Recently proposed amendments to Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 are designed to modernize its regulatory framework, making it more adaptable to advances in genetic technology, here starts the biggest concern for us as humans, and of course, to our environment.
The main changes include a “risk-tiering” approach, which categorizes GMOs based on their risk level to streamline approvals for lower-risk technologies while maintaining rigorous assessment for higher-risk modifications. This update is expected to reduce regulatory duplication and align closely with other regulatory schemes, covering areas like health, agriculture, and environmental safety which we believe does not satisfy strong best practices standards.
One significant change is the expanded scope for authorizations, allowing some GMOs to bypass comprehensive licensing if deemed low risk. This will expedite market access for products with genetic modifications (including vaccines to humans and animals), especially they say, those that integrate advances in biotechnology without compromising health and environmental safety. Who though is to say these will not compromise health and safety, as no testing will be done nor shared! There is no unscrambling the egg once these are unleashing into our environment, natural and human.
New pathways, including permits and notifiable dealings for low-risk GMOs, aim to simplify the process for innovators, potentially impacting market dynamics by encouraging more GMO-based products in sectors like agriculture and food production. Should these processes be made easy when they can have such drastic and unknown environmental and produce impacts, that are yet to be fully evaluated?
OFTR say that for environmental concerns, the Act clarifies that risks already managed under other frameworks (eg pest or weed regulations) may not require additional consideration by the Gene Technology Regulator, focusing regulatory efforts on genuinely new or unaddressed risks. These amendments, especially around reduced duplication and streamlined authorizations, are anticipated to benefit sectors such as agriculture and biotechnology by reducing the time and cost of compliance. At what cost is this to us and our environment we believe are the questions that should be fully answers before any of these genetically modified organisms are released wide scale.
These recent amendments to the Gene Technology Act, particularly the introduction of a “risk-tiering” framework, have raised health and transparency concerns. This framework classifies GMOs by perceived risk, potentially allowing some genetically modified products to be authorized under more streamlined processes if they fall into a “low-risk” category. It’s our understanding that these ‘low-risk’ GMOs have not been adequately tested to show low or preferably no harm through peer reviewed studies.
Here’s a closer look at the main concerns around human and animal health, environmental effects and public transparency:
1. Reduced Testing and Oversight for Low-Risk GMOs: With the new tiered risk approach, low-risk GMOs may undergo less stringent testing and review than higher-risk GMOs. While this reduces regulatory barriers and costs, it also means that some genetically modified organisms may enter the market with limited testing for long-term health and environmental effects. Critics worry that this could lead to insufficient scrutiny, especially since genetic modifications might have complex impacts not immediately apparent in early testing.
2. Transparency and Public Access to Safety Reviews: One major issue is how the results of risk assessments, especially for low-risk GMOs, will be made available to the public. The draft amendments don’t detail specific requirements for public disclosure of testing results, nor do they establish clear guidelines on how comprehensive these reviews will be.
This lack of transparency will make it challenging for the public to assess the safety of GMOs introduced under these fast-tracked authorizations. As a public and consumer group we are calling for a more open approach to GMO safety data to ensure informed choices and trust.
3. Reliance on Other Regulatory Bodies: The amendments propose that if certain GMO-related risks are managed under other regulatory frameworks (such as agricultural or pest control laws), they may not undergo further review by the Gene Technology Regulator.
This reliance on other systems means some GMOs bypass comprehensive testing under the Gene Technology Act. For example, a GMO crop deemed safe under agricultural regulations might still have environmental or health effects that aren’t fully explored if it doesn’t undergo gene-specific assessments.
Overall, while the amendments streamline the process and may encourage innovation, they also pose potential risks as the oversight is insufficient to fully reviewing what gene manipulation is taking place and how exactly this will affect us and our environment.
Increased transparency, especially regarding testing data for low-risk GMOs, will help mitigate these risks by allowing independent assessment and fostering public trust.
Without these measures in place, especially at this major crossroad of significant change to new introductions into our food system, requires high standards of vigilance and this is what we at GMFAA are pushing for in our submission to the Office of Gene Technology Regulation due in 8 November.
You can see our submission here
Please click here to go to our Detailed Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Gene Techonology Act 2000
Click here to read our newsletters. To sign up to our newsletters go here