Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Arena Magazine

Unruly rules: do we fix the Gene Technology Act or opt for a moratorium.

Article Excerpt
While scientists around the globe disagree about the fundamentals of genomics and whether or not DNA can be controlled, governments have grasped the Genetic Modification (GM) industry as an engine of economic growth. But how many Australians really want the kind of genetically engineered future that politicians are committing us to? And even if some of us do, is Australian law protecting us from the risks that genetic modification poses? I'm talking about potential evolutionary changes, species loss, degraded soils, food allergies, involuntary vaccination, new viral epidemics and social impacts on farming communities. Or should we demand a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) until our health and environments can be assured?

The Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 is under review right now, and open for public submissions until 15 July. The terms of reference can be viewed at . Some people in Canberra see our regulatory system as an exemplar of best practice, but this is far too hopeful a view. The Act is based on an outdated concept of genetic science and unrealistic expectations for risk assessment. Furthermore, economic pressures work against its application and it offers limited scope for public engagement.

The Regulatory System

The Act set up an Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), located in the Department of Health. The regulator oversees the accreditation of research facilities and licenses experimental or commercial dealings in GM. It reports to a Ministerial Council of Federal and State politicians, a body that meets infrequently. Relevant pre-existing agencies like Food Standards Australia, the Quarantine Service and several others fall under the OGTR. If a product is intended for environmental release, the regulator is required to consult a committee of scientists known as the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC).

Parallel advisory bodies, the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee (GTCCC) and Gene Technology Ethics Committee (GTEC) have no direct input to licensing; rather, they address the interplay of social values and risks in isolation from the scientific committee. Hence, in 2003, while GTEC was deliberating on the ethical implications of trans-kingdom gene transfer, the regulator was processing hundreds of other GM applications. Likewise, while the GTCCC was calling attention to widespread community disquiet over proposed GM canola crops, GTTAC scientists advised the...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!