Genetically modified food: should Australian states and local councils be able to declare their regions GM-free zones?

The buttons above: Internet links takes you to Web sources for this issue - Analysis help opens a guide to analysing the language of the news media, with sample analyses - Clippings package takes you to a list of all the items used to compile this outline
SCROLL DOWN to read ALL the sections, including arguments for and against

The issue
In November 2000, a meeting of state and federal officials agreed that state governments would have the right to decide for themselves whether genetically modified crops would be grown within their territories.
The decision, later to be made law under the federal government's Gene Technology 2000 Bill, gave states the right to reject a particular genetically modified organism's (GMO's) release on marketing grounds.
This concession to states' rights to control the agriculture within their borders has been criticised on a number of grounds. There are those who are concerned that the proposed powers to do not give states the right to act against GMOs on environmental grounds. They also object to the fact that the new law will not give states the right to seek a blanket prohibition of GMOs. Instead the states that wish to be GM-free will have to seek a product-by-product ban. There are also those who believe similar powers should be given to local councils. On the other hand there are those who fear that these proposed powers could be used by environmental extremists to hinder the development of beneficial crop technologies.

What they said ...
`Australian agriculture won't be around for that much longer - it just won't be able to compete'
Jim Peacock, the CSIRO's Plant Industry chief, arguing that Australian agriculture will not survive without GM crops

'By meeting the overseas standards, Australia could reap the benefits of supplying fresh produce off season to ... Europe'
Claire Miller, a specialist journalist, arguing that Australia could gain a competitive advantage by supplying organically grown crops rather than GM crops

Echo Issue Outline 2001 / 08
Copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo on-line newspaper information site.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

Background
Genetic engineering allows scientists to select a single gene for a single characteristic and transfer that stretch of DNA from one organism to another - even between different species.
Techniques used to produce transgenic plants
There are a number of techniques that can be used for getting a desired gene into a plant. * One technique makes use of a soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This microbe can insert stretches of DNA into plants. Scientists have devised a means to get this bacterium to deliver genes of their choice.
* Also used is a technique called biolistics. This uses a 'gun' to fire the desired gene into a plant's cells. The "foreign DNA" is carried on tiny pieces of gold. With luck, the plant will take up the DNA and start to read out its instructions. Wheat and rice have been modified in this way.
* Another method uses protoplasts. These are plant cells which have had their tough walls removed. This gives the foreign DNA easier access to the cell interior.
No matter which technique is used, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it usually cannot function without an artificial boost.
Boosters (called "promoters") are artificially attached to the foreign genes and operate independently of the host's control mechanisms to promote the cell division of the inserted gene.
When developing plants through biotechnology, scientists also use selectable marker genes, attached to the inserted DNA, to determine whether transfer has been successful. Sometimes antibiotic-resistant marker genes have been used for this purpose. The success of genetic engineering techniques depends on the fact that many plants can be regenerated from single cells or small pieces of plant tissue. This means a successful modification can be multiplied very quickly.
The development and commercialisation of transgenic crops
The first transgenic or genetically modified plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983.
In 1986 the first patent was issued on a genetically engineered variety of corn crop that has increased nutritional value.
In 1993 the first GM plant was commercially produced in the United States. This was a delayed-ripening tomato.
In 1996 the European Union approved the importation and use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans in foods for people and feed for animals. These beans have been modified to survive being sprayed with the Roundup herbicide that is applied to a field to kill weeds.
(Monsanto is a multinational company specialising in biotechnology. It is based in the United States.)
However, not all GM products have been approved for use in Europe. Concern appears to be particularly strong in Great Britain. This seems in part due to British consumers' distrust of official assurances about food safety. It is popularly claimed that this distrust stems from Britain's experience with mad cow disease.

There has been an effective moratorium in Europe on the importation and trialing of GM crops for the last two years. This has been in part because of consumer resistance and in part because of the lack of an agreed regulatory process for attempting to ensure the safety of GM crops and foodstuffs.
In 1998 44 per cent of the United States' soybean crop and 36 per cent of its corn were produced from GM seeds. The United States Department of Agriculture has approved more than 50 GM plant varieties for use by US farmers. Australian authorities have so far approved only one GM crop, Ingard cotton.
United States enthusiasm for GM crops has diminished somewhat recently as a GM corn (Starlink), approved only for animal consumption, has been found in large numbers of human food products in both Japan and the United States. Starlink was developed by the French-based multinational company, Aventis. The Starlink gene has even been found in corn not produced by Aventis.
This has led to the recall of manufactured corn-based products and to the destruction of large quantities of grain. There have been suggestions that Aventis may be held financially liable for these losses.
Aventis announced in November 2000 that it intends to focus on pharmaceuticals and plans to divest its activities in agriculture.

Internet links

The Australian Academy of Science has produced a detailed overview of genetically modified food crops. The overview is intended to inform both students and the general public.
It is an excellent place from which to begin a study of the GM debate as it is presented on the Internet.
It includes clear, detailed information on how genetic modification is achieved, an overview of the major GM projects currently being undertaken in Australia and a detailed discussion of the major concerns being raised about GM crops.
The overview can be found at http://www.science.org.au/nova/009/009key.htm

The (Australian) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has produced a clear and quite detailed treatment of the GM debate. This can be found at http://genetech.csiro.au/debate.htm
It considers the science of gene technology (benefits and risks) and looks at a range of community views for and against the technology. (Please note, although the treatment appears impartial, the CSIRO is the major body in Australia involved in the development of GM crops and foodstuffs.).

The CSIRO also has a section of its site given over to explaining the regulations which govern the development and use of gene technology in Australia. This includes information drawn from the Gene Technology Act 2000. It can be found at http://genetech.csiro.au/regulation.htm

An Australian federal parliament background briefing paper was prepared as part of the debate on the Gene Technology Bill.
The briefing paper is titled 'Genetic engineering and agriculture: Australian farming at the crossroads'
It was written by Els Wynen of the Economics, Commerce and Industrial Relations Group and was released on 23 November 1999.
This is an excellent overview of the situation in Australia regarding genetically modified organisms. The paper covers areas such as farmers' attitudes, labelling and environmental impacts. The briefing paper can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp08.htm

ABC radio's Background Briefing on 26 November 2000 broadcast an extensive report on the public relations problems being faced by companies involved in agricultural biotechnology.
The program focuses on Aventis, the multinational corporation involved in the Starlink corn contamination scandal in the United States and Japan.
The same company was also supplying GM canola to farmers in Mt Gambier, in South Australia, in trial plantings that were not properly regulated.
The program was titled 'GM crops 2000: The unmaking of a genetically modified PR campaign.'
A full transcript if the broadcast can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s216903.htm

The well-regarded science magazine, New Scientist, has set up a special sub-section of its site to look at genetically modified crops and foodstuffs. The subsite provides an index of all New Scientist articles dealing with genetically modified crops. The index includes articles published in the current month through to material published as early as May, 1996. The clickable index can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/gm/
The Nuffield Foundation is an independent British charity which promotes education and social welfare, often by means of research. In 1991, the Foundation established the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The bioethics council is an independent body which investigates the ethical issues raised by new developments in medicine and biology
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has produced a report titled 'Genetically modified crops: the ethical and social issues'. This is an informative discussion of many of the issues involved. It can be found at http://www.nuffield.org/bioethics/publication/modifiedcrops/index.html

Aventis is a major developer and manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals and biotechnology.
Aventis was launched in December 1999 through the merger of Hoechst AG of Germany and Rh“ne-Poulenc SA of France.
Its global corporate headquarters are in Strasbourg, France. Aventis employs around 95,000 people in more than 120 countries and recorded pro forma sales in 1999 of 20.5 billion euros.
Aventis home page can be found at http://212.38.30.154/homepage/homepage_nf.htm

The CropScience section of Aventis website includes a series of statements outlining the company's position on a number of aspects of biotechnological development and management. This can be found at
http://212.38.30.154/cropsc/position/position.htm

Friends of the Earth are a British-based conservation pressure group. They are represented in 61 countries. Over 90 per cent of their funding comes from individual donations. They are strongly opposed to GM crops and foodstuffs.
A brief outline of the group's arguments against GM food can be found at http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/food_and_biotechnology/gm_food/#what
A more detailed explanation of arguments against GM foodstuffs and crops can be found at http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/food_and_biotechnology/information/gm_food/mp2.html

Arguments in favour of Australian states and local councils being able to declare their regions GM-free zones
1. European and Australian markets are suspicious of genetically modified foods
There is currently an effective moratorium on GMOs being trialled or imported into Europe (including Great Britain). This is in part a consequence of a popular rejection of government assurances about the safety of food supplies. This popular scepticism has been encouraged by the spread of mad cow disease. There have also been scandals surrounding salmonella-infected eggs. Such disasters have lead to widespread public distrusted of food that is believed to have been tampered with in any way. The result is that there is growing enthusiasm for organic crops. Organic crops are grown without the use of fertilisers or pesticides and by farmers that use environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. GMOs are not grown on any farm that is certified as organic.
Within Britain, popular enthusiasm for organic produce has spelt the effective end of GM foodstuffs. As a result of this popular preference Britain's three largest supermarket chains are purchasing produce from growers who employ environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. This rules out suppliers that produce GMOs.
It is claimed that the popular taste for pure foods has outstripped lawmakers' capacity to regulate GM foodstuffs. One of Britain's major food retailers claims that meeting the wishes of its customers meant that it was carefully labelling all foodstuffs to indicate the presence of GM ingredients while the parliament was still debating whether retailers should be required to do so.
GM food stuffs have proved so unpopular with British consumers that two of Britain's largest supermarket chains withdrew from sale their one GM product because it had failed to sell. Similarly, Tesco, the largest supermarket chain, has reformulated its 15,000 own-brand lines to remove GM ingredients.
Such suspicion of GM crops creates a particular marketing opportunity for Australia. It has been claimed that if Australia, or at least certain states within Australia, can demonstrate they are GM-crop-free and are using environmentally sustainable practices they will be able to sell large amounts of produce to Europe.
Claire Miller, a specialist journalist who has recently spent time as a journalism award winner in Britain, has claimed, 'By meeting the overseas standards, Australia could reap the benefits of supplying fresh produce off season to ... Europe.'
It has similarly been claimed that labelling laws in Australia that require manufacturers to indicate foodstuffs that contain genetically modified ingredients have created an informed market for GM-free products.

2. The manufacturers of genetically modified food crops cannot guarantee a full clean up after trial plantings
As recently as March 2001, it was reported in The Age that a crop of genetically modified Canola, from the French company Aventis, was dumped and left uncovered at an open landfill in Mount Gambier.
Also in March 2001, it was discovered that there were large numbers of banned GM crops, the remains of former trial crops, growing in Tasmania.
Tasmania imposed a 12-month moratorium on GM crops in July 2000. Since that time only two small canola crops had been planted with official permission and these had been grown inside insect proof screens.
The federal Health Department's gene technology regulator had been conducting official monitoring of sites where GM canola had been grown three years ago. The inspection revealed thousands of regrowth GM canola plants flowering at eleven sites around the state.
These discoveries have indicated that the two biotechnology companies involved, Aventis and Monsanto, had not ensured a full and effective clean up of trial-planting sites. The investigation has also revealed that there have been more trial planting sites than had been officially sanctioned.
David Llewellyn, Tasmania's Primary Industries Minister, has claimed that the discovery of these GM crops proves there have been serious breeches of the guidelines. Mr Llewellyn has also claimed that these discoveries show that the current federal regulations and monitoring arrangements are inadequate. It is not enough that the monitoring procedures have uncovered these illegal crops, they should either not have occurred at all or should have been discovered much earlier.
The Tasmanian government is now considering extending its 12-month moratorium on GM crops into a permanent ban. It remains to be seen whether the new federal legislation will allow it to institute such a ban other than on a crop-by-crop basis.

3. Testing does not guarantee that genetically modified foods are safe
A group of scientists have recently examined three applications made to the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority for the release of three genetically modified foods: two corns and a canola. On the strength of the applications the three products had been approved for release.
The scientists were conducting a study for the Public Health Association of Australia. They were charged with testing the adequacy of the procedures that have to be followed before a genetically modified product can be released. Their findings indicate that these procedures are inadequate.
The reviewing scientists' report indicates that in one case laboratory rats fed a herbicide-resistant genetically modified corn were found to have livers enlarged by up to 16 per cent. Despite this, no further testing was ordered to determine the cause of the enlargement and the canola was approved for release.
The supporting documents given by Monsanto to the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority claim that the manufacturing process would destroy any genetically modified DNA implanted in this corn. The Authority appears to have accepted this assurance. The scientists reviewing the approval procedures have argue that the testing protocols did not consider the possibility that the unprocessed modified corn might be eaten by livestock that would then be eaten by human beings.
The reviewing scientists were also concerned that Monsanto, while admitting that two non-conventional proteins had been inserted into a particular modified corn, would not provide details of the modification on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. The reviewing scientists argued that public health concerns should outweigh Monsanto's commercial considerations and that the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority should not have accepted commercial confidentiality as a reason for keeping the details of the modification secret.
Those states and municipalities within Australia that are seeking to be GM-free zones are concerned that testing procedures are not rigorous enough to protect them from potentially harmful GMOs.

4. Genetically modified crops can have unanticipated, negative, environmental side-effects
There is concern that GMOs may have effects on naturally occurring plants and animals. For example there are fears that genetically modified grain crops may cross pollinate with native grasses and reduce the variety of naturally occurring species.
There are further concerns that GMO may have unintended damaging effects other species. The most famous example is the impact that Monsanto's Bt corn is claimed to have had on the Monarch butterfly. This genetically engineered corn carries bacteria that is said to have damaging effects on the Monarch butterfly. The modified corn was intended to kill other corn pests but was not meant to poison the larva of the Monarch butterfly, however, it appears to be toxic to that species.
Similar apprehensions are felt about other genetically modified organisms. For example, Monsanto has developed an insect-resistant corn containing a new protein designed to rupture the gut of certain species of grubs. Not only has this corn not been tested on large numbers of human beings to see what effect it might have, it is also not clear what effect it might have once it enters the food chain. There are fears that such modified corn may not only have toxic effects on the pest species it is designed to kill, but it may have similar effects on other insect species whom it is not intended to kill, as well as poisoning the animal species that feed on these insect larva.
Other concerns are that breeding plants to generate toxins may encourage resistance in pests as well as harming beneficial species.
The over-riding concern is that these are very powerful technologies, with can have far-reaching environmental impacts that their developers do not appear to adequately appreciate.

5. Genetically modified crops are enduring
Finally there is concern that biotechnology used in agriculture may have long-lasting, if not permanent, negative effects. Those who hold these fears point to the recent contamination of human foodstuffs with Starlink, a genetically modified corn approved in the United States for animal consumption only. Aventis, the developer of Starlink, has claimed that it will take several years to remove the grain from supply links where it should not be.
More concerning is the fact that the Starlink gene has been found in corn crops grown from non-Aventis seed. What this appears to suggest is that cross pollination between Starlink and non-Starlink corn has seen the Starlink gene passed on to other species. This could mean that the Starlink gene becomes a wide-spread and virtually irremovable feature of the genetic composition of corns in the countries where Starlink has been grown.
There are apprehensions that the inadvertent spread of modified genes may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control. These concerns make some Australian states and local councils concerned to keep their areas completelt free of GM crops. Their apprehension is that unless they do so they will be unable to irradicate any undesirable side-effects of the biotechnology.

Arguments against Australian states and local councils being able to declare their regions GM-free zones
1. European governments are softening their attitudes toward genetically modified crops
The European parliament has recently backed new rules for GM products, increasing the chances that a two-year ban or moratorium on their use will soon be lifted.
The rules govern the testing and monitoring procedures that GM crops and foodstuffs will have to undergo before they are approved for release or consumption. It is believed that once these rules are in place then GM products will be able to be sold in Europe. Currently that is not the case.
Mr David Bowe, a British Labour MP, has stated, 'This effectively means the end of the moratorium ... I would anticipate some new GM approvals before autumn and this time next year I would expect to see new GM crops in British fields'.
Supporters of GM crops have argued that if Europe returns to these crops and Australian states have not planted them then Australia will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Jim Peacock, the CSIRO's Plant Industry chief, has made this point. Mr Peacock predicts that Australian agriculture will fare badly if it cannot supply GM crops once our major export markets begin to demand them. There is concern that Australian crop producers will lose out to United States suppliers who have embraced the new technologies with more enthusiasm.
Mr Peacock has stated, 'Australian agriculture won't be around for that much longer - it just won't be able to compete.'

2. The federal Australian government favours genetically modified crops
In February 2001, the Federal Government introduced legislation that could give business interests the deciding voice in the body that regulates food health and safety standards.
The Australian Government has helped to establish a new body, Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), with a different composition from the previous Australian and New Zealand Food Authority. Under the altered regulations, five members of this new ten-person group can be food industry representatives. Once the votes of trade and agricultural ministers, who also now form part of FSANZ, are taken into account, the body is likely to make decisions that favour business interests rather than health and public welfare concerns.
This is seen as a significant change with regard to the development of GM agriculture in Australia. The previous Australian and New Zealand Food Authority gave more weight to health ministers who had greater voting numbers and had the power to amend food safety recommendations made by the Authority. Health ministers have now lost this power.
Last year the old-styled Australian and New Zealand Food Authority introduced rigorous regulations governing the labelling of foodstuffs to indicate GM content. It has been suggested that the new body would not have introduced such stringent regulations.
It is claimed that the Australian Government favours the development of GM crops in Australia and that the principal regulatory body is now likely to act as less of a block to the establishment of GM agriculture in Australia.
Critics of state attempts to declare themselves GM-free zones argue that in the prevailing federal climate such attempts are futile and that efforts by individual states to stand apart from the national trend are unlikely to be successful.
It has further been suggested that a national agriculture cannot be a little GM-free. According to this line of argument, GM agriculture is an all or nothing proposition. If Australia is not totally GM-free it is unlikely to satisfy those consumers who demand totally organic produce. It is claimed that individual states that attempt to claim a GM-free status when other Australian states are producing GM crops will not secure the overseas markets that currently refuse GM produce.
This point has been made by Mr Rob Kerin the South Australian Deputy Premier and Primary Industry Minister. Mr Kerin has stated, 'If we have this crazy set-up of some councils being GM-free and some not, we are not going to get any trading benefits because overseas they do not identify council or even state boundaries for trade purposes.'

3. Genetically modified foods are safe
It is claimed that concerns about the safety of GM produce are exaggerated and research findings demonstrating the safety of such foods are credible.
Dr Bruce Chassy from the Office of Research College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, has claimed that concern about the safety of GM foodstuffs are manifestations of psychiatric disorders in the general population. He refers to these supposed disorders as 'food neurosis' and 'food psychosis'. Dr Chassy claims that these disorders result in an irrational obsession with food purity that leads consumers to reject perfectly safe products such as those produced through biotechnology.
It has further been claimed that the testing procedures in place to ensure that GM produce is fit for human and animal consumption are adequate. Dr Nora Galway, a spokesperson for the Australian and New Zealand Food Authority, has stated that all research submitted to the Authority has to be independently audited to ensure its accuracy.
Dr Galway has declared, 'We require statutory declarations that that there have been appropriate recording mechanisms and good laboratory practice' in all tests claiming to demonstrate the safety of GM produce.

4. The manufacturers of GMOs claim to be demonstrating responsible attitudes
Monsanto, the world's leading biotech company, has recently apologised for past attitudes that it claims were 'arrogant' and 'insensitive' and has pledged that it will be 'honourable, ethical and open' in all its future actions.
Monsanto has a five-point pledge of new commitments that it has claimed will inform all its future dealings. Mr Hendrik Verfaillie, Monsanto's president and chief executive, has stated that under this five point pledge Monsanto 'commit[s] to respecting the religious, cultural and ethical concerns of people.' It has promised that '[Monsanto] will not sell grain products until they have been approved for consumption by both humans and animals; nor will [Monsanto] use genes taken from animal or human sources in ... agricultural products intended for food or feed, or sell foods in which known allergens have been introduced.'
Mr Verfaillie has also indicated that Monsanto will no longer pursue technologies intended to produce the so-called 'terminator', that is, sterile seeds. (Monsanto had previously sought to develop such seeds. Monsanto had been concerned that without the 'terminator' seed farmers would only have had to buy their seed stock from Monsanto once and after that would have been able to grow improved, genetically engineered crops simply by collecting fertile seeds from their crops.
However, critics of the 'terminator' seed have argued that it leaves farmers in a position of perpetual dependence on the biotech companies. There is also concern that cross-pollinating between naturally occurring fertile crops and crops with 'terminator' seeds would result in naturally occurring crops that were also infertile.)
It has been argued that if companies such as Monsanto abide by these commitments then there is no need for bans on GM products in Australia or anywhere else.

5. Genetically modified crops offer great advantages, especially in developing countries
Genetically modified crops are designed to offer advantages that unmodified crops do not have. For example, a team of Australian researchers have recently isolated the gene that controls flowering in plants.
It has been claimed that this discovery offers Australian farmers great benefits. One of the gene's discoverers, Dr Jim Peacock, has observed that bad weather during planting currently costs Australian farmers millions of dollars a year. Dr Peacock has predicted that by manipulating the flowering switch gene it will be possible to produce strains of canola, wheat and other crops that flower at the right time of year for the climate in which they are planted.
It has further been suggested that genetically modified crops offer even more advantages for developing nations that have a greater reliance on primary food crops. This point has been made by Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the director-general of the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute. Mr Pinstrup-Andersen has argued 'In most developing nations, the majority of people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. If biotechnology can increase crop yields, farmers incomes will increase even as the cost of food goes down, making food more affordable.'
According to this line of argument, GMOs have the capacity to greatly increase the quality of life in Third World countries and help reduce the likelihood of starvation due to crop failure. It has further been noted that modifications to food crops can increase their nutritional value, thus improving the health of people who rely on such crops as their primary food source. Such developments include the insertion of protein in wheat and iron in rice.
Many European countries have banned GM foods until more research is conducted into possible safety risks. These bans extend to the importation of GM crops. Mr Pinstrup-Andersen has warned that this reaction against modified food crops in advanced countries, including Australia, may stifle the research needed to help the 800 million people, mostly Third World subsistence farmers, who go to bed hungry every night.

Further implications
The nature of further developments in GM crops and public acceptance of them is difficult to predict.
Currently, it would appear that many of the advantages claimed for GM crops are advantages for the grower, rather than the consumer. The fact that a GM crop may be resistant to a particular insect or herbicide is an advantage to the farmer, not the consumer who ultimately purchases a product made from the GM crop. This means that the consumer has no reason to risk any possible adverse side effect from eating foodstuffs with GM ingredients.
Some GM developments are planned to improve the nutritional value of GM crops, for example developing rice with a vitamin A content. Such developments may have more consumer appeal. Even here, however, this biotechnology is primarily of interest in developing nations where the range of foodstuffs is more limited and where food itself is less plentiful. In Western countries, where food is varied and in abundance, there seems less consumer advantage in augmenting the nutritional value of foodstuffs via genetically modified ingredients.
Indeed this is an issue which could be seen very differently in the developing world as opposed to the Western world. Agriculture is more problematic and the supply of basic foodstuffs is more uncertain in the developing world. There is, therefore, a stronger argument for using more efficient and productive GM crops in developing nations. However, the largest profits will come from the Western world. It will, therefore, be interesting to see whether the large multinationals which develop these GM crops will continue to do so without assured markets in Western nations.
At the moment such markets are not assured. This appears to be more the result of popular suspicion than it does of government reluctance to have the crops planted. Thus in Britain Mr David Bowe, a Labour MP, has stated with apparent approval that a new set of GM regulations 'effectively means the end of the moratorium [on GM crops in European Union].' Similarly, the current Australian government appears to support the development and planting of GM crops.
Ultimately, it appears that the issue will be determined in the popular market place. Now that both Europe and Australia have reasonably rigorous labelling requirements for foodstuffs containing GM ingredients it remains to be seen if these products will sell. In Britain they have not done so. The current food and mouth disaster in that country is unlikely to increase popular acceptance of any agricultural development seen as even potentially hazardous.
However, the issue is really only in its infancy. The urge to improve crops and to profit from that improvement will not go away. It is interesting to speculate what would be the popular reaction in Europe to a genetic modification which claimed to proof cattle against foot and mouth or mad cow disease. Currently these disasters have fuelled popular suspicion of biotechnology as applied to agriculture. If biotechnology were able to convince farmers and consumers that it had the answer to some of these scourges then it may well be better accepted. Perhaps the ultimate fate of GM crops will be determined by how great the advantages they offer are believed to be relative to the risks they present.
And what of the situation in Australia? Again it seems far too early to say. Much will depend on what happens in the rest of the world as Australian farmers will clearly not grow crops for which there is no market.
Efforts by individual states or territories to remain GM free are unlikely to prove successful. Ultimately this also is likely to be a market driven failure. Internationally, Australian produce needs to be seen as either GM free or not. It is unlikely that international buyers of Australian canola, for instance, will care whether the product comes from Tasmania, which is trying to establish itself as a GM-free state or South Australia, which is not. They will want to know the GM status of Australian canola generally. As developments in the United States with the Aventis corn Starlink have shown, keeping a genetically modified grain stock from contaminating general grain stores and indeed other corn species can be extremely difficult. It is very difficult to claim to be a GM free zone when your neighbour is not.

Newspaper items used in the preparation of this outline
Available as a press cuttings package (with an issue outline reprint): price: $27.00 (NO LONGER AVAILABLE)

Sources
The Age
21/9/00 page 3 news item by Deborah Smith, 'Scientists develop gene switch'
22/9/00 page 8 news item, 'GM crop raiders go free'
3/10/00 page 8 news item by Penny Fannin, 'Science team wins $300,000 prize'
6/10/00 page 17 analysis by C Miller, 'The green revolt'
18/10/00 page 4 news item by Penelope Debelle, 'SA defends state's GM canola trials'
29/10/00 page 3 analysis by Geoff Strong, 'GM-food tests "inadequate"'
2/11/00 page 6 news item by Geoff Strong and Darren Gray, 'Panel urges caution on GM cropping'
7/11/00 page 7 news item by Andrew Darby, 'States free to ban GM crops'
9/11/00 page 8 news item by Annabel Crabb, 'Gene crops subject to stricter controls'
16/2/01 page 16 news item by Andrew Osborn, 'EU backs new rules for GM products'
28/2/01 page 3 news item by Geoff Strong, 'Food groups will help write rules'
1/3/01 page 4 news item by Geoff Strong, 'Doctors join protest at food body changes'
1/3/01 page 6 news item by Andrew Darby, 'Banned GM crops found in Tasmania'
3/3/01 page 3 (News Extra section) analysis by Geoff Strong, 'Food giants win first round in battle to write the labels'

The Australian
3/10/00 page 11 analysis by Stephen Brook, 'Gene whiz'
22/1/01 page 2 news item by Sid Marris, 'Hunger outweighs GM food fears'
23/1/01 page 13 comment by Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 'Balancing the benefits of biotechnology'

The Herald Sun
3/10/00 page 9 news item, 'Winners put case for genetic work'
21/1/01 page 48 analysis by Graeme O'Neill, 'The hidden agenda'