Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. This was one of the key findings of the Independent Panel Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000, published in 2006. To those involved in the life sciences industry the act is considered almost draconian in its level of rigor, but most accept the fact that if we are to build public confidence in agricultural biotechnology it is both necessary and should be respected. However, this is clearly not the viewpoint of certain NGO’s ideologically opposed to biotech crops, and certainly not the viewpoint of Kim Chance, Western Australia’s Minister for Agriculture.
Under Australia’s Act the areas of human health and safety are a Federal mandate, while the states do have certain marketing rights. However Minister Chance, not content with imposing a state moratorium in April 2004 on the growing of all biotech or GM crops in Western Australia, took it upon himself to openly criticize Food Standards Australia – New Zealand (FSANZ) for not adequately safeguarding human health. In late 2005 he made public his intent to commission an independent feeding trial on genetically modified (GM) crops so that supposedly unbiased data would be obtained. He openly expressed a concern shared by Greenpeace that, because the companies submit data to the Gene Technology Regulator it is somehow automatically subject to bias. Lost in all this was the fact that Australia subscribes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), which mandates world’s best practice in food standards, and FSANZ not only uses the information supplied by companies and independent laboratories commissioned to do the specialized animal feeding trials, but also takes account of peer reviewed university studies and the findings of other regulatory systems such as the US, Canada, and the European Union.
The group he selected to conduct the feeding studies was the Institute for Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, comprising three individuals (led by Dr Judy Carman), none of whom have scientific records in conducting or analyzing long term feeding studies. Dr Carman toured around with UK activist Dr Mae Wan Ho to speak against GM crops and food safety. Ho has a relentlessly anti-science agenda against GM crops (and modern Darwinian theory), while Carman has constantly attacked FSANZ for alleged food regulatory inadequacies, and had two articles (“Health Concerns” and “Threats to our Health”) published in Greenpeace’s True Food Guide 2003. To most rational individuals this would have raised a flag about Dr Carman’s competency to conduct independent trials, but not to Minister Chance.
In December 2005 Professors Stephen Powles (University of Western Australia) Graeme Robertson (Muresk Institute – Curtin University) and Mike Jones (Director – State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre – Murdoch University) pointed out to Chance that the IHER is in fact only a website and post office box, without employees, laboratories and infrastructure that one would reasonably expect to be associated with an organization purporting to undertake research/analytical work on health and environmental matters. They called into question the degree to which Judy Carman’s research could be construed as being independent. They also drew attention to the national framework for gene technology regulation. This advice was ignored.
This was followed up by thirteen international scientists writing to then Premier Geoff Gallop expressing concern over the approach of Minister Chance in who he selected to do the research, and also the manner in which the research was funded. The study was not submitted to the normal tender process and Chance has since claimed that this was not necessary because it was approved by Cabinet. In response to a question in the WA State Parliament (May 2006: Hansard 179) by Anthony Fels to the Minister regarding his attack on the regulatory system and the letter from distinguished scientists, Chance responded by saying (under Parliamentary privilege) that he had looked into these people an found that they were all in the pay of multinational companies. Perhaps two paragraphs from the response to this allegation that was provided by one of the signatories, Professor Bruce Chassy of the University of Illinois might be appropriate:
“I do not consult for ag biotech companies, I have never had a grant or contract from ag biotech companies, I have never worked for them, with them, or collaborated with them. I do not own and have never owned stock in a biotech company”.
“…………It might be wise to point out that it isn’t just a handful of scientists which Chance asserts are in the pockets of the biotech companies. It is the overwhelming preponderance of the scientific community, including some of its leading members. It is also the UN, OECD, FAO, WHO, The US Academy of Sciences (along with the academies of many other nations), The Royal Society London, a great many medical societies, and a host of the leading scientific societies around the world who have unanimously concluded that GMO’s are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops and pose no threat to consumers or the environment”.
Minister Chance went ahead with the study by the IHER, with funding of $92,000. When questioned by the press on GM matters Chance has often stated that he has an expert “Ministerial GMO Reference Group” whose function it is to advise the government. As a member of this group I can state that the animal feeding study by Judy Carman was never referred to the reference group, but the Agriculture Department has since been directed to fund the project in Adelaide, South Australia. In a letter to an industry representative in February 2007 it was stated that the draft protocol was sent to 15 scientific experts in eight countries for comment before it was given to the Steering Committee to consider. The 10 person Steering Committee is reputedly made up of experts in a range of disciplines. However, the Minister has refused to disclose the protocol, the 15 international reviewers or the names of the Steering Committee to his own Ministerial Reference Group. He invited Judy Carman to address the group on May 25th, 2007 and, apart from her usual litany of complaints against FSANZ, she also refused to answer these questions. The Minister supported her position, totally ignoring the fact that public funds are involved. The study will apparently be published in peer-reviewed journals and “the protocol will be revealed at this time”.
So what answers on food safety does the Chance expect from a $92,000 study? During our June 20th Ministerial Reference Group Meeting he conceded that the funding was very small and is unlikely provide the answers being sought, but may raise questions for future studies. He also stated that “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”. This is the new way of examining Food Safety Western Australia style!
Health concerns are a Federal Mandate, we have an inter-governmental agreement that is possibly being violated, and by both his statements and his actions the Minister is undermining public confidence in the national regulatory system. He has sided with a very narrow constituency, he has chosen to ignore the preponderance of scientific opinion and regulatory determinations worldwide that have guided GM crops through 11 years of commercial practice, and he has funded a secret study by a known anti-GM activist under the preposterous claim that it is “independent”.
As a footnote, a Freedom of Information claim was filed under Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1992 by John Cudmore of Perth-based Crabtree Consulting Company. In his decision of June 20th, 2007 the Minister claimed that the Information Commissioner believes that the information should not be disclosed, and that “the information does not appear to be from a bona fide public interest inquiry, but rather it is being sought to pursue a narrow private interest. There remains a right of appeal to this ruling.
Who are the real losers in all this? It is the farmers of Western Australia who are being denied a choice of technology to use on their farms while the Minister seeks excuses to continue the moratorium on GM crops. The leading farm organizations in Western Australia have all asked that the moratorium be dropped, and Victoria is reviewing their state moratorium at this time. Again, the question must be asked: “Who is Minister Chance serving?”
Ian B. Edwards, PhD; D.Sc; FCSSA
Chairman – AgBio Advisory Group – AusBiotech
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Australia’s embarrassment regarding Chance is now spread around the world.
See,
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2736
Doubtless the Greenies will applaud Chance for his secrecy, his double-dealing with public funds, etc. Shows real dedication to the cause!
After his imprisonment, Chance will likely emerge as a spokesperson for organic food.
Damn that angers me. The worst thing is there is probably some bio equivelent to the Energy and Environment journal that will publish the study, no matter how flawed it is. Even though it will be immediately torn to shreds by people with knowledge of the field, it will be held up for years to come by vested interests as proof that GMOs are ‘teh evil’. Hopefully the relevant ministers in other states are a little more sensible and accountable.
Nexus; don’t fret, Ian Edwards is only having another whinge, eloquent maybe but still on behalf of a frustrated fringe. Besides the Minister Chance has an obligation to look beyond the agri gene biz lobby stuck at her front door. To put that in a better perspective is Edwards & Co worse off than the mob working on human gene technology downunder?
Research on behalf of the public interest must go beyond purpose driven science. A good parallel is the consultation process in the Capital regarding proposed recycling treated sewage where a professor from every other loosely related health aspect wants a ride on the anti recycle bandwagon. But they are not building dams, making roads or pumping water at any stage so the smart corporate body looks early for appropriate engineers for any combination of projects the Territory government may eventually approve.
We had to listen to a whole range of objections in recent weeks.
I once had dealings with the chairman of the National Bakers Guild? who said all his mates at the top end of manufacturers made a better product because it lasted longer in the supermarket. From experience they gobbled their rivals based on tip offs.
I won’t go on about international academics recommending this or that in quality control and standards development in chats based on their readings overseas but I actually spoke to the blokes on night shift who pissed on the moldy oversize oranges as they dropped from the hopper into the high tech vacuum kettle. They claimed to skim the scum with a shovel before bottling their “Conserve”. This was in a major multi national food works established here for some decades.
I looked inside at lot of big biz. Any food technology imported or home grown is only what you make it on the job day to day.
Like recycled water for public consumption all shareholders in food production need to actually live on their produce. Back to co-ops everywhere, hey.
Ian; the control of GMO technology must come down to those at the grass roots including both producers and consumers. Scientists are not the only players likewise patent holders are not the only consideration. Also the industry as a whole must advance with each tentative step. When GMO is run like merino by the farmers we can all get on the bandwagon
Gavin, I suggest the interesting complaint here is that research in the public interest is being kept secret from the public. Not only is it being kept secret from the public, but it is also being kept secret from the Minister’s own Reference Group. It is quite understandable that Ian Edwards, as a member of the reference group, feels aggrieved at being kept in the dark.
What worries me over this exercise is why would Minister Chance want to keep secret the names of the Steering Committee overseeing the research? This just makes it look like there is something to hide. So what is it about this group of people that the Minister wants to hide from public scrutiny?
The more I read the less I learn.
It’s not the science it’s the market! Science complaining about the non acceptance of a market makes no sense. The myriad complaints from scientists complaining that THEIR science is not being accepted is surely to do with self interest?
The more they complain without providing evidence for the advantages of their science, the more skeptical the public, ie politicians become.
Surely it’s farmers who are advantaged, they have lotsa political influence, why arn’t they screaming loudest?
fluff
Chris; lets guess it’s their affiliations since that’s what this blog concerns itself with in the main. Sure Ian has a case but given a wider public interest I bet the minister has other concerns apart from the obvious and they most likely include a load of uncertainties yet to be addressed. Ian as a competent party close to the action should stand back and watch for a bit.
Again I say we are wise if we can understand the current power and water debates, perhaps best of all though the forestry issue because that has been one of the longest of all the environment type controversies.
All technology needs advocates in the right places at the right times. However every time we did a good job in process automation a hand full of good employees in each place was made redundant. My affiliations were routinely questioned by various parties starting at right at the gate.
Ministers beware: The first rule is; the benefits of progress must be seen to be shared.
Given I had over a dozen years in pulp and paper including R+D on organic reactions in extreme environments followed by a lot of petrochemical environment upgrades I write the odd line here and there re Gunns proposal and so on. The application of knowledge in the field inevitably requires practical experience. I got paid sometime to stare white elephants in the face. In this sense GMO is no different to plastic paint on the roof or Teflon in the kitchen
Later on I got involved with policy leading to JASANZ, preliminary studies for technical MOU’s. But standards development and recognition procedures are but part of the process. Trade depends on performance at the grass roots not academia. Therefore in my book elitism becomes it’s own worst enemy.
I think often about stuff that now comes before the APVMA. In my day we asked the bloke mixing our chemicals what he knew about each one.
Get a life Gavin! I personally know Dr Edwards and regard him as a man of integrity and intense scientific discipline. Quite the opposite of Minister Chance who is a he not a she btw. Chris is right this is not about the technology itself but about the disgraceful dictatorial behaviour of this Minister to run his agenda regardless of the ‘reference group’.
And Gavin you should begin to realise that you also have a stake in assured production particularly where it might not have occurred or haven’t you noticed the hyperinflation occurring in the price of food. Have you ever grown a crop? Or do you simply look at lovely pictures of crops?
This presentation seems to restate one of my arguments however it’s a good read under “High flyers think tank” in the Capital. Hmmm.
See – ” Biotechnology and the future of Australian agriculture
The Shine Dome, Canberra, 26 July 2005
Biotechnology: Research and development
by Dr Ian Edwards, Chair, AgBio Advisory Group, AusBiotech Ltd
http://www.science.org.au/events/biotechnology/edwards.htm
Aaron: “Assured” production seems like more jargon from some QAS entrepreneurs back in the early 90’s.
For your info I have never been a farmer but most of my work background involved technical services to primary and secondary production, water, energy and transport systems, applied research and the communications industry through federal agencies.
In retirement I take lots of pictures of bald and neglected paddocks round town, also follow the rural scene via the media as I always did through our ABC.
Today we had a story on radio about a local timber mill’s plan for excess steam (super heated) to be employed in power grid generation via a bolt on EU plant that claims extraordinary efficiency and emission control. This form of engineering is where I started back in the late 50’s.
Gavin “Chris; lets guess it’s their affiliations since that’s what this blog concerns itself with in the main. Sure Ian has a case but given a wider public interest I bet the minister has other concerns apart from the obvious and they most likely include a load of uncertainties yet to be addressed.”
Gavin, are you suggesting that their affiliations might indicate a lack of appropriate expertise and that could prove damaging if people found out?
I suspect the minister has been clutching at straws. In a press release in April ( http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/media.nsf/d3ea7ba6c70aeaae48256a7300318397/6768eabfe48809eac82572a6008191d0?OpenDocument ) we have:
“Mr Chance pointed to an independent study conducted by French researchers and scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen, which found that rats fed on Monsanto’s MON863 genetically modified corn had significant reductions in growth and adverse effects on liver and kidney function after 90 days of consumption.”
At the time, even I was able to point out that the statistical approached used was inappropriate and did not support the statements made by the authors. I know there are people far better at statistical analysis than I am in the minister’s department. Surely he could have asked advice from them on what this new study meant? But it seems he didn’t. Now overnight the European Food Safety Authority has published its response. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press_room/press_release/pr_efsa_maize_Mon863.html
The full statistical analysis is here:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/scientific_reports/statistical_analyses_MON863.html
This is a damning indictment of the work of the French researchers. This is why you need people who are competent in toxicology to do these sorts of studies.
Chris: Thanks for the links. Did you know I’m allergic to academic data revisions? I’m also sensitive to people meddling with the food chain with out authority. I hoped I had made that obvious elsewhere. But listening to Senator Heffernan on radio today outlining his task force makes me wonder if I’m not the most conservative advocate of progress when it comes to including GM.
However let’s say the EFSA and certainly us commenting on Seralini’s or Monsanto’s work on rats at this distance is a joke. It could even be another round of the blind leading the blind. See my comment on canned cat food.
On the issue of toxicology, one of my mates was a dab hand in the rat dept. over a number of years. I thought we would have done similar trials downunder on MON 836 etc to generate our own independent info for people in the food chain. Its time we stopped waiting for others to do all the dirty work. Besides I watched a lot of youngsters get a start on rats during school science back in the 80’s. They should have been kept on.
I took a punt on the Minister hiding private fears. My thoughts on Monsanto, GM etc begin with recalling my struggle to get info way back on a few early products like Santobrite.
Do I trust the EU, US or Japan on all tests for the food trade? No! After working for export companies and learning about our NATA, I say we either do our own GMO research on behalf of the public or stand back from this new practice altogether.
With the response of the EFSA, the greenies are once more exposed as liars. This time, as “sophisticated” liars, because they use statistics.
Greenpeace will find it hard to find friends among the anti-biotech contingent after this public humiliation, which tied up government authorities around the world in a pointless “rat race.”
Lest anyone forget, Greenpeace purchased the study. They purchased another study from the same outfit, on another type of corn, which reached a faulty conclusion the same way.
Greenpeace is going down big on this one!
Big Gav you’re anti GM stance matters little in the overall scheme of things. As global stocks head to dangerously low levels governments are going to be forced to bite the bullet lest they unleash the full force of agflation, albeit their efforts will be futile. And agflation will affect everything in this world including any investments or asset values you are sitting on. This is the only technology that can realistically and meaningfully increase global output of grains. That is a fact and any claim otherwise is nothing more than politically motivated BS and undereducated musings. Weeds use water and nutrients that should go to grain production. Its as simple as that.
Every transgenic alteration still requires due diligence in basic food safety and toxicological risks. But its not rocket science and Australia and New Zealand are the world leaders in food standards.
Gavin, at the risk of stating the obvious, your comment about academic data revisions is plain silly. It is perfectly appropriate for EFSA, or indeed us, to consider these studies, because if the methods are wrong, you end up with spurious answers. Seralini’s methods were wrong – so the answers are spurious, regardless of whether they fit with your world view or not.
And frankly your whole food chain is meddled with somewhere along the line, even if you grow all your own food.
Of much more importance to me is the call for these studies to be repeated ad nauseum. I have two problems, one scientific and one ethical. The scientific issue is that the more times an experiment is repeated, the more likely you are to pick up a spurious statistically-significant result. This is already a major issue in cancer association studies and in nutritional studies. There, large numbers of studies will come up negative, but the occasional study will appear with a positive (and spurious result) and gets into the press. That is one reason that meta-analyses are now being used. Studies need to be repeatable, but not done ad nauseum.
The ethical issue I have is that these studies kill 400 rats. They also don’t carry a lot of power because of the complexity of whole foods. If a difference is exposed, it would be difficult to determine whether that difference was due to the GM, or to some unrelated change in the food stuff. This is one reason that FSANZ does not rely on whole food testing. You might be quite happy asking people to kill thousands of rats to further your ideological agenda, but for me killing rats for pointless research is something we need to be getting away from.
Aaron says “Every transgenic alteration still requires due diligence in basic food safety and toxicological risks. But its not rocket science and Australia and New Zealand are the world leaders in food standards”.
Aaron: I reckon this whole thread was about who may do that science here.
Chris says “You might be quite happy asking people to kill thousands of rats to further your ideological agenda”, but for me killing rats for pointless research is something we need to be getting away from”.
Chris; when you introduced EFSA, toxicology studies and rats so I tried to follow your issue then finished up thinking we should design then do our own research based on the proper institutions as we have them today. Studies with animals are not my thing but I was told some of our best work used to involve quite a few.
When I first worked in support of medical research mid 80’s, ethics committees seemed quite fresh across the broad spectrum of science and industry.
We probably changed in attitudes in Australia before your lot started but I remain hard headed on the issue of the endless representations from single sources.