❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses consumer concerns in Japan regarding genetically modified canola, tolerance levels, and the accuracy of information disseminated by the Department of Agriculture. The Minister provides detailed responses, referencing a departmental report and assuring the public of careful consideration before supporting GM canola commercial release.
AnsweredQoN 839Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to the market acceptance of genetically modified grains, I ask - (1) What is the minister’s understanding of the extent of consumer concerns in Japan regarding genetically modified canola? (2) Is the minister aware whether the contamination or tolerance level of GM canola in non-GM canola has been recently reduced in Japan? (3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(1) What is the minister’s understanding of the extent of consumer concerns in Japan regarding genetically modified canola? (2) Is the minister aware whether the contamination or tolerance level of GM canola in non-GM canola has been recently reduced in Japan? (3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(2) Is the minister aware whether the contamination or tolerance level of GM canola in non-GM canola has been recently reduced in Japan? (3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(1) What is the minister’s understanding of the extent of consumer concerns in Japan regarding genetically modified canola? (2) Is the minister aware whether the contamination or tolerance level of GM canola in non-GM canola has been recently reduced in Japan? (3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(2) Is the minister aware whether the contamination or tolerance level of GM canola in non-GM canola has been recently reduced in Japan? (3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(3) If yes to (2), what is the current tolerance level and how significant a reduction is this from the former tolerance level? (4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(4) Does the Department of Agriculture share the minister’s perception of the level of consumer concern in Japan about GM canola? (5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(5) Is the minister aware that Ms Anne Morcom, a market analyst from the trade and development section of the WA Department of Agriculture, has been informing members of the public in regional WA that there are no consumer concerns in Japan about GM canola? (6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(6) Is the minister concerned about the potential impact that the dissemination of incorrect information could have on the credibility of the Department of Agriculture’s expert advice to WA producers and consumers on the already contentious issue of introducing GM organisms into the State’s grain industry? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(1) My understanding of the extent of consumer concern about GM canola in Japan is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s report entitled “Assessment of the International Market for Genetically Modified Canola”, published in March 2003. Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon Dee Margetts: Was that Anne Morcom’s report? Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Hon KIM CHANCE: She was a contributing author, I understand. I note that some low volume, premium-priced markets for conventional non-GM canola are developing in Japan. Some oil crushers have been trying to differentiate their product as non-GM using conventionally bred Australian canola. It is estimated that 10 000-15 000 tonnes on average, to a maximum of 30 000 tonnes, out of a total of 2.2 million tonnes of imports, are involved in the market. Australian exporters, including the Grain Pool Pty Ltd, have reported that some importers are prepared to pay premiums for conventional canola. (2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(2) The department’s report clearly indicates that Japan proposes to tighten its regulations against the import and sale of unapproved varieties of GM crops for use in livestock feed. GM varieties are banned in Japan until they are approved. A number of GM corn, soya bean and canola varieties are approved for food consumption, livestock feed and cultivation in Japan. However, from April 2003, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will undertake mandatory testing of samples from feed grain cargoes, and ban cargoes with more than one per cent adventitious presence of unapproved varieties. (3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(3) I am not aware of the extent to which unapproved GM varieties may previously have entered the Japanese livestock feed market, but they were, and still are, banned. It is important to distinguish the one per cent tolerance for adventitious presence of unapproved GM grains in livestock feed imports from the five per cent threshold labelling requirement for unintended GM content in human food, which is unchanged. I also point out that, as in Australia, oils such as soya bean and canola oil from GM crops do not need to be labelled as GM in Japan. (4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(4) Yes. (5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(5) I am advised that Ms Anne Morcom of the department has recently given presentations on these issues. As detailed in the department’s report, there is a level of concern about GM foods in Japan, but, at this stage, Japanese importers do not pay premiums for conventional canola, and niche market opportunities from oil derived from conventional canola are very limited. I do not believe Ms Morcom would say anything to contradict the department’s report, into which she had major input. (6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
(6) The information provided by the department is accurate. The department continues to monitor international markets for significant changes in the acceptance of GM canola and other crops. I also receive advice from other sources, and, as I have continuously assured the public, I will not support the commercial release of GM canola until I am assured that there will not be a detrimental impact on markets for WA agricultural produce. The report is a public document and is available on the department’s web site.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.