® x Roundup Ready® are approved by FSANZ for use in human food. |
| Believes it is important that a licence protects the interests of Australian farmers and Australia’s food security from any cross contamination. Trusts that such protection will be included in any permit granted for the release of GM canola into our environment. | This issue was considered in Chapter 3 of the RARMP. The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. The risk assessment concluded that there are negligible risks to people and the environment from the proposed release of GM canola. Therefore, no specific licence conditions are imposed to treat these negligible risks. |
| Request that you err on the side of caution regarding commercial release of GM canola to protect human health and safety. Asks that the rights of farmers to farm without impediment that may arise from neighbouring GM crops be protected. | These issues were considered in Chapters 1 and 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Supportive of the application. | Noted. |
| The RARMP should focus significantly on new risks that may arise in this line of GM canola due to the synergistic effects of gene stacking. For example, the application identifies 2 risks, gene flow into other organisms such as weedy species and the emergence of canola volunteers tolerant to the herbicides. It is apparent that the effect of these events occurring in this stacked GM line is potentially different, as having two herbicide resistant traits present reduces the potential tools to manage resistance. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP discusses the parental GM canola lines in Chapter 1, as part of the risk assessment context for this application. The Risk assessment chapter (Ch 2) then focuses on identifying and characterising risks to the health and safety of people or to the environment from dealings with the conventionally bred InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola. The potential for harm due to expression of the introduced genes in other related plants, including weedy species, as a result of gene transfer was assessed in Risk Scenario 4 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment The potential for expression of the introduced genes to lead to increased spread and persistence of the GM canola in the environment, including agricultural settings, was assessed in Risk Scenario 2 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. Volunteer InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola and related species can be controlled by a range of alternative herbicides, tank mixing, and non-chemical management methods. |
| Shire is now of the opinion that concerns regarding cross fertilisation and increased maintenance costs through inappropriate germination on Council property have been satisfactorily addressed for the purposes of these trials. | Noted. |
| Council expresses strong feeling that the Government should preclude the release and use of GMOs until demonstrated to be safe scientifically. GMOs should be considered as part of an integrated regional natural resource management approach. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. As required by the Act, extensive consultation with a wide range of experts, agencies and authorities, and with the public, will be undertaken before the Regulator makes a decision on this application. |
| Community members are concerned about potential impact on organic or bio-dynamic producers, which could also have impact on regional economy. Potential damage to ‘clean and green’ image and impact on livelihoods. Many local organic and bio-dynamic farms in the region. Potential of damage to markets if consumers in other countries reject GM crops. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Council strongly supports the current moratorium in SA. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Some areas may be designated under State or Territory law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM or non-GM crops (or both) for marketing purposes. However, marketing issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. |
| Recognises that the commercial cultivation of GM canola is still subject to restriction in SA but region borders VIC which does not have such restrictions. ‘Clean green’ reputation and market may be affected as a result of real or perceived presence of GM canola in the area, given the proximity to VIC. Noted that issues of marketability and trade are outside evaluation scope. However, is concerned about loss of economic benefits and marketability due to commercial release of GM canola. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Considers there is insufficient research and evidence into possible deleterious environmental and public health issues to warrant the issue of a licence. | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| Would like to encourage the Regulator to employ the precautionary principle when preparing RARMP. | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| Has not identified any specific risks to human health and safety and the environment that should be considered in the RARMP. | Noted. |
| Note that some medicines may contain canola oil as an ingredient. Asks this to be considered. | Toxicity of the parental GM canola lines to humans is considered in Chapter 1, Section 5.4.1. The conventionally bred GM canola proposed for release is not expected to be any more toxic or allergenic than the parental lines as the same genes will be expressed. The proteins encoded by the introduced genes are well characterised and are not known to be toxic or allergenic. The potential for allergic reactions in people, or toxicity in people and other organisms, as a result of exposure to GM plant materials was assessed in Risk Scenario 1 and was not identified as a risk that warranted further assessment. FSANZ is responsible for human food safety assessment and food labelling, including GM food. Products derived from InVigor® x Roundup Ready® are approved by FSANZ for use in human food. |
| The applicant needs to consider both crop management plans (Roundup Ready® and InVigor® canola) simultaneously but should submit only one management plan for the release of the stacked GM canola. That plan should include the mandatory audit process from the InVigor® canola crop management plan. | This issue was considered in Chapter 1 of the RARMP.Crop Management Plans have been developed separately by Bayer CropScience and Monsanto for InVigor® and Roundup Ready® canola, respectively. The applicant has stated that growers are required to follow these CMPs when growing either InVigor® canola, Roundup Ready® canola or InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola. |
| It is not clear if there is an available strip test for the presence of InVigor traits. A strip test would streamline identification and management of volunteers. | This issue was addressed in Chapter 4 of the RARMP (ie proposed licence conditions). ELISA (Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay) test strips have been developed to act as a rapid and accurate way of detecting InVigor® hybrid and Roundup Ready® canola separately. Used in conjunction, the applicant expects that these test strips will be used in Australia to positively identify the stacked event if InVigor® x Roundup Ready® canola is commercially released.The proposed licence conditions include a requirement to provide a testing methodology to identify the presence of the GMO or genetic material in a recipient organism within 30 days of the licence being issued. |
| There needs to be a full report provided from trial under licence DIR104 at the conclusion of the trial (Feb 2014). The report should include all relevant safety-related data for assessment from these dealings before further consideration of DIR 108 application for commercial release. | The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| Currently considering declaring the Shire as GM free. Council officers have concerns that approval of unrestricted licence to release GM canola would fail to take into account locally significant risks to health, safety and the environment. Encourage consideration of working within local areas to determine the appropriateness or otherwise of GM crops. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Some areas may be designated under State or Territory law for the purpose of preserving the identity of GM or non-GM crops (or both) for marketing purposes. However, marketing issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| Notes that that there have been no reports of adverse environmental effects from either field trial or commercial release of the GM canolas (stacked or unstacked). Considers there are no new environmental concerns to be incorporated in the RARMP. | Noted. |
| Advises the OGTR that Shire Council has no position on the release of modified canola and does not wish to comment. | Noted. |
| Acknowledges that specific locations for the release have not been determined at this stage. No advice to provide at this preliminary phase, however its position is that it will adopt the precautionary principle in this matter and therefore opposes any release of GM canola within its Shire in the future due to uncertainties and potential impacts of GMOs on health, environment and agriculture in the district. | These issues were considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. Application DIR 108 is for the commercial release of GM canola in all commercial canola growing areas of Australia. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
Council policy is that it strongly prefers the district to be GMO free.
Does not support issuing of a licence to Bayer for dealings involving the commercial release of GM InVigor x Roundup Ready canola.
Before commercial release is allowed in SA, Council believes the following concerns need to be addressed:
|
The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. Application DIR 108 is for the commercial release of GM canola in all commercial canola growing areas of Australia. The RARMP for this release concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. Therefore, the Regulator has not proposed any limits or controls to restrict the release. |
| Recognises that the commercial cultivation of GM canola is still subject to restriction in SA but region borders VIC which does not have such restrictions. Noted that issues of marketability and trade are outside evaluation scope. However, is concerned about loss of economic benefits and marketability due to commercial release of GM canola. ‘Clean green’ reputation and market may be affected as a result of real or perceived of GM canola into the area, given the proximity to VIC. | The Act requires the Regulator to identify and manage risks to human health and safety and the environment posed by or as a result of gene technology. Marketing and trade issues are outside the matters to which the Regulator may have regard when deciding whether or not to issue a licence. These are matters for States and Territories, and industry. |
| Considers there is insufficient research and evidence into possible deleterious environmental and public health issues to warrant the issue of a licence. | This issue was considered in Chapter 2 of the RARMP. The RARMP for this release considered information provided by the applicant and currently available scientific information, and concluded that risks to human health and the environment are negligible. |
| LGA is sure that the representatives of the local agricultural sector would be interested in the proposal of the release of genetically modified canola into the commercial growing areas of Australia. | A public invitation to comment on the RARMP will be published in a national newspaper, regional newspapers, the Commonwealth Gazette and on the OGTR website, as well as sent to people and organisations that have registered on the OGTR mailing list. |