Number 139 january 2006 Australian academy of Technological sciences and engineering

In This issue: Fellows contribute their views on the genetic modification of crops and foods; the results of ATSE’s survey on nuclear power, and further contributions to that debate Australia must reap the benefits of GM technology

By John Radcliffe E TS F M

umankind has a long history of resistance to up to 30 years – effectively a generational change – be- A change. There are many examples. Galileo’s fore new technologies are widely accepted. The value astronomical discoveries confirmed the of superphosphate fertilisers in agriculture was estab- cliffe theory of Copernicus that the earth revolves lished in the 1880s but they were not widely accepted d Haround the sun but he was forcibly obliged to recant until the 1920s. Automobiles, airline travel and com- during the Inquisition. After nearly 150 years, Darwin’s puters took 30 to 40 years to become widespread after john Ra r ommission and chair of the South

evolutionary theories are still being disputed by a small the first reliable examples had been introduced. D minority in American courts. Opposition to change can include fear of the un- The introduction of the grain harvester (“stripper”) known, distrust of the change agents, threats to the in Australia was resisted by opponents strewing wire holders of the prevailing wisdom, personal or commer- through the crop to render the technology ineffective. cial self-interest and often, political opportunism. The More recent Australian examples have included a 10- consideration of change is about the net benefits from year delay to the introduction of food irradiation, con- the trade-offs between benefits from a new technology tinued pockets of resistance to fluoridation of domestic based on sound science versus the risks associated with water supplies and a disinclination to accept the need it. Yet the consideration can too easily become domi- ational Water C Water ommissioner of the N ational for a long-term radiation storage repository despite nated by perceptions driven by emotional assertions E mail: J [email protected] Management. Resource N atural for entre being the world’s largest exporter of uranium. Contro- and strongly held faiths and beliefs. urrently a C urrently ustralian C ustralian

versy currently surrounds proposals in several drought- All the evidence suggests that these limitations are C A prone regional cities to improve reliability of access to most effectively overcome by having the wider- com water resources by introducing water recycling. munity accept the necessity to address the merits of an There is evidence that the community can require u page 2

Statements and opinions presented in this publication are those of the Honorary Editor: Dr D C Gibson FTSE Technical Editor: Professor I D Rae FTSE www.atse.org.au authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of ATSE. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering There is no copyright restriction on material published in ATSE Focus. It Address: Ian McLennan House, 197 Royal Parade, Parkville Vic 3052 may be reproduced provided appropriate acknowledgement is given to Postal Address: PO Box 355, Parkville Vic 3052 the author and the Academy. Telephone: 03 9340 1200 Facsimile: 03 9347 8237 Email: [email protected] ACN 008 520 394 ABN 58 008 520 394 Production: www.coretext.com.au Print Post Publication No 341403/0025 ISSN 1326-8708

 cover story: THE GM DEBATE

t From page 1 Government involvement developed at a relatively issue, having a say in the decision and thereby achieving late stage following a 1992 House of Representatives ownership of the decision reached rather than a deci- Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technol- sion being bureaucratically determined and an “educa- ogy review entitled Genetic manipulation – The Threat tion program” mounted to drive acceptance. or the Glory. Despite GMAC having generally worked Within Australia, the introduction of genetically effectively through peer pressure among the scientists, manipulated organisms was managed from 1987 by sci- there were nevertheless mounting pressures to establish entists themselves, through a non-statutory body, the statutory regulation, partly caused by some early prog- Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC). eny from a porcine genetic manipulation project being Its role was to review “any experiment involving the disposed of to the local abattoirs and potentially into construction and/or propagation of viroids, viruses, the human food chain after the project was completed, cells or organisms of novel genotype produced by ge- and partly due to concerns about the appropriateness netic manipulation which are either unlikely to occur of the then NRA regulating in the area of gene technol- in nature, or likely to pose a hazard to public health or ogy, as some future applications would likely lie outside to the environment”. From 1987 to 1999, it dealt with of its scope. 1681 small-scale contained experiments, 13 large-scale This led to a convergence of the competing endea- contained experiments, 109 deliberate releases and two vours of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and activities with a risk of unintended release. Forestry, the Department of Environment, the Depart- The first major industry to adopt genetic modifica- ment of Industry, Science and Technology and state tion (GM) was the cotton industry, with the introduc- governments. An agreement was reached in 1997 to tion of varieties containing a single Bacillus thuringen- establish a statutory regulatory scheme to review and sis (Bt) gene to provide resistance against heliothine endorse proposals for genetic manipulation. In the insects (Helicoverpa armigera and H. punctigera). Ini- event, the Department of Health, which had been a late tial approval to proceed was given by the then National arrival into this particular policy arena, was given car- Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary riage of the regulatory responsibility in recognition of Chemicals (NRA) in the absence of any other mecha- the primacy of ensuring there were no significant risks nisms. to human health. The passage of the Gene Technology The industry, which had been using 15 to 20- in Act 2000 (Commonwealth) to create the Office of the secticide spray applications in a growing season, was Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and the trans- quite sensitive to the public’s perception of chemicals parent processes for the evaluation of genetic manipu- and spray drift and also cognisant of the capacity of the lation proposals attracted relatively little controversy pests to develop chemical resistance. Through self-man- at the broad community level, despite the considerable agement, the cotton industry has successfully used ro- resistance to������������������������������������������� the technology �������������������������that had been building in tations of chemicals over many years to ensure that pes- Europe at that time. ticide resistance does not become established. When a The experience with subsequent proposals to grow genetically modified single-gene insect-resistant variety soybeans, maize and canola has been less sanguine. was introduced in 1996, use was restricted to 30% of Concerns, particularly driven by some organic farm- the planted area with large areas of refugia to minimise ing, anti-globalisation and environmental lobbies, have any genetic resistance developing in the insect popu- resulted in opposition to the introduction of GM vari- lation. Pesticide use on the GM varieties was reduced eties of these crops through the potential for threats to by more than half. More recently, two-gene resistance the genetic purity of non-GM crops through the “ad- has been introduced into varieties, greatly reducing the ventitious presence” of GM contaminants from pollen probability of resistance developing. Nearly 80% of the flow and contamination during handling and storage; a Australian cotton crop is planted to GM varieties with perception that non-GM crops have a market premium pesticide applications reduced by 60% to 75%, and a over GM varieties; an absence of evident consumer 90% reduction in the use of endosulfan. benefits; publicity given to several incidents where in- Although cotton is primarily a fibre crop, cotton dustry researchers had failed to fully meet OGTR man- seed oil and meal routinely enter the food chain and agement standards; and lack of clarity about liabilities no adverse health effects have been reported. There has flowing from the use of GM varieties. These issues in been no significant public concern arising from the use turn generated insecurity, confusion and lack of trust of Bt cotton in food. in GM technologies among farmers who were pri- www.atse.org.au

 cover story: THE GM DEBATE

marily worried about security of market access if GM Figure 1: Annual OGTR Licence Applications crops were introduced. As a consequence, although the OGTR had approved, for example, the commercial in- 25 troduction of two GM canola varieties, the states have 20 legislated for a moratorium on planting GM crops, require effective crop and grain handling segregation 15 and/or provide for the declaration of GM-free areas. 10 The result of these various state interventions has been to bring about a substantial reduction in invest- 5 ment in GM crop research and development, as rep- 0 resented by the decline in the number of crop-related 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 [to July] applications to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (Figure 1) In 2004, 8.25 million farmers across 17 countries now realising that Australia cannot afford to forgo the grew 81 million hectares of GM crops, with 60% as- benefits of genetic modification technology. signed to soybeans, 23% to maize (corn), 11% to cot- Dr John C Radcliffe AM FTSE, an agricultural scientist, was Director General of Agriculture in South Australia from 1985- ton and 6% to canola. Research is continuing on GM 1992, and an Institute Director and Deputy Chief Executive applications in other crops. The area sown to GM crops of CSIRO 1993-1999. He is currently a Commissioner of the is increasing at 10% per annum. This does not suggest National Water Commission, and chairs the South Australian Centre for Natural Resource Management and the SA State any a lack of faith in GM crops among our competi- Committee of the ATSE Crawford Fund. tors. To date there is no evidence that non-GM crops trade consistently at a premium over GM crops, nor The Future of GM Crops is there any evidence that GM crops are unable to be and Foods in Australia traded at competitive prices. Farmers are forgoing the By Danny Llewellyn environmental benefits of minimum or no-till farm- ing through being denied access to herbicide-resistance f you are regularly exposed to the popular media genes. Australian farmers are at a disadvantage when you might be forgiven for thinking that geneti- compared to their Canadian and US counterparts, cally modified crops and foods are outright dan-

who are selling canola, wheat and barley into the same gerous, or at the very least, a threat to our national SE

overseas markets as Australia without having expen- economic and environmental sustainability. We are F T I sive GM/non-GM segregation systems. Apart from constantly being bombarded with articles, news stories, O Plant

the benefits for farmers, there are other health-related editorial comment or letters from concerned readers ellyn GM-based improvements being developed to benefit on the risks Australian farmers will face if they follow w consumers such as high vitamin A rice, low glycaemic a number of other major agricultural producers around index barley and oilseeds with long chain omega-3 the world who have adopted GM crops on a broad scale, with CS IR cientist anny lle d

polyunsaturated fatty acids. after extensive regulatory evaluation, I might add. r Facing highly competitive and often distorted in- If you can find some processed food products with- D

ternational markets for agricultural exports, Australia’s out a portion of imported GM soybean, for example, . E mail: [email protected] anberra rural producers, as price takers, have continued to see then you are doing very well as the bulk of global soy- terms of trade decline. Recent forecasts indicate that bean production and a large part of the corn, cotton enior Principal Research S Research enior Principal S

Australian producers will need to aggressively increase and canola is now genetically modified and has been for Industry in C productivity to offset falls in prices as the full impact of almost the last decade. The mysterious health risks or large volumes of lower-cost agricultural exports from environmental pollution predicted by GM opponents GM-adopting countries such as Argentina, Brazil and a decade ago have failed to materialise, confirming the China have their effect. The Australian Bureau of Agri- decisions of our regulatory frameworks put in place to

culture and Resource Economics has estimated that by ensure the safety of these new products, and there are www.atse.org.au not adopting GM technology, Australian farmers will clear economic, environmental and social benefits being forgo $3 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. gained in each of the GM adoptive countries for farm- Despite almost weekly letters to the rural press ers (lower production costs) and the environment (less from one or two opponents of change, most farmers are pesticide use and lower greenhouse gas emissions).

 THE GM DEBATE

In Australia, although we import GM food prod- cepting GM solutions to food production in the face of ucts, we have really only seen one product of agricul- an unrelenting onslaught in the media, raising public tural biotechnology planted on our home turf, GM fears about the speed with which this new technology cotton (more than 88% of cotton grown in Australia is is advancing and the potential and implied unknown now GM). As someone intimately involved in the de- health risks to consumers from eating GM food prod- velopment and deployment of that technology I have ucts (none of which I believe are justified). GM canola, been impressed with the way the Australian cotton in- for example, now widely grown in Canada for edible oil dustry has been transformed from a large user of agri- production for margarines, gained regulatory approv- cultural pesticides to an industry intensely proud of its al at the federal level in Australia, only to be blocked stewardship of the land and environment. We have seen at state level by a political moratorium. Uncertainty a dramatic decline in pesticide use for the control of in- about the ability to get GM food products to the mar- sect pests in cotton and greater reliance on Integrated ket is having a deleterious impact on Australian com- Pest Management. There have been reductions in the panies and researchers, and will eventually impact on use of residual, environmentally damaging herbicides our farmers’ abilities to be globally competitive when for weed control along with a widespread adoption of other nations push ahead and derive the benefits of Integrated Weed Management systems, including min- GM products. imum tillage to preserve soil structures and the phasing Why does GM technology and particularly GM out of hand-chipping of weeds (an agricultural practice foods engender so much fear in the community? Al- that carried occupational health and safety risks for though this sounds a bit conspiratorial, I expect a lot of farm workers). All in less than 10 years. it has been for unrelated, often political, ends – more to do with opposition to global control of economies and agricultural production by multinational corporations After all, we too are than any real concern for the products themselves. No existing GM product has faltered from any of the many consumers, we eat the doomsday scenarios proposed by GM opponents. There has been no rapid development of resistance by – Danny LLewellyn same foods the target pests to the insect-tolerant GM crops, no in- vasive weediness or outcrossing to weedy species result- The future will bring new GM traits, although ing in serious impacts on agricultural productivity, no they may not have the life-changing impacts of this reported ecological impacts on non-target species, and first generation of GM products that have dramatically no reported incidents of effects on human health and changed cotton production – but some with consumer safety from the 80 million hectares of GM crops cur- traits. New types of healthier oils from cotton, stress rently being grown around the world. tolerance to cope with our erratic environmental con- Incidents that have occurred are generally no differ- ditions, better quality fibres for textile production – all ent from problems being faced in conventional agricul- are feasible and both government and commercial cot- ture – strict separation of GM from non-GM crops, for ton biotechnologists are beavering away in their labora- example, is difficult without imposing disproportion- tories to deliver these to the industry, with every chance ate costs, and is no different to the difficulties faced by of at least some success. seed producers in maintaining seed purity, or food crop The real challenge will be to deliver similar benefits producers in limiting contamination with weed seeds to other agricultural and horticultural industries, par- (for example, wild vetch contamination of lentils). ticularly those producing our staple foods like wheat, Cross-contamination is dealt with by standard codes rice and potatoes or fruits and vegetables. This task fac- of practice and sensible limits on levels of acceptable es many hurdles, not so much technological but more contamination, and the same will have to be applied to sociological and political. These industries tend to be GM contamination of non-GM produce. International less organised than cotton and their problems are not discussions are focused around these issues at the mo- so much production-oriented like cotton, that is not ment – an absolute ban on GM contamination is just focused so much on weed and pest control but more on not feasible. delivering high-quality produce. Despite the lack of any serious evidence for a down- The current social climate has swung away from ac- side to the use of GM crops, many well-meaning and www.atse.org.au

 THE GM DEBATE

rational thinkers have joined the anti-GM movement, importance to our society, not the vehicle for global so the anti-globalisation argument cannot be the whole domination portrayed in the media. answer for the momentum of the anti-GM lobby. We Dr Danny Llewellyn FTSE is a Senior Principal Research Scientist with CSIRO Plant Industry in Canberra, responsible need to accept that there is also some underlying uncer- for the development and deployment of biotechnological tainty and concern within our community about the solutions to problems in the Australian cotton industry pace of change in our modern world and, although I do through his interactions with CSIRO’s cotton breeding program in Narrabri, NSW. He has an active research program not think that GM foods are in the same league, it cer- in applied aspects of GM cotton production and evaluation tainly has not been helped by the international catastro- as well as more basic research into the control of gene expression and plant development, particularly relating to phes and sometimes denial of thalidomide, Mad Cow cotton fibre production. disease and SARS, to name a few, that have highlighted the failures of governments to act swiftly to contain di- sasters of potentially global proportions. A continued Genetically-modified crops focus on public education is clearly one component to in Australia and Abroad improving public acceptance of GM foods, as is the re- By Tony Fischer sponsible regulation and use of the GM technologies that are already out there. We cannot forever fear that any people, especially in the Americas new GM foods carry risks to our health (they may in but also in Australia, have been consum- fact be better for us) so in the end we must rely on the ing genetically-modified (GM) foodstuffs regulatory frameworks our governments put in place to for a number of years. There have been no SE regulate GM foods, as they do other foods. Msignificant health problems, and informed consumers C F T A

GM technologies do not come cheap and they will understand that each product has been checked for r only be applied where there is a benefit to be gained and food safety by the appropriate authorities, an essential che a market big enough to support the cost of developing prerequisite for their release onto the market. s and commercialising them. We have seen this happen For Australia the key GM question is whether we

with the first generation of GM crops, and cotton is the should grow GM food crops, given possible environ- Tony fi r D

shining example, but they can also benefit other pro- mental risks and possible negative impacts on the price E mail: [email protected] exico. duction systems, either through improving production of our food crop exports or the integrity of our or- efficiency or competitiveness with other suppliers. ganically-produced foods. Objections arising from per- T) in M At the moment we as a nation are rich enough (rich ceived multinational control of these technologies can C I MMY in energy, rich in arable land, rich in petrochemicals) be dismissed, even if true, since we accept such control enter ( enter to be able to make a choice about the use of GM crops over supply in many other essential areas of consump- the at Program Wheat of the D irector C IAR) and former and foods, but that may not always be the case. A future tion (for example, medicines, cars, computers, software Australia will need agricultural production systems etc). Objections on moral, religious or other grounds that are very efficient, require less inputs and meet the must yield to the majority view and can be catered for needs and demands of both national and international by food labelling. Balancing these risks and objections consumers. I believe that this will only come about if are the advantages of growing GM foods, which at pres- we adopt GM technologies as one of the tools available ent are largely perceived to accrue to the growers of the to manipulate our crop and food plants. crops and the suppliers of the technology. C Improvement Wheat and aize We should encourage further development of GM I am an agricultural scientist who has researched crops and foods, provided there is appropriate regula- crop agronomy and improvement since the 1960s,

tion and a quantifiable benefit to Australians, to the but I have also been involved in farming wheat and International M entre for International Agricultural Research (A Research International Agricultural for entre environment, farmers or consumers. Under such a re- other crops in southern NSW since childhood. I am quirement there is nothing to fear from GM foods. We convinced by the wealth of economic studies on GM have one of the most open and transparent regulatory maize, soybeans, cotton and canola overseas that farm- systems in the world for GM products based on sound ers get a significant part of the economic benefit that scientific and precautionary principles and a dedicated this technology brings. Obviously the owner of the

community of researchers, proudly Australian. After technology must benefit too, but less obviously the www.atse.org.au all, we too are consumers, we eat the same foods, and consumer also benefits, via lower product prices as the we have families and children who we wish to see grow production supply curve shifts downwards. Program manager at the Australian C the Australian manager at Program up in a healthy and prosperous society, free from worry. On the environmental side, there has been concern GM is just another tool to be applied to problems of about resistance developing where pests are targeted

 THE GM DEBATE

by GM traits (for example, the widely-used Bt for in- ties of GM maize, GM canola and GM soybean on the sect resistance, or glyphosate resistance for easier weed world market. Expert studies tend to find that there is no management). This is not a new risk – it has happened price penalty for mixed GM plus non-GM product (for with other chemical control strategies, and scientists example, Canadian canola into Japan), nor any premium develop strategies to minimise the risk and manage the for the non-GM product. But we all know of the ongo- problem if it arises. For example, herbicide-resistant ing fuss between the Americans (meaning Argentina, weeds are a widespread problem in grain cropping in Brazil, Canada and the US) exporting GM crops, and Australia already, without the introduction of GM her- the Europeans, where there does appear to be consumer bicide resistance; the problem is managed by integrated resistance to the GM product and some vocal anti-GM weed management. As a grower of canola I would pre- lobby groups. Sometimes resistance is reduced when the fer to manage that risk with Roundup Ready canola food component of the product is likely to be free of the (the trade name for glyphosate-resistant canola) than GM protein (for example, the oil expressed from canola), continue to spend the $50 to $100 a hectare on a suite or when the product is fed to animals, as happens widely, of herbicides to try to control weeds in conventional even in Europe now. The bases of European objections canola. seem to be health, environment and multinational con- You can forget about the early report on Monarch trol, depending on the spokesperson. butterflies being adversely affected by Bt maize in the US Finally, there is the issue of organic food producers or the recent UK study showing fewer birds in Roundup in Australia, where the perceived problem is a need for Ready crops. The former was poor science, and the latter compensation should certified organic status be lost be- a press beat-up (there were fewer insects because the weed cause of contamination arising from GM crops on near- control was better; if you want the insects, and birds that by farms. This issue is at least plausible when GM pollen feed on them, grow the weeds somewhere else and not can be moved by insects (canola) or the wind (maize). in my crop, thank you). Recently an expert from the US, The solution here would seem to be sensible enforce- invited to Australia by the anti-GM lobby, claimed that able rules about minimum crop separation distances glyphosate-resistant crops in North America were now and minimum tolerable contamination levels (these can running into weed problems. This needs to be investigat- never be zero, and 0.9% seems to be becoming accepted ed in a balanced and scientific manner, and dealt with. as reasonable and workable). This should not add greatly As for other environmental implications, there are to the cost of production or handling. many real positives, because less chemicals, or environ- The European resistance to GM products seems to mentally-safer chemicals, are needed to control pests in be diminishing, but only gradually, and the anti-GM the current suite of GM crops, and in several cases the lobby groups remain active. This opposition is having a GM trait encourages the adoption of more environmen- significant adverse impact on the adoption of GM crops tally-sound cropping systems. For example, glyphosate is far beyond Europe; I refer in particular to GM crops in a relatively safe chemical with low mammalian toxicity developing countries. I have worked as an agricultural (compare this to the triazines used with conventional scientist for more than 20 years in the developing world. maize). An example closer to home is the reduction This has taken me to most developing countries where I by more than 50% of insecticide applications since Bt have interacted with scientists from the public national cotton, Australia’s only significant GM crop, has been research institutions and small farmers from the com- widely sown. The experience with Bt cotton has been the mercial sector, the mainstay of more than half of the same throughout the world, and in developing countries world’s food crop production. it also translates into a significant health benefit for their Developing countries lagged five years or so behind back-pack spray operators. With respect to desirable the leaders in adoption of GM crops because the private cropping system change, zero-till planting of soybeans sector, which is selling these technologies, was not ini- has clearly been encouraged by the advent of Roundup tially interested; because their public sector investment Ready soybeans in the US and Argentina. was low; and because the countries were slow to put the This leaves the question of price that Australia’s ag- appropriate regulations into place. Biosafety and release ricultural exports command and the effect of having regulations have now been enacted in most developing either acknowledged GM admixture, or unplanned con- countries, but even now, there is still uncertainty about tamination (adventitious presence), and/or the costs of their operation, and in particular, about the reach of avoiding the latter. There is some controversy surround- GM intellectual property (IP). Since many of the tech- ing this issue. But we do have the example of large quanti- nologies for enabling GM variety production were not www.atse.org.au

 THE GM DEBATE

originally patented in developing countries, there was Where help is really needed is access to enabling freedom to use them at least in goods for home con- technologies, to training and to operating resources sumption. Uncertainty surrounds the export of products which are often scarce. The problem is particularly acute developed using unlicensed IP, however. Patent protec- for small countries, many of which cannot afford the tion is now spreading as countries join the WTO and at- money needed to build local GM breeding capability, tempt to comply with its TRIPS regulations, but the un- and with smallholder crops which are exclusively the do- certainties remain. Nevertheless, GM crop adoption has main of developing countries (for example, many crops now picked up, and for 2004, it is estimated that seven of the sub-tropics and tropics), where there is no private million developing country farmers planted 28 million sector interest, in contrast to the tropical estate crops hectares of such crops, compared to one million planting like oil palm where GM research is underway. Australia 53������������������������������������������������������ million hectares������������������������������������� in industrial countries. Mostly this is prepared to help such countries in its neighbourhood has involved the adoption of crops and traits released with public funds, but the current lack of approval for earlier in the industrial countries, as adaptive research in the growing of any GM food crops in Australia is a signif- the private and public sector got underway in the devel- icant contradiction in the eyes of these countries. We are oping world. not helped by the fact that, as I have argued, disapproval GM research is relatively expensive, and beyond the is not scientifically based, but relies on the perception of reach of the small-country public sector, but right now politicians about public opinion. several large developing countries, in particular China In the longer term, I believe, along with most other and India, are making huge public sector investments in agricultural and plant scientists, that the world will ac- plant biotechnology, including GM crops. Some of this cept GM crops. Helping this is the fact that GM crops investment is moving to crops and traits of particular in- are likely to become more attractive to the public in gen- terest to these countries (for example GM rice, 95% of eral, through the use of smarter gene constructs designed which is produced in the developing world). And not all to achieve the desired phenotype, but which have even the research is simply adaptation of the key traits already lower health or environment risks, and through the in- released in the industrial world: a good example is the corporation of traits of direct benefit to the consumer elegant public-private research to produce golden rice, (healthier foods) or to the environment (more water- boosting the Vitamin A content of polished rice from productive crops). Investment in research must continue zero to levels which would have a substantial benefit for for this to be achieved, and it needs ongoing incentives consumers ������������������������������������������deficient in Vitamin A��������������������, of which there are for the private sector, as well as a significant balance of hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia. Field testing of public research, especially in the developing world. local varieties with this trait is about to commence in sev- It will come sooner if the private sector is more sensi- eral developing countries. tive to public perceptions than it has been in the past. In the case of golden rice, of other novel GM rice Delays in the testing, approval and adoptions of traits traits, and of other potential GM crops for developing like golden rice, which promise so much for segments countries, variety release (as distinct from field testing) of the world’s nutrient-deficient poor, could prove very has been slowed by anti-GM opposition, largely sourced costly for these disadvantaged people. Scientists need to from the industrial world, in particular Europe. Not only do all that is possible to prevent this, and this includes are objections, usually exaggerated, raised on the grounds support for the planting of approved GM food crops in of health, environment, ownership or religion, there is Australia. also a significant real worry for developing countries that For references and further reading I recommend the their exports to the North could be jeopardised because August 2004 issue of the Farm Policy Journal of the Aus- of GM contamination, even when the export crop itself tralian Farm Institute. is not GM. Maybe not a “neo-colonial plot” as some Dr Tony Fischer AC FTSE graduated in Agricultural Science from the south have observed, but a serious deterrent to from the University of Melbourne, then received a PhD adoption of GM crops. Most countries, sometimes with in plant physiology at the University of California, Davis. In Australia, he has worked as a crop scientist for NSW international public sector help, are now perfectly capa- Agriculture, the Australian National University and CSIRO Plant Industry, and overseas at the International Maize and ble of deciding, in the light of their own and/or global www.atse.org.au Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico, where from scientific evidence and their own regulations, whether it 1988 to 1995 he was Director of the Wheat Program. Since is safe and advantageous for them to release any particu- then he has been a program manager at the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). He has been lar GM crop trait. They need to be allowed to do this free on several boards, and is currently serving on that of the from pressure from the anti-GM lobby. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

 the GM debate

Adoption of GM food modern cropping systems are run as professional agri- should be encouraged business. Australian farmers are increasingly concerned in Australia with the natural environment within which they live By Greg Constable and operate because they know without its health they cannot maintain production and their livelihoods. As re- support production of food derived from trans- sponsible land managers Australian farmers are consider- genic technology – when a gene from one species ing transgenics as an option to achieve the best balance

is inserted into a different species, thus changing between food and fibre production and maintaining en- SE F T

otton otton it – as long as appropriate regulatory approval has vironmental health. C Ibeen obtained. Compare this to most Australians who live in urban able Australia’s regulatory bodies, such as the Office of environments far removed from the realities of natural st the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food environments and food production. If we choose not to Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have been support farmers in their efforts to manage their farms Plant IndustryO Plant ( eg con

r conservative on environmental and health matters and effectively then we face the possibility that more of our g r E mail: [email protected]

d we should be confident of the rigour of their decisions. food and fibre could be imported from other countries. In this article I use the term transgenic to describe Could we be certain those country’s farmers are treating eader for CS IR eader for genetically modified or GM crops as I consider it a more the planet as we want to ourselves? accurate description; we are all GM, either from natural How did we get into this situation where the ques- or human selection, so transgenic is a better term for the tion about food from transgenic crops needs to be asked? subject on hand. The media have not been good enough. The public has I am a plant breeder with an interest in developing been misled with sensational and scare stories, fed by in- cientist and Program L and Program cientist sustainable cropping systems. We have found Bt trans- terest groups with little accurate knowledge. genic cotton, with inbuilt resistance to cotton’s major A comparison with organic food raises some inter- insect pest in Australia, to have led to a major change in esting facts. Organic production cannot feed the world anagement and Improvement) at N arrabri. at and Improvement) anagement

M insecticide requirement and a quantum step forward in at present, let alone in the future, and we have done a

Principal Research S Research Principal facilitating Integrated Pest Management. Insecticide use bad job in feeding some parts of the world. Organic has been reduced by 80% compared with today’s conven- food usually has lower yield, higher cost of production tional cotton – and is down to only 4% of conventional and hence is more expensive to the consumer. There is cotton production systems of 20 years ago. This is a mon- obviously a significant and expanding demand for or- umental change in scale, with a commensurate reduction ganic and consumers pay the required premium as their in environmental impact little appreciated by critics. choice. The same can be true of transgenic food – label- All of the important issues surrounding transgen- ling will specify the background and price will reflect the ics are dealt with carefully by Australian regulators. For cost and value. both insect and herbicide resistance traits in cotton, I believe it is possible to have food as healthy as, if comprehensive and pre-emptive resistance management not more so, than organic by using modern tools and plans were researched, developed and eventually made products. That system will produce healthier food on a part of the contract the grower signs with the transgenic more sustainable basis and be just as productive as any cotton provider. These conditions are audited through old-fashioned “exploitative” production system. the crop season to ensure compliance. At an earlier stage in the regulatory process, food and health issues are as- Dr Greg Constable FTSE is currently a Principal Research Scientist and the Program Leader for CSIRO Plant Industry sessed before any large-scale field research is done – let (Cotton Management and Improvement) at Narrabri. Greg’s alone before limited commercial use. All of these condi- specific research interests are: screening and selection tions are often far more stringent than approval processes procedures for producing new cotton varieties, including yield, quality, water use efficiency, disease resistance and for pesticides. efficacy of transgenes; sustainable cotton cropping systems, The regional economy benefits from successful agri- particularly integrating variety, rotation and fertilizer management; and physiology and modelling growth, yield, business and slows the urban drain to capital cities. Our and fibre quality. Organic production cannot feed the world – Greg Constable

www.atse.org.au at present, let alone in the future

 the gm debate

The Long Road ahead for ZFA) commenced development of its approaches to GM Foods in Australia the regulation of GM foods in the late 1990s. This By Chris Hudson assessment led to a proposal being released for public comment in 1998. The outcome was the adoption of ost foods are derived from plants and Standard A18, “food produced using gene technology”, animals grown and bred by humans over in the then Australian Food Standards Code, which several millennia, and which have under- was endorsed in July 1998 and became effective in May

gone substantial genetic change over time. 1999. , SE

MTraditional plants and animals with the most desirable F T Public and consumer attitudes to GM foods characteristics were chosen for food and for breeding Public attention to GM foods began to escalate in the on subsequent generations. The desirable characteristics late 1990s when consumers first became aware of the ds hu were brought about by naturally occurring variation in application of gene technologies in the agri-food chain. s i the genetic make-up of the individuals. Traditional ge- At the time the food authority, ANZFA, was in the r netic modification in this sense is “natural” and forms process of establishing the first standard for foods de- ch the fundamental basis of evolution and breeding. rived from gene technology. At the same time, a num-

Genetic selection for desirable traits has been used ber of multinational agribusinesses and biotechnology C hairman, Advisory Australia; cience Professor

for thousands of years in traditional animal and plant companies were developing genetically modified agri- ood S breeding, and in more recent times in selection from cultural commodities which would lead to GM foods mutations in micro-organisms. Modern genetics has entering the marketplace. xcellence. E mail: [email protected] of E xcellence. entre had a profound impact on our ability to increase food The release of the ANZFA proposal for public production, and agricultural efficiency, so as to keep comment in 1998 led to a very significant level of pub- C afety

pace with a growing world population. Nowhere is this lic discussion and political activity. This level of public ood S more evident than in the “green revolution” of recent interest and debate was unprecedented in the develop- times. ment of a food standard. It was of interest that the level

Modern gene technology uses scientific techniques of activity in New Zealand was significantly higher F and of Australia and L ivestock eat

or tools to alter the genetic material of living cells and than in Australia. In New Zealand, ANZFA received F Australian Board, organisms, including plants, animals and micro-organ- more than a thousand submissions to the GM food isms. Organisms that have been modified using gene proposal. This eventually led to the establishment of a A director of M A director technology are often referred to as GMOs. Using mod- Royal Commission in New Zealand, which presented ern gene technology, particular characteristics of living its findings in 2001. In Australia a “consensus confer- organisms can be altered in a specific and directed way, ence” was organised and held in Old Parliament House, usually by introducing new segments of genetic mate- Canberra, 10 to 12 March 1999. rial into the chromosomes of the organism. Genetically This event, the first of its type, brought together a modified foods come from food sources such as plants, number of community views and covered a wide range animals and micro-organisms that have been modified of issues surrounding GM foods. The sentiment of that by such genetic technologies. These techniques allow meeting can be illustrated by one outcome statement: food producers to alter more precisely certain charac- “The speed at which GMOs have been developed and teristics of a food by introducing genes from another introduced by multinational companies and the scien- source, or in some cases by deleting genes. tific community has left many people, internationally, Genetically modified foods completely unaware of and uninvolved in the process. Genetically modified food is defined as food that is – or An issue as important as altering the genes of our food contains as an ingredient, including a processing aid – a supply should not be left in the hands of a few.” food produced using gene technologies which: Indeed, public pressure to slow progress on de- (a) contains novel DNA and/or novel protein; and velopment of GM foods was mounting internation- (b) has altered characteristics. ally, particularly in Europe, where there were calls for GM foods do not include highly refined food with- a moratorium. Several companies which had been suc-

out altered characteristics and where DNA and novel cessfully marketing GM foods, such as the Flavor Saver www.atse.org.au protein have been removed. tomato, were forced to cease selling such products. (Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code: Food companies felt compelled to go to considerable Standard 1.5.2 “Food produced using gene technology”). lengths to ensure that GM-derived food components The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (AN- and ingredients did not enter their supply chains.

 the GM debate

ment processes for genetically modified foods (ANZFA Some of the benefits to be derived from genetic technologies applied in the agrifood sector have been occasional paper series No 1). This publication out- identified as: lines, in layman’s terms, the processes of scientific risk ¢ enhancement in agricultural productivity assessment for GM foods. In addition many aspects of ¢ contribution to more sustainable agriculture consumer interest about GM foods are covered. The ¢ improvement in the “environmental footprint” for food pro- new food standards agency, FSANZ, is in the process duction of updating this publication. ¢ improvements in animal welfare through new approaches Food safety assessment for GM foods is naturally to disease mitigation a critical requirement. However, so also is consumer ¢ lower food costs and increased manufacturing efficiency information. This is also addressed in the Standard ¢ allowing new food products with better quality attributes through labelling requirements, where specific label- ¢ enhancement of nutritional value in foods ling is mandated for those foods which meet the defini- ¢ improvements in food safety through reduced reliance on tion of a GM food. Finally, environmental aspects for agricultural and veterinary chemicals GM commodities are also seen by the public as a criti- ¢ improvements in food safety management and quality as- cal issue. The assessment and control for field trials and surance release of GM commodities comes under the adminis- ¢ making agrifood businesses more competitive tration of the Gene Technology Regulator. The future for GM foods in Australia The present state of public opinion on GM foods, as The bottom line for this community pressure was outlined above, has led food companies to shy away that consumers were not convinced that the potential from promoting or marketing such products in spite of benefits from GM foods outweighed the perceived the fact that the food authority has approved some 27 risks. Many consumers did not understand the process- GM commodities for use in food. The Gene Technol- es for safety assessment and food safety controls relat- ogy Regulator has approved a number of agricultural ing to GM foods. In addition, activist groups were fan- commodity GMOs for field trials and in some cases for ning hysteria on the topic with media headlines such as commercial release. However several Australian states “Frankenstein Foods”. have placed a moratorium on such field trials or com- Much of this position with public opinion arose be- mercial release. cause development of GM commodities was at a pace Clearly we have much work to do to turn public way ahead of consumer education and information. opinion around, but I believe we must do so in order Safety and efficacy of GM foods to ensure Australia is able to compete internationally Food standards agencies around the world have put in the agrifood sector. The adoption of gene technolo- much effort into the development of science-based gies is moving forward in several parts of the world, in risk assessment protocols which must be applied to North America and South America, and particularly in GM commodities before they are approved as foods. In China. Australia the scientific staff at Food Standards Australia Biotechnology Australia has been tracking public New Zealand (FSANZ, which superseded the previous opinion on GM food issues for several years. Whereas agency ANZFA) who are responsible for the safety as- there have been some recent positive trends, we still sessment of GM foods have established a strong inter- have a long road ahead. national reputation and they act as leaders of several of It is well recognised that consumers are much more the international forums at which GM standards are positively disposed to application of modern biotech- developed, including the Codex Alimentarius Com- nologies in the pharmaceutical and biomedical fields. mission. ANZFA and later FSANZ have published Once again the comparison with agrifood relates to the Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Foods to be issue of risk–benefit assessment. included in the Standard for Food Produced Using In regard to the human health aspects of GM foods, Gene Technology. All such foods must undergo pre- I am confident that the scientific staff in our regulatory market assessment before being approved for inclusion agencies have the expertise, systems and protocols to in a schedule in the standard. At the present time 27 give us confidence that this is in good hands. It is of GM foods have received such approval . In June 2000 interest to note that an OECD Conference held in Ed- ANZFA released a publication for public information inburgh in 2000, with 400 senior scientific delegates from 40 countries, concluded: “No peer-reviewed sci- www.atse.org.au GM Foods and the Consumer – ANZFA’s safety assess-

10 the gm debate

entific article has yet appeared which reports adverse ef- sectors for our future. fects on human health as a consequence of eating GM At the international level, for mankind to be able to food.” I believe this still holds true today. Likewise, I provide food to a growing world population, estimated have confidence that our authorities, such as Biotech- to reach nine billion by 2050, and at the same time pro- nology Australia and the Gene Technology Regulator, vide an expected standard of living and quality of life have the ability to ensure environmental effectiveness while protecting the world’s environment and ensuring and agricultural sustainability. agricultural sustainability, we have no alternative but to Conclusion embrace the modern biotechnologies. We must continue to understand and respect public views and concerns. However, we must make more ef- Professor Chris Hudson FTSE has worked in the food and fort to bring consumers onside. This will be a signifi- agricultural sectors for a period of 35 years. He recently retired as a Board Member of the food authority, Food cant challenge and will require both consumer educa- Standards Australia New Zealand, having also been a Director tion and excellent communication. of its predecessor, Australia New Zealand Food Authority. Chris is currently a Director of Meat and Livestock Australia, We must continue to invest in research and devel- and NuMega Ingredients Pty. Limited. He is also a Director opment in the field of genetic technologies as applied of Food Science Australia. He is Chairman, Advisory Board, Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence. Chris is an to agrifood. This is essential if we are to participate in Adjunct Professor, University of Queensland in the field international scientific development. It is also essential of food science and technology, and Professorial Fellow at the University of Wollongong. He was President, Australian for Australia to maintain an internationally competi- Institute of Food Science and Technology, 1999 to 2001, and tive position in one of the most important economic is a Fellow of that Institute.

Is Australia ready for grow on poor soils; GM foods? ¢ more easily reduce levels of allergens and naturally- By Ken Buckle occurring toxicants; ¢ increase levels of desirable disease-resisting and he facts concerning food security in developing health-promoting food constituents (functional foods countries are sobering: some 800 million peo- and nutraceuticals); ple (mostly women and children) are chroni- ¢ improve the sensory and nutritional qualities of

cally malnourished, with 40,000 dying daily, some foods (levels of vitamins A, E, desirable fatty ac- . SE F T Ttwo billion are iron-deficient and 600 million are io- ids, iron, fibre); dine-deficient, while the assets of the world’s 15 richest ¢ produce modified ingredients and processing aids people exceed the GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa. Science (enzymes, microorganisms); enabled the Green Revolution to stop a potential fam- ¢ reduce pesticide and herbicide usage, with environ- ken buckle ine in South Asia, and saved huge areas of land from mental and cost reduction benefits; and Technology and cience ¢

cultivation in developing countries. improve desired features of farmed animals, includ- ood S E mail: [email protected]

Now the challenge is for science to provide more ing fish (disease resistance, low-fat or fat-modified, rofessor P genetically diverse crops, less chemical inputs, integrat- higher yields of prime cuts, better feed conversion). ed water, soil and nutrient management, and to harness The potential benefits of GM foods to developing the huge potential for transgenic plants, animals and countries are considerable. GM technologies in com- micro-organisms. bination with other technical and socio-economic ap- Genetic modification of food raw materials offers proaches have the capability to achieve the UN dream

several potential advantages and benefits compared to of reducing world hunger to 50% of 1996 levels by International U nion of F ouncil, traditional selective breeding techniques. It can: 2015. ¢ be more precise in selecting desirable characteris- Such benefits, however, are not achieved without cientific C cientific tics; potentially significant problems. Poor farmers will only hair, S C hair,

¢ allow more traits to be improved (herbicide and in- embrace GM products if they are of benefit and afford- www.atse.org.au secticide tolerance, insecticide, drought, temperature able. The problem for poor non-farming individuals is and virus resistance, salt tolerance); affording any kind of food, whether GM or not. ¢ reduce the number of food-deficient regions through There are political and economic issues that cannot the development of stress-resistant varieties able to be solved by widespread introduction of GM foods:

11 the GM debate

they are part of but not the whole solution. it is listed and complies with any conditions. The list Concerns about GM foods primarily focus on: includes food derived from GM sugarbeet, soybean, ¢ safety, especially in the long term: can they be ‘prov- potato, corn, cotton and canola. The fact that these en’ to be safe, and are there unintended consequences; products are not yet abundant in the food supply is a ¢ environmental impacts of GM organisms and reflection more of the reluctance of manufacturers to crops; be the first into the market, in the current climate of ¢ the role of big business in patenting GM organisms consumer suspicion and lack of understanding of the and preventing public access to GM technologies, espe- technologies used and the mechanisms adopted for cially in developing countries; and safety assessment, rather than a comment on the safety ¢ potential allergenicity of novel proteins in GM of such foods. foods. Consumers in Australia may be confused by the op- Rational examination of peer-reviewed scientific posing positions taken by governments in North Amer- literature shows little evidence of concern for the safety ica (largely pro-GM) and the EU (anti-GM). Even of GM foods and ingredients. Australia, through Food comments by eminent scientists such as Australian Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), has ad- Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty that strident opposition opted rigorous procedures to examine the safety of GM to GM was denying sustenance and opportunities for foods and ingredients, and there is no evidence that improved food quality and health to the world’s under- these products have been or are likely to be any more nourished have been attacked by vocal opponents eager harmful than traditional foods or ingredients, some of to spread the anti-GM message. which contain toxic constituents. Should the adoption of GM foods be encouraged in It is important to note that the safety of foods can- Australia? Ultimately market forces will determine the not be guaranteed. However, the procedures used to answer. For many consumers, GM foods are not neces- assess food safety in Australia are rigorous, based on sary, as there is already an abundance of high-quality accepted principles of risk assessment following pro- foods. GM foods have been available overseas for many cedures adopted by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimen- years with few if any safety issues, but long-term obser- tarius Commission and now used routinely around the vations are lacking. world. Currently the ‘green and clean’ image of Australian The public perception of the safety of GM crops, foods is a strong marketing advantage, especially for ex- foods and ingredients is very different. Why? Within ports. Whether that can be sustained and also embrace the post-BSE period, assurances on the safety of GM GM foods will depend on extensive consumer educa- foods have fallen on deaf ears. In recent years, the pub- tion. Scientists with knowledge of the issues must be lic has increasingly regarded assurances from scientists, more vocal and speak up for those who cannot, and regulatory authorities, chemical companies and aca- educate the public about this complex topic. demics with considerable suspicion. As the UK Institute of Food Science and Technol- Much of this perception has arisen from the very ogy has stated: “Food scientists and technologists can public and vehement opposition from vested interests, support the responsible introduction of GM technolo- whose campaigns of scaremongering and disinforma- gies provided that issues of product safety, environmen- tion have been successful in propagating the view that tal concerns, ethics and information are satisfactorily GM technologies are suspect and thus the foods and addressed so that the benefits that this technology can ingredients derived therefrom are harmful, often with confer become available both to improve the quality of little or no scientific support for the views expressed. the food supply and to help the world’s escalating popu- The international science community must work lation in the coming decades”. to ensure that the best available science underpins the

decisions made, such decisions are transparent, and Professor Ken Buckle FTSE held the Chair of Food Science and the public is kept fully informed of the safety of GM Technology and was Head of Department and School, and Associate Dean (International Development) for the Faculties foods. of Life Sciences and Science at UNSW. He was President of The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code the Australian Institute of Food S&T and the International Academy of Food S&T, and is Chair, Scientific Council, (Part 1.5.2) currently requires that foods produced us- International Union of Food Science and Technology and ing gene technology, other than substances regulated as a member of IUFoST’s Governing Council. He was awarded an Australian Government Centenary Medal for services a food additive or processing aid, must not be sold or to Australia in food science and technology, and the AIFST used as an ingredient or component of any food unless Award of Merit. www.atse.org.au

12 the GM debate

BIOTECH PICKLE – RISKY OR plus those being assessed. Approved foods include soy- WORTHY INVESTMENT? bean, canola, corn, potato, sugar beet and cotton. They By Jennifer Wythes carry either insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant traits. No whole biotech fruit, vegetables or cereals are sold in isks, not benefits, will decide the fate of biotech Australia. However, since 1996, biotech ingredients may foods in Australia. The debate among farmers be present in processed foods, mostly in imported prod- on growing GM canola illustrates how their ucts with soybean, canola, corn, sugarbeet, potato and

concerns outweigh acceptance of the benefits. cotton (oil) ingredients. They must be labelled as such. , SE eat eat

Once biotech plants are introduced the process cannot Many biotech advocates regard Australian regula- F T

R

com.au be reversed. We must live with the consequences for tion as among the best in the world. While I do not dis- s he trade, the environment and biodiversity. pute this, I am concerned that our strict regime may cre- t y w The commercial rewards are powerful incentives. ate a false sense of security. Any complacency would be a r The rapid adoption of biotech cotton, canola, corn and mistake. The commercial returns add pressure to succeed soybean on all continents is testimony to this. The earli- and the need for exacting risk evaluations before and jennife est and most widely known example is Bt cotton, which after releases. Earlier this year an FAO biotech Expert r has been grown in Australia since 1996. Group concluded that establishing efficient monitoring D Consumers and customers, whether as retailers or systems was a matter of urgency. importers of Australian agricultural commodities and Regulation can never replace rigorous science and foods, are the key arbiters on the extent to which biotech vigilance or lateral thinking to assess potential risks. The foods will be grown here. Their acceptance depends on long term is 20, 50 or more years, not three, five or even there being no harmful effects on consumers, as well as 10 years. The unexpected, or unforeseeable, event can the environment and biomass. The community needs happen – cane toads come to mind as an example of a ivestock and M ormer C hairman and CEO of the Queensland L ivestock ready access to independent, authoritative information, “safe introduction”. F because insufficient knowledge creates a “fear of the -un Of concern, some material on public sector web-sites Authority, now runs a consultancy E mail: jrwythes@netconnect. now business. Authority, known”. Poor acceptance follows. has a definite promotional character, no doubt reflecting Clear, simple terminology is necessary for public ac- the competitive pressure for R&D dollars between re- ceptance and a favourable reception in the market place. search institutions. There is no room for grandstanding I prefer biotech - the term now being used internation- – just cold hard facts, whether good or bad. ally for GM cotton. Biotech food will inevitably become Biotech advocates suggest that gene technology is Bt food and eventually just food. The broad term of safe because it involves only one or a few genes in organ- “genetically modified (GM) food” is ambiguous, im- isms with 30,000 to 50,000 or more. This is false, because precise and confusing. “Genetic modification” includes malfunction of one gene can produce disease, for exam- gene technology, engineering, transgenics, transforma- ple, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anaemia and club foot. Oth- tions and recombinant DNA. Each term refers to vari- ers argue that gene technology is simply rearranging bits ous deliberate genetic alterations that only the scientific of DNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine). This community truly understands. Genetic modification is may be true, but we are still expanding our understanding imprecise because agriculture depends, indeed thrives, of how DNA functions and interacts with other genes, on genetic variation. It is the basis of all successful con- let alone combinations of genes in whole organisms. Do ventional breeding programs. we know enough? CSIRO recently stopped a trial on Treaties such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety biotech field peas because of adverse immune responses 2004 provide international safeguards, while the Com- in mice. This vindicates the wisdom of the OGTR ap- monwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and accompa- proving each case on its merits. nying state legislation do so in Australia. The Office of I support the deliberate transfer of genes within the the Gene Regulator (OGTR) has primary responsibility same species or genus, or between edible plants. This is “to protect the health and safety of people, and to pro- reasonable and harmonises with conventional selection tect the environment”. The Act defines gene technology programs. I am uneasy about the use of bacteria, and

as “any technique for the modification of genes or other have major reservations about viruses as either gene car- www.atse.org.au genetic material”. riers or donors, because we may not be able to restrict Food Standards Australia New Zealand has primary them to their original GM form and monitor the flow responsibility for all safe food aspects, conducts stringent of genes in very complex systems. Viruses are masters at testing and publishes a list of approved biotech foods, mutation and adaptation, plus we are poorly equipped

13 the gm debate

to treat viral diseases. I note, however, British research ponent of good crop and land management practices. showed that humans eating biotech soybean fully digest- Dr Gary Fitt and his colleagues in their Second Expert ed the novel DNA in the colon, even though it was not Panel report for the International Cotton Advisory always digested in the small intestine. Committee (2004) emphasised that biotech cotton va- Gene technology undoubtedly provides opportu- rieties should be recognised as a valuable component of nities for individual countries to address global food integrated pest and weed management systems. deficits, environmental issues and for agriculture to be To reap the benefits of gene technology, we need to more productive in a world of increasing price competi- find solutions for potential long-term risks, especially tion and regulatory costs. Private sector investment has the interactions in very complex systems. This requires not addressed “two of the world’s most important food creative thinking to work out the risks, and the implica- crops, rice and wheat” (Prabhu Pingali and Terri Raney, tions and consequences for the whole eco-system. This 2005, www.fao.org/es/esa). All present numerous oppor- also means examining all aspects of agriculture and the tunities for Australia. food chain, giving priority to human, plant and animal Some examples of Australian R&D include: health, the environment and biodiversity. ¢ reintroducing specific genes from “wild” to domestic Australian farmers and consumers must be satisfied cereals to shorten conventional breeding times; that the benefits outweigh the risks before they will grow ¢ gene silencing to prevent “blackheart” in pineapples and eat biotech foods. Full acceptance will follow. and discolouration in sultanas; Dr Jennifer R Wythes FTSE worked for the Queensland ¢ Department of Primary Industries. Her major research techniques to promote uniform ripening of fruit and concentrated on maximising beef production and meat vegetable crops; quality from paddock to plate. Whilst Chairman and CEO of ¢ vaccine development for diseases in cattle; and the Queensland Livestock and Meat Authority, the Authority pioneered HACCP programs for processing, transport ¢ marker genes to detect diseases in plants and animals. and retailing that became the Australian Meat Hygiene Yet we must still conserve local native plant species Standards. Her other industry contributions have been as a Director of the Meat Research Corporation, the Northern and animal breeds as global gene pools for use by future Australia Beef Research Council, various national and generations. Queensland policy councils and Safeguarding Queensland Food. She now runs a consultancy business and manages Biotech plant varieties will in time become a com- family investments.

Responsible Research – studies, the crops would not be considered by regulatory Regrettable Outcome authorities for commercial release. By T J Higgins We recently reported findings of a risk assessment study that we conducted with the John Curtin School of he tenth anniversary of the introduction of GM Medical Research (JCSMR) at the Australian National crops internationally occurs this year. Australia University(ANU) on the α-amylase inhibitor GM field was among those countries growing commercial peas (Prescott et al; 2005 J. Agric Food Chem. 53, 9023

. GM crops for the first time, introducing insect- – 9030). This research has drawn criticism from anti- SE F T

Tresistant GM cotton in 1996, its first and only commer- GM campaigners of Australia’s regulatory system, and s cial broadacre GM crop. But around the world plant- has also intensified discussion among scientists about the ings of GM crops have increased each year and in 2004 efficacy of different types of animal models used for- im iggin [email protected] Plant IndustryO Plant

. H reached an estimated 81 million hectares planted by 8.25 munological studies. J T.

r million farmers in 17 countries. Of the total global area What the research demonstrates is that effective D H TJ. E mail: of 81 million hectares, more than a third was grown in case-by-case assessment of GM products is a reality and developing nations, up from a quarter in 2003. Australia’s regulatory environment is one that supports hief, CS IR eputy C hief, D Despite the adoption of GM crops around the world rigorous scientific testing and evaluation. and the length of time they have been planted commer- How allergenicity of foods is assessed cially, speculation continues in some camps that GM According to Food Standards Australia New Zealand foods do not undergo adequate safety tests and if any (FSANZ), the current approach internationally to the tests are conducted, not all results see the light of day. assessment of potential allergenicity is to use “an inte- The truth is that all GM crops approved for commercial grated, stepwise, case-by-case approach”. Because no sin- release have undergone risk assessment tests, including gle definitive test can be relied upon to predict allergenic food safety assessment. Without the data from such response in humans to a novel protein, a variety of infor- www.atse.org.au

14 THE GM DEBATE

mation is considered. Using this ‘weight of evidence’ ap- glasshouse tests over several years, followed by years of proach, a conclusion can be made as to the likelihood of performance studies in the field to test efficacy in differ- the novel protein being a food allergen. This internation- ent years and different environments. These tests were ally accepted approach has been elaborated by the Co- accompanied by gene flow studies, animal feeding trials dex Alimentarius Commission, the Food and Agricul- and most recently immune response tests. tural Organisation of the United Nations and the World The bean ������������������������������������α-amylase��������������������������� inhibitor protein has been Health Organisation, and is followed by FSANZ. consumed for millennia and studied extensively over There are various animal models available for testing many years and has shown no health risk to humans or for allergenicity, but they are not considered to be suf- animals. However, we noticed slight differences between ficiently well developed or validated to use for this assess- the bean and pea versions of the protein. My colleague ment. It is recognised however that, once developed and Peter Campbell could confirm small mass differences in validated, they will form an important component of the the two proteins by mass spectrometry. These differences assessment process. If the latter is the case, what does this are most likely to be caused by different protein process- mean for the α-amylas����������������������������e������������������� inhibitor GM peas? ing steps in the cells of the two types of plant, including During the course of this project, we sought advice a step called glycosylation. These processing steps play an from FSANZ on the type of data it would need to sup- important role in making certain proteins, and can lead port an application for approval of these GM peas for to variation in a protein’s structure, that is while the pro- human consumption. FSANZ advised us to conduct tein backbone itself can be the same, carbohydrate moi- studies to fully characterise the novel protein and to eties can be added or deleted. determine its potential for toxicity and allergenicity in We then collaborated with Simon Hogan and col- line with internationally accepted guidelines (see www. leagues at ANU to determine whether the pea form of foodstandards.gov.au) . the ��������������������������������������������������α-amylase����������������������������������������� inhibitor protein caused an immune reac- CSIRO’s α-amylase inhibitor GM field pea tion in mice. The ANU team set up and conducted an Field peas are an important rotation crop for Australian immune challenge study. The mice were fed either beans, farmers. They are worth $100 million a year and in ad- non-GM peas or �����������������������������������α-amylase�������������������������� inhibitor GM peas twice a dition add nitrogen to the soil and reduce root disease week for four weeks. Mice fed beans did not show evi- among following crops. But field peas are susceptible to dence of an immune reaction. Similarly, mice fed non- the pea weevil Bruchus pisorum, which lays its eggs on GM peas did not demonstrate any immune reaction. the pea pod. When the eggs hatch, the larvae eat their Mice exposed to α-amylas����������������������������������e������������������������� inhibitor GM-peas showed way through the pod and into the immature seed, where evidence of an immune response after two weeks, with they develop into adults. the response increasing at four weeks. The reaction in Weevils can reduce yields by up to 30% and any sign mice was evident by mild inflammation in the lungs and of weevil damage will cause the peas to be downgraded increased serum antibody levels. in quality and reduced in value. Weevil damage also This research shows these variations can have unex- reduces the viability of seeds for the following season. pected effects supporting the need for case-by-case as- Crops must be hand-checked for infestation every three sessment of GM crops. to four days from the start of flowering if pesticides are to Outcomes be applied in time to prevent infestation. Beans contain a The GM peas performed well in the field against pea protein that inhibits the activity of α-amylase��������������������,����������� an enzyme weevils. They also passed many other tests that would that helps in digestion of starch. This protein inhibitor, be required by regulators. However, because they failed called α-amylas���������������������������������������������������e������������������������������������������ inhibitor, causes certain weevils feeding to pass the immune response test, we have discontinued on beans to starve before they cause any damage. work aimed at commercialisation of these GM peas. We Together with Maarten Chrispeels (UC San Diego) are concentrating on understanding the nature of the we identified the gene that produces the protective pro- chemical change that has occurred in the protein so that tein. Using a newly developed gene transfer system for we can better predict how proteins can cause immune peas we introduced the bean gene into the field pea. Field reactions.

trials showed the genetically modified peas were almost www.atse.org.au Dr T J Higgins FTSE has worked for CSIRO Plant Industry since 100% resistant to pea weevils. 1973, where he is the Deputy Chief. His research is on the Risk assessment application of gene technology for plant improvement. He is particularly interested in enhancing the nutritional quality of Theα-amylas��������������������������������������������������� e������������������������������������������ inhibitor field peas underwent many tests plant products. He works on pasture and grain legumes and during development. These included laboratory and is interested in public awareness of science.

15 survey of fellows Australia and the nuclear industry survey of ATSE Fellows revealed a high level of Statement Responses (%) support for Australia to become further involved Ain the nuclear energy industry. This support was conditional on adequate safeguards being in place gree gree A A Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree and for many, on the urgency of the need to reduce Uncertain greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power generation using current technologies Fellows responding were generally satisfied that safe is safe for people and the environment 29.4 58.6 5.3 2.9 3.5 storage of nuclear waste in remote areas of the country Radioactive waste can be stored in Australia at was feasible, seeing it variously as a business opportunity minimal risk to people and the environment 40.9 43.8 9.1 4.0 2.3 or an international responsibility. There was strong A nuclear power facility would make Australia support for ATSE to take a proactive, leading role in the more vulnerable to terrorist or criminal threats and 3.5 8.7 24.3 52.0 11.6 nuclear debate. activities Among the 182 responses there was a small minority Nuclear power generation offers a real option as of Fellows strongly opposed to any further involvement an alternative to conventional technologies for 42.9 45.2 6.8 1.1 4.0 Australia, in the event that very large national in the nuclear industry, arguing that there were far safer reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required and better alternatives, particularly renewable energy. Nuclear power is likely to be cost competitive in This indicates that the Academy will have difficulty in Australia with renewable energy and new fossil 17.7 44.0 33.1 3.4 1.7 formulating a policy on nuclear energy acceptable to all fuel based energy that has been subject to emission Fellows. At the same time, it demonstrates that expertise restrictions through financial penalties (eg carbon tax) or abatement (eg geo-sequestration) is available that can draw upon all shades of opinion when conducting future work. As Australia has adequate reserves of fossil fuels, in view of the risks involved and the genuine concerns 4.1 19.5 21.9 45.6 8.9 In a question on any other issues a wide range of of the community, nuclear power is unlikely to be suggestions were made. Most could be grouped under necessary for the foreseeable future the following headings: Broad public acceptance of nuclear energy will be Education and training - there is a lack of tertiary possible through structured education programs 7.3 54.5 27.0 10.7 0.6 courses to support any expansion of the nuclear industry Even in the event of broader public acceptance and a need for more research. investment in any type of nuclear facility will 12.4 46.3 23.2 16.9 1.1 Associated benefits or industry opportunities – a be extremely difficult once a specific location is local nuclear industry would open up other industrial nominated development and defence options. Australia has the space, and geological and political The linkage with the uranium mining industry and stability to support a nuclear waste disposal facility 31.8 45.5 10.8 8.0 4.0 for other countries not enjoying these advantages the need to ‘value-add’ – a number commented that Australia is already in the nuclear industry so it seemed to An Australian nuclear industry need not be contemplated until least 2050 or later 4.1 4.7 14.0 50.6 26.7 be appropriate to do more. The political dimension that cannot be ignored ATSE should, as soon as possible, undertake a broad technical and economic study of options for 54.3 37.1 4.6 4.0 0.0 – several contributors referred to the fact that the issue electricity generation in Australia in the event that is not primarily technical and other social and political drastic reductions greenhouse gas emissions are factors need to be addressed. mandated. Such a study would need to embrace fossil, nuclear, hydro and renewables Need for a broader focus - several respondents, particularly those discomforted by nuclear energy, were ATSE should undertake a study (or series of studies) aimed at producing a definitive factual statement on 44.0 44.0 7.4 4.0 0.6 concerned about the focus on this aspect rather than the Australia’s possible involvement in all aspects of the whole range of energy technologies and usage. nuclear industry Next steps - some supporters of nuclear energy made Sufficient work has already been done on nuclear extra suggestions as to how matters should be advanced options for Australia so ATSE need only collect 1.8 4.7 45.6 44.4 3.5 such as a small early stage investment in a nuclear power and summarise this and focus more on a public education program station to gain experience and confidence. Detailed responses to the survey are listed in the It is premature for ATSE to be investing resources on nuclear energy studies or other activities in the short 1.2 14.0 17.5 54.4 12.9 table. Further information may be obtained from Vice term and it would be preferable to advocate a public President Peter Laver, email: [email protected] inquiry to which the Academy could contribute www.atse.org.au

16 nuclear power letter to the editor Sir: In matters of nuclear power and industry I am a lay- man, and a “swinging voter”. Therefore I read the papers The limitations of in Focus 138 with some anticipation, which was some- what dashed when I found that they did little more than repeat the arguments which the industry has been put- nuclear energy ting forward for some decades in favour. I can accept By Bill Charters these without much qualification, but any real analysis TSE Focus No 138 contained six articles pro- also requires a discussion of the possible disadvantages moting nuclear power and none against. This of nuclear developments. response is offered in the interests of encour- The main two problems which worry me – there aging debate, which several of the pro-nuclear are others – are the disposal of high-level waste; and the Aarticles appear to support. disposal of reactors, which, for some reason, have been In essence, I argue here that, contrary to the optimis- closed down. tic claims for nuclear power from those who have been , SE F T

In his paper Alder touches on the first of these, but involved in the industry: does not deal with it in depth. Jostens refers to the US 1. there is evidence that CO emissions from the nucle- rs 2 e proposal for burial in the Yucca mountains, but this has ar fuel are substantial when low-grade uranium ore rt been mired in the US legal system for 20 years. The pro- is used; ha C posal which appeared in Engineers Australia some time 2. existing commercially available nuclear technologies ill) back seemed to suggest digging a very large hole, possibly cannot avoid this barrier; B on Aboriginal land, encapsulating the waste and burying 3. in a competitive market with realistic discount rates, S. ( W. it. This seems very simple compared with the elaborate the economics of nuclear power are unfavourable al- W. mining and monitoring shown on TV recently as being most everywhere compared with fossil-fuel sources done in Sweden, and which I understand is also being of electricity, and even in some locations compared rofessor done in Finland. I am prepared to believe that high-level with wind power; P waste can be disposed of, but I am far from convinced 4. current nuclear power technologies are still subject to that the Australian Government and industry is prepared the risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons, terror- to take the necessary trouble and expense to do the job so ism, rare but catastrophic accidents, and the limited E mail: [email protected] agencies. energy international that protection might last for geological times. life spans of human institutions for the management No doubt reactors will last for a very long time, com- of high-level wastes; and pared to humans, but I believe that some, apart from 5. proposals for new coal-fired power stations can be Chernobyl, have already been closed, and in Germany replaced cost-effectively with a mix of efficient ener- at least, others are likely to follow. What will happen to gy use (including solar hot water), natural gas, wind them? It has been difficult enough to dispose of disused power and bio-energy. coal- or gas-fired plants, and they are not radioactive. CO2 emissions

Some traditional plants have been turned into museums Although nuclear power stations do not emit CO , the and other N ations the U nited in Australia, governments and federal state to consultant enior energy

2 S but that option is hardly available. Are we to be left next rest of the nuclear fuel cycle – most notably the min- century with some 400 monuments outlasting the pyra- ing, milling and enrichment of uranium – uses fossil mids and which cannot be touched? Perhaps this could fuel and emits CO2. The quantity of CO2 emissions be accepted, but they would still be a significant target depends on the grade of uranium ore – the lower the for terrorists. grade, the higher the emissions. At the current usage In the interests of objectivity and impartiality, I rate, reserves of high-grade uranium ore will only last a should like to ask that the Academy follow this last set of few decades. The vast majority of the world’s uranium papers with one or two dealing with some of the prob- exists in low-grade ores. lems that confront the development of the nuclear in- The most detailed and well-documented analysis dustry and power in Australia. of CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle is that of

Frank A Blakey FTSE Van Leeuwin and Smith (see www.stormsmith.nl/), who www.atse.org.au

Highett, Victoria find that the CO2 emissions from the use of low-grade

EDITOR’S NOTE: Fellows with views contrary to those ores (i.e. 0.01% U3O8 or less) are greater than or equal published in Focus 138 are encouraged to contribute to the to those of a gas-fired power station. So nuclear energy is debate. not a long-term solution to the greenhouse problem.

17 nuclear power

The website of the World Nuclear Association power could not compete, even if it received the MRET (WNA) contains an article that attempts to answer Van subsidy of 4c/kWh. Leeuwin and Smith, but the latter authors have already ¢ I cannot find any verifiable evidence that nuclear published on their own website a point by point refuta- energy can compete economically with base-load fossil tion of the WNA article. fuels anywhere in the world where there is a competitive

In theory the problem of CO2 emissions could be market with commercial discount rates (10% to 15% overcome by means of fast breeder reactors, which ‘breed’ real). The new Finnish reactor is being built for a con- more nuclear fuel, in the form of plutonium, than the sortium that includes the Finnish Government and will uranium fuel used. In practice fast breeder reactors have sell electricity to its own members, without competing been technological and economic failures. The last com- on the open market. This results in an artificially low mercial-scale breeder reactor, the French Superphénix, discount rate. In the Western world there are no other was closed in 1998 after many leaks and other accidents, nuclear power stations being built without subsidy. It is costing about A$15 billion over its short lifetime. The impossible to determine the economics of the Chinese Beloyarsk fast neutron reactor in Russia does not appear projects. to have ever been operated as a breeder. Hazards Furthermore, fast breeders require the reprocessing Despite the rhetoric about a ‘new generation’ of safer, of spent fuel to extract the plutonium. This has been a cheaper nuclear power stations, these are merely plans commercial failure and has involved many serious radia- at present, unlikely to be commercially available for tion leaks. All three US civil reprocessing plants were 15 to 20 years, if ever. Existing nuclear power stations closed down and in April 2005 the British plant at are subject to the well-known risks of proliferation of Sellafield was shut down when it was discovered that the nuclear weapons, terrorism, rare but potentially cata- equivalent of half an Olympic swimming pool of high- strophic accidents, and the unresolved institutional level radioactive liquid waste had been leaking from it problems of long-term waste management. over the previous nine months. Only the French plant The nuclear industry offers hundreds of potential remains. terrorist targets around the world. We should be espe- Clearly new technology is required and a possible so- cially concerned about nuclear reactors, reprocessing lution may be the Accelerator Driven Systems discussed plants, nuclear waste dumps and vehicles carrying high- by John Boldeman (ATSE Focus, No 138, Oct. 2005). level nuclear wastes. But this is far from commercial reality. Alternatives Economics The real choice is not between coal and nuclear. The My scepticism about nuclear economics is based on the third way, which is much cleaner and cheaper than ei- following: ther of these options, comprises a mix of efficient ener- ¢ Since its inception nuclear energy has received huge gy use, renewable energy (initially mainly wind power subsidies for R&D, uranium enrichment, security sys- and bio-energy from crop residues) and, as a transition- tems, a cap on liabilities, decommissioning and long- al fuel, natural gas. The recent study, A Clean Energy term waste management. Future for Australia (March 2004), showed that such a ¢ An interdisciplinary study by MIT (http://web.mit. scenario could reduce CO2 emissions from electricity edu/nuclearpower/) estimates that a new nuclear power by 78% by 2040, based on small improvements to exist- station in the US would generate electricity at US6.7 ing technologies (see www.wwf.org.au). cents/kWh (about 9c/kWh Australian). For compari- Studies for individual states, such as Towards New son, wind power at very good sites in the US is currently South Wales’s Clean Energy Future (March 2005), show priced in the range US4-5c/kWh and declining. that proposed new coal-fired power stations could be re- ¢ In the deregulated electricity market of the UK, placed with clean energy mixes by 2010. Furthermore, nuclear power was until recently subsidised to the tune the cost savings gained from efficient energy use could of 1.2 billion pounds sterling per year, obtained from a pay for the additional costs of natural gas and renew- levy on all electricity users. This amounted to 3p/kWh able energy. These are less expensive scenarios than coal or about A6c/kWh. For comparison, the total cost of on- or nuclear. The main implementation challenges are in- shore wind energy in the UK is 3-4 p/kWh. stitutional and political, rather than technological and ¢ Setting up nuclear power in Australia would incur economic. additional infrastructure costs (for example, for enrich- The issue of intermittency of renewable energy is ment and high-level waste management), so nuclear dealt with by Diesendorf (see www.bml.csiro.au/SN- www.atse.org.au

18 nuclear power

newsletters.htm, Update 54). In summary, some renew- Professor W W S (Bill) Charters FTSE has had more than 45 years experience as a mechanical engineer and in academic able sources, such as bio-energy and hot-rock geother- research and development in the field of solar thermal mal energy, are not intermittent. Even a 20% penetration systems and energy conservation and efficiency. He has of wind energy into an electricity grid is partially reliable acted as a senior energy consultant to state and federal governments in Australia, the United Nations and other and only requires a small amount of back-up from peak international energy agencies for almost 30 years. Specific load plant that is operated rarely. Taking into account posts held include Foundation Chairman of the Victorian Solar Energy Council from 1980 to 1988, five years as a forced outage rates, the annual electricity generation NERDDC Committee Member, and Foundation Director of from wind farms is predictable to about the same accu- ERDC from 1990 to 1999. He was Chief Technical Advisor to UNDP (New York) and is an independent director on the racy as from coal or nuclear. boards of ACRE Ltd and Colonial Venture Capital Reef Ltd.

Nuclear Energy is actors and storing the radioactive waste. So there is no not the Answer economic case for nuclear power. By Ian Lowe As energy markets have liberalised around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. he debate about nuclear energy is welcome rec- The number of reactors in western Europe and the US ognition of the urgent need to respond to cli- peaked 15 years ago and has been declining since. Even mate change. I welcome that awareness and the the limited number of new projects in recent decades

resulting discussion of priorities to tackle the has only been made possible by legal limits on the insur- , SE Turgent problem. But I am not convinced the nuclear ance liabilities of the nuclear fuel cycle. By contrast, the O F T option would be a wise response. It is too costly, too amount of wind power and solar energy has increased at A e risky, would be too slow to implement and would make quite spectacular rates: over 20% per annum for solar, w o too little impact on greenhouse pollution. That is why nearly 30% for wind. L [email protected] an I most of the developed world is rejecting the nuclear All forms of supply are more expensive than improv- option in favour of renewable energy and improved ef- ing the efficiency of turning energy into services: light-

ficiency. ing, cooking, washing etc. Reducing energy waste is by rofessor There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, far the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse pollution. In P it is happening now and its effects are accelerating. It is al- Australia, many of our appliances are still inefficient by E mail: I. L oundation. ready causing serious economic impacts such as reduced global standards, while more than 10% of household agricultural production, increased costs of severe events electricity is used keeping appliances like TVs and videos like fires and storms, and the need to consider radical on standby. Much of the energy use in our industry and onservation F water supply measures such as desalination plants. The commerce is still very inefficient because energy prices science is clear: we should set a serious target for reduc- have been so low that efficiency improvements have not ing our rate of releasing carbon dioxide, like the UK goal been seen as a priority. the Australian C the Australian of 60% by 2050. The recent Australian policy vacuum Large companies are now giving this issue serious at- has been a failure of moral leadership as well as produc- tention. As one example, DuPont has cut its energy use ing an uncertain investment framework for industry and by 7% and its greenhouse pollution by over 70% in recent commerce. years while increasing production nearly 30%. It saved The economics of nuclear power are not attractive, more than $2 billion in the process. Five other major even in countries where billions of dollars of public firms including IBM, Alcan, Bayer and British Telecom money have already been spent. The real cost of nuclear have reduced their greenhouse pollution by 60% since niversity and President of G riffith and President U niversity and society Brisbane’s technology at of science, E meritus professor electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy the early 1990s – and saved another $2 billion. Last May, from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geo- General Electric set a goal of improving energy efficiency thermal energy from hot dry rocks also promises to be 30% by 2012. At the extreme end of the range, silicon less costly than nuclear, while having the same advantage chip company ST Microelectronics has set a target of

of supplying secure base load power. The pilot project in zero net carbon dioxide production by 2012. www.atse.org.au South Australia looks promising and would harness our At the national level, there are now more than 10 expertise in drilling technology. fully costed case studies showing that whole nations can The real cost of nuclear electricity is high even with- reduce their greenhouse pollution by 30 to 60% by 2050 out including the costs of decommissioning power re- without any significant economic damage.

19 nuclear power

Nuclear power is too hazardous. There is not just the an expansion of nuclear power would see those resources risk of accidents like Chernobyl, but the increased risk rapidly depleted. The poorer grades of ore that could be of nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism. Despite the used subsequently require much more conventional fuel impassioned pleas of IAEA chief Mohammed El Bara- energy; some studies show the overall process of energy dei, the recent UN conference on the Non Proliferation delivery would release more carbon dioxide than burn- Treaty ended in complete disarray. Most states holding ing gas. weapons and some others aspiring to join the nuclear Some people have argued that we would be helping “club” are in breach of the treaty. Aspirations to acquire to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide by export- weapons are increasing the tension in the obvious “hot ing uranium. This assumes that nuclear power would dis- spots” of the Middle East, the Korean peninsula and the place coal-fired generation. Comparatively few countries Taiwan Strait. This is a major security issue in our region are still building coal-fired power stations; in reality, nu- as well as globally. clear is competing with various forms of renewable ener- Nuclear power inevitably produces radioactive waste gy for new installations, so promotion of nuclear power that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of thou- would actually increase the release of greenhouse gases. sands of years. After nearly 50 years of nuclear power, If we really wanted to reduce global emissions, the most nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to this prob- effective strategy would be to scale back our exports of lem, although the Australian invention of synroc was a coal. I detect little enthusiasm for that approach among great technical step. Storing waste for such a long time those supporting increased uranium exports, showing is as much a challenge to social institutions as a techni- that the real motivation of those people is commercial cal issue, because the system has to be secure for a period rather than environmental. hundreds of times longer than any human civilisation To avoid dangerous further changes to our climate, has endured. we need to act now. I believe we should make a commit- Nuclear power is too slow and too limited in its ca- ment to the sensible alternatives that produce sustainable pacity to make a difference. Even if all government ap- cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution: wind provals were granted, it would still take at least 15 years power, solar water heating, energy efficiency, geothermal and several billion dollars to construct a power station power, gas and energy from organic matter such as sew- and deliver the first unit of electricity. Wind turbines age and waste. By comparison with these alternatives, can be up and delivering power in six months, while nuclear power is expensive, slow and risky, while doing more efficient appliances can be reducing pollution to- less to slow climate change. morrow. Professor Ian Lowe AO FTSE is emeritus professor of science, Nuclear power will not stop climate change. The technology and society at Brisbane’s Griffith University. He argument that nuclear power would reduce greenhouse directed the Commission for the Future in 1988 and chaired the advisory council that produced the first independent pollution presumes high-grade uranium ores are avail- report on the state of the Australian environment in 1996. able. Even with such high-grade ores, there is a massive In 2000 he received the Queensland Premier’s Millennium Award for Excellence in Science and the Australian Prime increase in greenhouse pollution from mining, process- Minister’s Science Award for Outstanding Individual ing and reactor construction before any electricity is gen- Achievement. He wrote a weekly column for New Scientist for 13 years and received the 2002 Eureka Prize for promotion erated. The known resources of high-grade uranium ores of science and technology. He is President of the Australian only amount to a few decades use at the present rate, so Conservation Foundation.

ATSE Office Bearers and executive Deadlines 2006 President Deadlines for the receipt of copy for forthcoming Dr J W Zillman AO issues of FOCUS are: [email protected] 10 February 2006 Vice Presidents 12 May 2006 Dr D V Clark AM Mr P J Laver AM 11 August 2006 [email protected] [email protected] 11 November 2006 Articles and opinion pieces of 800 to 1200 words Honorary Treasurer honorary Secretary in length on issues of national importance will be Dr J A Eady �������������������Professor T F Smith welcomed. [email protected] [email protected] Contributions should be addressed to C ceo The Editor at Academy Headquarters, Dr J Dodgson or by email to [email protected]. [email protected] Electronic communication is preferred. www.atse.org.au

20