❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the Minister for Agriculture's criticism of FSANZ's GM food assessment and the state's independent testing initiative. The Minister defends the initiative, citing concerns about the objectivity of existing testing processes.
AnsweredQoN 179Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS - ASSESSMENT
Last Saturday the minister was reported in The West Australian as attacking Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the national food watchdog, claiming that it does not adequately assess the health impacts of genetically modified crops. Abstracts and citations of more than 60 independent scientific papers on GM animal feeding trials have been drawn to the minister’s attention. (1) What does the minister expect to accomplish with a $92 000 budget in six months? (2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE
Last Saturday the minister was reported in The West Australian as attacking Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the national food watchdog, claiming that it does not adequately assess the health impacts of genetically modified crops. Abstracts and citations of more than 60 independent scientific papers on GM animal feeding trials have been drawn to the minister’s attention. (1) What does the minister expect to accomplish with a $92 000 budget in six months? (2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(1) What does the minister expect to accomplish with a $92 000 budget in six months? (2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(1) What does the minister expect to accomplish with a $92 000 budget in six months? (2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(2) What does the minister expect to accomplish by undermining public confidence in our country’s regulatory system, and does he realise that if each state were to start developing its own testing systems for GM products, business in Australia would become impossible? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
The PRESIDENT : Order! With respect to members on my right, question time is due to be cut off at 5.00 pm sharp. Taking that into account, a number of members wish to ask questions. Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: (1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
(1)-(2) What do I expect to achieve by undermining FSANZ and other regulatory authorities? I seem to recall, although it may not have been printed, that I took a bit of a pot shot at another regulatory authority. Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon Ken Travers : They get their briefing notes from federal ministers, so they know nothing else. Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE : That is true. Since the government announced it would fund quite a small animal feeding trial to determine the safety of genetically engineered foods, it has received this huge wave of protests from what amounted to eight or nine American scientists. They sent letters to the Premier and to me. They sent e-mails and a whole chain of information saying what a terrible thing it was that we had appointed an independent person to carry out this work. I thought those eight or nine people were obviously eminent scientists who had an issue, so I did some checking of their backgrounds. Every one of those eight or nine scientists is in the pocket of the GE companies. They are all recipients of grants from Monsanto, Bayer or another such company. Let us acknowledge, first, that no authority does any testing on food safety or GM food, and has never done in the history of Australia. Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon Anthony Fels : What about your department? Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Including my department. My department is not a public health agency. Those eight or nine scientists expected us to say that the people from the University of Adelaide, who are carrying out testing on our behalf, are not independent; however, the people who do the testing, and upon whom FSANZ relies for the data on which it assesses food safety in Australia, are the proponents of the technology. The people who do the testing are from Bayer and Monsanto. It means that they think Bayer and Monsanto are objective, but a university-based agency is not! Members might try to work that one out. Of course, when we test the objectivity of that handful of scientists - or nearly two handfuls - we find not one of them is in any sense objective. As to what we expect from the trial, it is a modestly funded trial, with $92 000 funding from the Western Australian government, but the agency at Adelaide University obviously has other sources of funds. We expect to achieve for the first time in Australia, and indeed one of the first times in the world, an animal feeding trial using exclusively GE foods, which is carried out objectively over a period of time. It has been done on only a handful of occasions around the world. On every other occasion when this kind of testing has been carried out, it has been carried out by the proponents of the technology. The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
The only way in which one could say that there is some middle ground is when the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which I do regard as objective, carries out testing on its own GE issues. When the CSIRO produced a genetically engineered pea and carried out extensive animal feeding trials, it stopped its work on that GE pea because it caused lung dysfunction in the animals that were being fed. There are issues involved that need to be followed through. I do not know whether feeding GE food injures animals, but I do know that I would rather trust an independent person to carry out that testing than somebody who must make money out of it. In the political horserace, if there is a horse called self-interest, always be on it. It might not necessarily win, but we know it will be trying.
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.