DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the Moratorium on Genetically Modified Canola

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES Issues Paper: Review of the Moratorium on Genetically Modified Canola July 2007 Published by the Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, July 2007 Also published on www.dpi.vic.gov.au © The State of Victoria Department of Primary Industries 2007 This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in- house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: the copyright owner is acknowledged no official connection is claimed the material is made available without charge or at cost the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 ) should be directed to the Customer Service Centre on 136 186 or email [email protected] . ISBN 978-1-74199-673-9 (Print) ISBN 978-1-74199-674-6 (Online) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Produced by: GM Canola Review Panel Secretariat Department of Primary Industries Level 19, 1 Spring Street GPO Box 4440 Melbourne VIC 3001 Telephone: (03) 9658 4872 Fax: (03) 9658 4472 Email: [email protected] This paper is also available at www.dpi.vic.gov.au ii Contents Information for review contributors ...................................................................1 Issues paper.......................................................................................................................1 Timetable for the review process .........................................................................1 Key contact details.........................................................................................................1 Purpose of the Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola..............................................................................................................................2 Scope of the Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola..............................................................................................................................2 Composition of the Review panel .........................................................................2 Terms of reference ........................................................................................................3 Process of the Review..................................................................................................4 How to make a submission.......................................................................................4 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................5 1.1 Herbicide tolerant canola varieties.....................................................5 1.2 Genetically modified canola varieties in Australia....................8 1.3 Genetically modified crops: an international perspective.....8 1.4 Genetically modified crops in Australia...........................................9 2. Addressing risks of genetically modified organisms in Australia10 2.1 Australian regulation of genetically modified organisms .10 2.1.1 Safety of human health and the environment............................ 10 2.1.2 Genetically modified food safety and labelling ........................ 11 2.2 Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Victoria 11 3. The canola industry ..............................................................................................14 3.1 Global canola production and trade................................................14 3.2 The Australian canola industry..........................................................15 3.3 Additional uses of canola......................................................................17 3.4 Marketing in the grain industry ........................................................18 3.4.1 Grain supply chain management...................................................... 18 3.4.2 Meeting grain market requirements............................................... 19 3.5 International and Australian organic industries......................20 iii 4. Economic impacts of the moratorium on genetically modified canola...........................................................................................................................22 4.1 Studies relevant to the terms of reference .................................22 4.2 Economic benefits and costs of the moratorium ....................23 5. Potential policy changes.................................................................................25 5.1 Should the moratorium be extended or terminated?............25 5.2 Other measures?.........................................................................................25 6. Further reading ....................................................................................................27 Appendix 1. OGTR media releases ....................................................................29 Appendix 2. Moratorium announcement 2004...........................................33 Appendix 3. Announcement of Review of GM canola moratorium.36 Appendix 4. Review submission cover sheet..............................................38 Appendix 5. Federal agencies responsible for the regulation of gene technology in Australia .........................................................................39 Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.................................................39 Food Standards Australia New Zealand .....................................................40 Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority ............40 The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.............................41 iv Information for review contributors Issues paper This issues paper is intended to assist the preparation of submissions to the Review of the moratorium on genetically modified (GM) canola. It outlines the scope of the Review and issues on which the Review panel is seeking comment and information. However, the paper is not intended to restrict comment, and respondents should include any information or views that they consider relevant to the Review’s terms of reference. Timetable for the review process The current Moratorium Order on the commercial cultivation of GM canola in Victoria is due to expire on the 29 February 2008. The closing date for written submissions to the Review panel is 17 August 2007 . Following receipt of submissions and meetings with key stakeholders, the Review panel will prepare a report for the Minister for Agriculture, to be submitted in September 2007. Key contact details All enquiries to the Review panel should be directed to the Review secretariat. Review secretariat: Dr Robert Sward Telephone: (03) 9658 4872 Facsimile: (03) 9658 4472 Email address: [email protected] Website: www.dpi.vic.gov.au Postal address for submissions: GM Canola Review Panel Secretariat Department of Primary Industries Level 19, 1 Spring Street GPO Box 4440 Melbourne VIC 3001 Issues Paper: Review of the Moratorium on Genetically Modified Canola 1 Purpose of the Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola In 2003, the Federal Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the commercial release of Bayer CropScience's InVigor® GM canola and Monsanto Australia's Roundup Ready® GM canola. The OGTR concluded that these canola varieties pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than do conventionally bred canola (for media release, see appendix 1). The Victorian Government in 2004 concluded that the timing was not appropriate for the full commercial release of the two varieties of GM canola, due to ‘divisions and uncertainty within industry, the farming sector and regional communities about the impact of GM canola on markets’ (for media release, see appendix 2). On 12 May 2004, the Minister for Agriculture thus issued an Order declaring a four year moratorium in Victoria on the commercial scale planting of GM canola. The moratorium is in place until 29 February 2008 and will be reviewed before the Order expires. All other Australian states and territories, except Queensland and the Northern Territory, have introduced moratoria on either GM canola or, more broadly, GM crops for various lengths of time. On 22 May 2007, the Premier of Victoria, the Hon. Steve Bracks MP, announced the establishment of an independent panel to review the moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM canola in Victoria (for media release, see appendix 3). Scope of the Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola Under a policy principle established within the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Commonwealth), the moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM canola in Victoria was imposed in 2004 for trade and market access reasons. This Review focuses on trade and market access considerations. Matters of human health, safety and environmental impacts are not part of the terms of reference, because these matters are considered under federal legislation. Composition of the Review panel The Review will be conducted by
Recommended publications
  • Review of the Moratorium on Genetically Modified Canola in Victoria Published by the Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, November 2007

    Review of the Moratorium on Genetically Modified Canola in Victoria Published by the Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, November 2007

    DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola in Victoria Published by the Victorian Government Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne, November 2007 © The State of Victoria, 2007 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth). Authorised by: Victorian Government 1 Spring Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia ISBN 978-1-74199-675-3 (print) ISBN 978-7-74199-676-0 (online) Disclaimer: This publication is copyright. Reproduction and the making available of this material for personal, in-house or non-commercial purposes is authorised, on condition that: • the copyright owner is acknowledged • no official connection is claimed • the material is made available without charge or at cost • the material is not subject to inaccurate, misleading or derogatory treatment. Requests for permission to reproduce or communicate this material in any way not permitted by this licence (or by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968) should be directed to the Customer Service Centre, 136 186 or email [email protected]. For more information about DPI visit the website at www.dpi.vic.gov.au or call the Customer Service Centre on 136 186. 30 October 2007 Minister for Agriculture Victoria Dear Minister As members of the independent Review of the moratorium on genetically modified canola in Victoria, we are pleased to submit our report to you. We would like to thank all those who took part in the Review by either providing submissions or other information to us or taking part in consultations.
  • Grower Representation and Its Impact on the Governance Structure of the Australian Grains Industry Terence C Farrell Α

    Grower Representation and Its Impact on the Governance Structure of the Australian Grains Industry Terence C Farrell Α

    Grower Representation and its Impact on the Governance Structure of the Australian Grains Industry Terence C Farrell α Abstract The Australian wheat industry has changed considerably in structure and governance during the past 15 years. The most important changes have been the deregulation of the domestic market and privatisation of the former Australian Wheat Board into AWB Limited. Through these changes growers have become shareholders in the various companies. Governance of the monopsonistic relationship between AWB Limited and AWB International by the Federal Minister of Agriculture and the Grains Council of Australia through the Wheat Export Authority has proved ineffective. Hence a national organisation that represents shareholders is recommended to increase grower governance of the supply chain and marketing of wheat. Key Words: Grain, Marketing, Infrastructure, Competition and Governance. The presentation of this paper was sponsored by Grain Growers Association. The views presented in this paper are strictly those of the author and may not coincide with the views or opinions of Grain Growers Association or its members. Contributed paper presented to the 48th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference, Melbourne, February 11-13, 2004. I would like to thank Alistair Watson for useful information and comments. α Terence Farrell, 11 Cynthia Crescent, Armidale, NSW 2350. Phone 02 6771 2093. Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Page Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1 Background………………………………………………………………………….2 Path to Deregulation………………………………………………………………...2 Railway Companies.…..…………………………………………………………….5 Ports…………………………………………………………………………………7 Industry Governance………………………………………………………………...8 The Role of the Federal Minister for Agriculture…………………………………..11 Growers Representation…………………………………………………………….12 The New Structure………………………………………………………………….13 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..15 Tables Page Table 1. Selected Changes in the Bulk Handling Industry 1989-2003.……………4 Table 2.
  • Annual Report 1998-1999.Pdf (PDF, 3.37MB)

    Annual Report 1998-1999.Pdf (PDF, 3.37MB)

    VISION AND MISSION IFC CENTRE OBJECTIVES 3 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 4 MANAGING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 6 STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT 10 COOPERATIVE LINKAGES 14 RESEARCH PROGRAM 1 16 PROGRAM 2 29 PROGRAM 3A 37 PROGRAM 3B 41 PROGRAM 4 45 PROGRAM 5 51 EDUCATION AND TRAINING 61 UTILISATION, COMMERCIALISATION AND LINKS 69 STAFFING AND ADMINISTRATION 71 PATENTS, PUBLICATIONS, GRANTS AND AWARDS 72 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 76 1 MAJORMAJOR ACHIEVEMENTSACHIEVEMENTS ANDAND OUTCOMESOUTCOMES PROGRAM 1 PROGRAM 2 I A new method for detecting molecular I Commercial launch of the WheatRite test markers to accelerate wheat breeding. for rain damage. I New wheat germplasm with major I Improved quality at harvest and receival: benefits for processors and consumers. agronomy and storage procedures developed for growers and users. PROGRAM 3 PROGRAM 4 I Aids for the management of microbe I Methods for the rapid assessment of the contamination in wheat and flour mills. shelf-life of frozen dough products. I Enhanced process control in bakeries I Product quality improvements; knowledge leading to cost savings and superior of the effects of different starches and products. other ingredients on bread, pasta and noodles. PROGRAM 5 EDUCATION & TRAINING I New equipment and methods to evaluate I Multiple advisory aids provided to growers. wheat and flour properties. Great Grain quality assurance scheme I Quality tests to accelerate wheat piloted. breeding. I Tertiary educated scientists and technologists enter the industry, 2 Develop new wheats and new products. Develop improved diagnostic
  • Ublic Policy Cover-8

    Ublic Policy Cover-8

    50993 Public Policy Text 25/7/07 1:47 PM Page 44 PUBLIC POLICY VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 2007 44 – 57 Deregulating Australia's Wheat Trade: from the Australian Wheat Board to AWB Limited Geoff Cockfield University of Southern Queensland Linda Courtenay Botterill The Australian National University In 2006 in Australia there was an inquiry into allegations of kickbacks being paid to the former Iraqi regime by the grain trading company AWB Limited. The inquiry and its aftermath provided an opportunity for proponents of unregulated trade in wheat to press for the removal of the AWB’s control of export sales. This article is a review of the history of the development and dismantling of wheat marketing regulation in Australia, treated as a case study to illustrate two things: the shift in the prevailing values in Australian agricultural policy over the last 35 years; and the way in which legislative cycles, reviews, institutional change and particular events provide opportunities for policy advocates to press for change, in this case over at least 40 years. It is argued here that the dominant paradigm for trading agricultural commodities shifted from one based on agrarian collectivism and sectoral stabilisation to a less regulated system with the focus on the values of efficiency and competitiveness. In November 2005 the Australian Government established an inquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission headed by Terence Cole to investigate allegations that the corporation AWB Limited1 (formerly the statutory authority Australian Wheat Board) had made payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq through a Jordanian-based transport company in order to secure wheat sales, accusations originally raised by the UN Oil-for-Food inquiry headed by Paul Volker.
  • Australian Wheat Varieties: Grain Quality Data on Recently Registered Varieties

    Australian Wheat Varieties: Grain Quality Data on Recently Registered Varieties

    VALUE ADDED WHEAT CRC PROJECT REPORT Australian Wheat Varieties: Grain Quality Data on Recently Registered Varieties Compiled by: G.B. Cornish1,2 I.L. Batey1,3 and C.W. Wrigley1,3 1 Value Added Wheat CRC Ltd, North Ryde, NSW 2 SARDI Grain Quality Research Laboratory, Adelaide, S.A. 3 Food Science Australia, North Ryde, NSW Date: October 2002 VAWCRC Report No: 8 Copy No: 79 CONFIDENTIAL (Not to be copied) Value Added Wheat CRC has taken all reasonable care in preparing this publication. Value Added Wheat CRC expressly disclaims all and any liability to any person for any damage, loss or injury (including economic loss) arising from their use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. Australian Wheat Varieties: Grain Quality Data on Recently Registered Varieties G.B.Cornish1, 2 I.L.Batey1, 3, and C.W.Wrigley1, 3 1Value-Added Wheat CRC, North Ryde, NSW 2SARDI Grain Quality Research Laboratory, Adelaide, South Australia, and 3Food Science Australia, North Ryde, NSW This report provides quality data on wheat varieties that have recently been registered, thereby supplementing an earlier report, entitled ‘Current Australian Wheat Varieties: Grain Quality Data’, by Wrigley et al. (2001), published as Report No 48 of the Quality Wheat CRC. Also provided in this report is an up-dated table of attributes and genes relevant to grain quality (Table 1), plus a list of the grades to which specific varieties are acceptable in the 2002/3 harvest (Table 2.). Refer to the earlier report for an explanation of the genes described in this up-dated version.
  • Regulatory Approaches to Ensure the Safety of Pet Food

    Regulatory Approaches to Ensure the Safety of Pet Food

    The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Regulatory approaches to ensure the safety of pet food October 2018 © Commonwealth of Australia 2017 ISBN 978-1-76010-854-0 This document was prepared by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License. The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. Membership of the committee Members Senator Glenn Sterle, Chair Western Australia, ALP Senator Barry O'Sullivan, Deputy Chair Queensland, NATS Senator Slade Brockman Western Australia, LP Senator Anthony Chisholm Queensland, ALP Senator Malarndirri McCarthy Northern Territory, ALP Senator Janet Rice Victoria, AG Other Senators participating in this inquiry Senator Stirling Griff South Australia, CA iii Secretariat Dr Jane Thomson, Secretary Ms Sarah Redden, Principal Research Officer Ms Trish Carling, Senior Research Officer Ms Lillian Tern, Senior Research Officer (to 14 September 2018) Ms Helen Ulcoq, Research Officer (to 27 July 2018) Mr Michael Fisher, Research Officer Mr Max Stenstrom, Administrative Officer PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: 02 6277 3511 Fax: 02 6277 5811 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.aph.gov.au/senate_rrat iv Table of contents Membership of the committee ........................................................................
  • Food Safety Research Report

    Food Safety Research Report

    Performance Benchmarking of Australian and New Zealand Business Regulation: Productivity Commission Food Safety Research Report December 2009 © COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 2009 ISBN 978-1-74037-298-5 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General's Department, 3-5 National Circuit, Canberra ACT 2600 or posted at www.ag.gov.au/cca. This publication is available in hard copy or PDF format from the Productivity Commission website at www.pc.gov.au. If you require part or all of this publication in a different format, please contact Media and Publications (see below). Publications Inquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Melbourne VIC 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] General Inquiries: Tel: (03) 9653 2100 or (02) 6240 3200 An appropriate citation for this paper is: Productivity Commission 2009, Performance Benchmarking of Australian and New Zealand Business Regulation: Food Safety, Research Report, Canberra. JEL code: A, B, C, D, H. The Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed most simply, is to help governments make better policies, in the long term interest of the Australian community.
  • Agricultural and Food Science, Vol. 20 (2011): 117 S

    Agricultural and Food Science, Vol. 20 (2011): 117 S

    AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD A gricultural A N D F O O D S ci ence Vol. 20, No. 1, 2011 Contents Hyvönen, T. 1 Preface Agricultural anD food science Hakala, K., Hannukkala, A., Huusela-Veistola, E., Jalli, M. and Peltonen-Sainio, P. 3 Pests and diseases in a changing climate: a major challenge for Finnish crop production Heikkilä, J. 15 A review of risk prioritisation schemes of pathogens, pests and weeds: principles and practices Lemmetty, A., Laamanen J., Soukainen, M. and Tegel, J. 29 SC Emerging virus and viroid pathogen species identified for the first time in horticultural plants in Finland in IENCE 1997–2010 V o l . 2 0 , N o . 1 , 2 0 1 1 Hannukkala, A.O. 42 Examples of alien pathogens in Finnish potato production – their introduction, establishment and conse- quences Special Issue Jalli, M., Laitinen, P. and Latvala, S. 62 The emergence of cereal fungal diseases and the incidence of leaf spot diseases in Finland Alien pest species in agriculture and Lilja, A., Rytkönen, A., Hantula, J., Müller, M., Parikka, P. and Kurkela, T. 74 horticulture in Finland Introduced pathogens found on ornamentals, strawberry and trees in Finland over the past 20 years Hyvönen, T. and Jalli, H. 86 Alien species in the Finnish weed flora Vänninen, I., Worner, S., Huusela-Veistola, E., Tuovinen, T., Nissinen, A. and Saikkonen, K. 96 Recorded and potential alien invertebrate pests in Finnish agriculture and horticulture Saxe, A. 115 Letter to Editor. Third sector organizations in rural development: – A Comment. Valentinov, V. 117 Letter to Editor. Third sector organizations in rural development: – Reply.
  • The Development of a Musical to Implement the Food

    The Development of a Musical to Implement the Food

    UTILISATION OF TRADITIONAL AND INDIGENOUS FOODS IN THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE OF SOUTH AFRICA SARAH T.P. MATENGE (M. Consumer Sciences) Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Consumer Sciences at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University Promoter: Prof. A. Kruger Co-promoter: Prof. M. van der Merwe Co-promoter: Dr. H. de Beer POTCHEFSTROOM 2011 DEDICATIONS This thesis is dedicated to: My beloved parents, Johnson Matenge and Tsholofelo Matenge who taught me how to persevere and always have hope for better outcomes in the unpredictable future. Thanks again for your guidance and patience. I love you so much. To my children, Tapiwa and Tawanda, leaving you at a time when you needed me the most was the hardest thing that I had to do in my life, but I thank the omnipresent God who is watching over you and because of him you coped reasonably well. My son Panashe, has given me sincere love and support, has endured well the tough life in Potchefstroom and has been doing a good job at school. Just one look in his eyes gave me hope. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is evident that this thesis is a product of joint efforts from many people. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following people who have contributed to make this study possible: Prof. A. Kruger, my promoter for her profound knowledge and her ability to see things in a bigger picture. Thanks for the hard work you have done as a supervisor. Prof. M. van der Merwe, co-promoter for her excellent guidance, expertise and selfless dedication.
  • Using Digital Image Analysis for Assessing the Quality of Wheat and Barley

    Using Digital Image Analysis for Assessing the Quality of Wheat and Barley

    Using Digital Image Analysis for Assessing the Quality of Wheat and Barley Bruce Gordon Armstrong Bachelor of Applied Science (Honours) Master of Applied Science Thesis This Thesis is Submitted to Fulfil the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science by Research School of Science and Engineering University of Ballarat PO Box 663 University Drive, Mt. Helen Ballarat, Victoria 3353 Australia Submitted in December 2004 Abstract This thesis explores the issues involved in developing a relatively low-cost Digital Imaging Analysis (DIA) system for the quality assessment of wheat and barley using commonly available equipment. It also explores the capability of such a system to provide rapid and accurate assessments. The research confirms that it is possible to devise such a system using flatbed scanners for image capture and conventional personal computers for the image analysis. However, it is necessary to modify the scanners, place them in a cabinet and develop special indented trays to hold the grain samples for optimal results. It is also necessary to develop complex software to undertake the analysis. The small sample sizes and non-destructive DIA methods will be especially beneficial to grain breeders and others who only have limited amounts of grain to work with. The DIA system developed (SeedCount) is capable of making very accurate counts of grain, and thus produces accurate thousand kernel weight assessments. Initially these counts were totally dependent on a novel (now patented) counting algorithm. The system can also make accurate morphological measurements of the kernel length, width and area that are limited in accuracy primarily by the image’s resolution.
  • An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board's Single

    An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board's Single

    An Economic Analysis of Removing the Canadian Wheat Board’s Single Desk Authority and Rail Deregulation in Western Canada by Janelle Wallace A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2011 by Janelle Wallace Abstract Wheat is the most common cereal crop grown by farmers in Western Canada and is mainly used for export. The marketing structure for wheat in Western Canada is unique. The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), a statutory marketing board, is mandated to sell all wheat grown by farmers for human consumption in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River region of British Columbia. Using historical price and basis data, this research attempts to quantify the economics of the current marketing structure for wheat in Western Canada. Simulations are developed to determine the economic profits and risk that could have been realized in an open market considering scenarios for three potential changes in the grain handling and transportation system (GHTS) and four alternative marketing strategies. Each are evaluated using a utility-based risk model to ascertain the most preferred marketing environment in terms of expected profit and risk. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Fabio Mattos (Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba), for all your guidance during this research and for always making time for me. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Jared Carlberg (Department of Agribusiness and Agricultural Economics, University of Manitoba), for encouraging me to pursue my education further and guiding me through the graduate studies program.
  • AWB Limited, and Its Affiliated Companies

    AWB Limited, and Its Affiliated Companies

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE In re: ) DNS-FAS Docket No. 08-0053 ) AWB LTD. and its Affiliated Companies, ) ) Petitioner ) Decision and Order This decision and order is issued pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 3017.890 that governs appeals of debarment and suspensions under 7 C.F.R. §§ 3017.25-.1020, the regulations that implement a governmentwide system of debarment and suspension for the United States Department of Agriculture’s nonprocurement activities. The purpose of the regulations is stated at 7 C.F.R. § 3017.110: (a) To protect the public interest, the Federal Government ensures the integrity of Federal programs by conducting business only with responsible persons. (b) A Federal agency uses the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible. (c) An exclusion is a serious action that a Federal agency may take only to protect the public interest. A Federal agency may not exclude a person for the purposes of punishment. AWB LTD has appealed the December 20, 2007 decision of Michael W. Yost, Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Services (“FAS”), United States Department of Agriculture, to debar AWB and certain of its affiliates from participation in government programs for two years. AWB argues that the decision should be reversed and vacated because: (1) it is untimely and procedurally flawed; (2) it is invalid under 7 C.F.R. § 3017.890; and (3) it failed to consider the time AWB had already been suspended. 1 Upon consideration of the Administrator’s decision, the underlying administrative record (“AR”) and the arguments of the parties, I am affirming the two-year debarment of AWB LTD and the named affiliated companies as fully supported by the administrative record and the controlling regulations.