A WA parliamentary question addresses concerns about the introduction of genetically modified crops, specifically regarding contamination of non-GMO crops, economic benefits, compensation for producers, and the cost of testing for GMO contamination. The Minister's answer relies on a working group report and defers decisions on compensation and testing costs.

AnsweredQoN 62Legislative Council
Asked
12 June 2001
Portfolio
Agriculture

QuestionView source ↗

In relation to the Minister’s announcement of a cautious introduction of genetically modified crops -
(1) By what approach does the Minister intend to ensure that non-GMO crops are not contaminated with nearby introduced GMO crop pollen?
(2) What is the formulae by which the Minister will determine if a net economic benefit to the State will occur through the introduction of GMO crops?
(3) Does the Government intend to provide compensation to producers whose crops are contaminated with GMO products and/or markets are lost through GMO contamination?
(4) Who will be responsible for paying the cost of testing crops or produce for GMO contamination?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
26 June 2001
Responded by
Minister for Agriculture
Response time
14 days
(2) With respect to canola, I have asked the GM Canola Technical Working Group (GMCTWG) to prepare a comprehensive public review paper on the commercial release of GM canola in WA. There will be a number of aspects to this paper such as regulation, benefits and risks, pollen flow to non-GM crops, market expectations, identity preservation and issues associated with trade. This report and other published information and submissions from interested parties will form the basis of the Government's considerations in this area. Other crops will be treated on a similar basis. (3) No. The Gene Technology Act 2000 details the Federal-State Government agreements that such issues will be dealt with under common law provisions. (4) In respect of canola, the GMCTWG public report will review market expectations for thresholds of a mixture of GM canola in non-GM crops. It is likely that a Quality Assurance process will be developed, which will include testing for compliance with market standards. It is premature to speculate on who should pay until there is greater clarity on the likely activities and costs.
Other crops will be treated on a similar basis. (3) No. The Gene Technology Act 2000 details the Federal-State Government agreements that such issues will be dealt with under common law provisions. (4) In respect of canola, the GMCTWG public report will review market expectations for thresholds of a mixture of GM canola in non-GM crops. It is likely that a Quality Assurance process will be developed, which will include testing for compliance with market standards. It is premature to speculate on who should pay until there is greater clarity on the likely activities and costs.
(3) No. The Gene Technology Act 2000 details the Federal-State Government agreements that such issues will be dealt with under common law provisions. (4) In respect of canola, the GMCTWG public report will review market expectations for thresholds of a mixture of GM canola in non-GM crops. It is likely that a Quality Assurance process will be developed, which will include testing for compliance with market standards. It is premature to speculate on who should pay until there is greater clarity on the likely activities and costs.
(4) In respect of canola, the GMCTWG public report will review market expectations for thresholds of a mixture of GM canola in non-GM crops. It is likely that a Quality Assurance process will be developed, which will include testing for compliance with market standards. It is premature to speculate on who should pay until there is greater clarity on the likely activities and costs.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more