What technological advances can be foreseen that might pose regulatory challenges for the Scheme?
Response
The huge push to get this through is a problem.
What are the potential impacts of the capability to make small edits in the DNA of an organism using no foreign DNA?
Response
The thought to use small changes can still have great impact. Just think of how a virus, so small, can alter the whole system. I believe the impact to be still great.
Under what circumstances might it be practical, efficient or appropriate to regulate gene editing under the GT Act when, from an enforcement perspective, it may not be possible to distinguish the products of gene editing from the products of conventional methods?
Response
It is possible to distinguish an act from the human hand as opposed to one that occurs in nature with that as being the difference. As we are currently living in such a human made environment, the rest of the species on the planet are in great need of care, space and respect. Minimising the act of humans manipulating for self gain only is the most obvious step in the right direction for humanity and all that we are/can be linked with.
The argument can be likened to the religious debate. Some put their own ego after the rest where as some are just in the flow of it all. Most problematically there are those who think they are greater then the other and I fear this approach the most. Putting your own self after the rest is beautiful to me and if we did that why would we manipulate the other, particularly for self gain only?
If it happens in nature, good. If it happens by the act of human hands we need to consider the orientation/motive for it.
The emerging applications, and their definitional implications for research purposes, are another area the Review will consider:
Do these applications of gene technologies present unique issues for consideration? If so, how might these issues be best addressed by the Scheme?
Some societies have made it. Others are under constant innovation and feel the need to advance somewhere. I give great respect to the societies that are whole (holistic) and complete. This issue needs consideration in this debate.
I believe in debate. That way, at the end of the conversation we can say that is you, this is me and we respect each other. Without this then pushing ahead with one option while the other party is unhappy is really quite barbaric.
The EAP chosen was not, to me, balanced enough reflecting all angles to the debate. This needs addressing urgently. The consultation paper is also bias in that it "see[s] merit in exploring mechanisms to further streamline, enhance and future-proof the existing regulatory structure and accommodate future waves of innovation in gene technology" and "3. Harnessing health and economic benefits of gene technology”
The Review is seeking further input on the prospect of the intentional release of a GMO or organism with changed characteristics, delivered by one of the new breeding technologies, into the environment:
What are the potential implications of the release of a GMO targeting an invasive species in Australia?
I consider the implications to be bad for the environment but I know we need to consult with the Aboriginal Australians here.
What are the technical issues to consider in the scenario of a GMO used to target an introduced plant, vertebrate or invertebrate pest?
This allopathic approach is so sterile and not alive. Education in holistic approaches like Organic Gardening is needed.
Theme 2 - Regulatory Issues
The Review is exploring whether a distinction can be made between classes of organisms so the necessary controls can be applied to the highest risks, rather than applying a one size fits all approach:
What justification is there to regulate animals, plants or microbes differently?
That they are different.
In what way might different applications be treated differently (e.g. medical, agricultural, industrial, environmental, etc)?
I don't differentiate these.
How might the Scheme accommodate the DIY-biology movement?
No not go in the direction of this technology. We simply do not need it. Rather then push on, we should all pause and assess/reflect. The consultation paper says we might 'stifle research and innovation" where as coming from a whole human perspective, we simply don't need it. Over population by humans needs attention and it is not by supposedly making a space for them that will discourage more people from coming. I must add that I don't think GMO actually do have the power to feed more, certainly not properly anyway.
What measures might be warranted to identify potential long-term or ‘down-stream’ effects of gene technologies on humans and the environment?
There is a whole host of people who are neutral to this technology. These people are at huge risk of being exploited by big companies pushing GMOs. In the case of act or not, the better choice here would be to not act.
The further we go down the wrong path the more to undo. I'm concerned for the welfare of the people.
There are very real damaging affects cascading across the whole eco system. This can be thought through by simple reason. The reason and philosophical faculties are the best ways to understand what we don't have technology to prove or disprove conclusively yet. And while I argue that we don't need the science, I stand by that by not using the science in my protest (but I may do later as need be!)
What opportunities are there for principles-based regulation in the Gene Technology Scheme? What advantages could be gained from doing this? What drawbacks are there from such an approach to regulation?
Advantages are many - see previous responses.
Fear of drawbacks do not outweigh the gains to be had my debating it through. You could have started with a balanced EAP who could have led the different parties through intelligent debate. All can learn from this and each other.
I was surprised to hear from FSANZ that they don't consider the ecological implications when assessing the heathfulness of food. The two cannot be separated. As a health professional, I understand that the way you treat your environment, where food comes from, is directly linked to how healthy that food choice will be on you. I'm hoping in future there can be more commune between food origin and heath status.
Are there any non-science aspects that would enhance the object of regulation, that do not place unnecessary burdens on the regulated community? How might these be considered?
This is exactly what we need more of, see previous response.
The Review is exploring the practical implications to the Scheme of harmonising Australian regulation with the regulatory needs of trade partners:
What are the potential impacts on market access for exporters of animal or plant derived food products?
I don't recommend we import something that we don't want to grow either. I know this is hard given the current circumstance but with a well thought through long term approach I believe we can safely move away from this unnecessary technology.
Theme 3 - Governance Issues
What will reassure the Australian public and regulated communities of the integrity of the Scheme?
Response
I don't find the Scheme to have integrity just yet. I'm not happy with the choice of the pro-GM EAP, nor happy with the bias of the consultation paper. I like the good work being done and thank you for that, butI think we are not in the right direction yet.
Theme 4 - Social and Ethical Issues
How do we help the community to best understand the benefits and risks of a complex, science-based technology?
Response
We could put it higher on the priority list of more intellectually inclined media. We could host a great debate, or many, on all levels of society. We could attempt to explain the science to all rather then make decisions for the people. If they don't want to know they might be right. We can all learn. I'm putting my effort into this as I believe it is a very important issue that covers many aspects of modern society, relevant to be addressed NOW.
Where is there a lack of community confidence in the gene technology regulatory scheme? Why might this be, and how can confidence be built?
Response
There is a huge lack of confidence. It feels to myself and many friends that OGTR is pushing their own (GM) agenda, proven to me by the biographies of the EAP and in the wording of the document.
What does the public need to know?
Response
Why are we pushing for this? Who is it really helping? What is the drive? Is that wholesome enough?
Who is best placed to provide that information?
Response
Everyone. Lay it out and we can all decide.
The Review is seeking to better understand how to balance consumer choice within the scope of the Scheme:
What does the public need in order to accept the increasing availability and range of use of gene technologies?
It is very hard for me to answer these questions when they have so much bias behind them. The assumption seems to be that we like it and want it. I don't and the people I respect don't. So I find it hard to answer.