Review of National Gene Technology Scheme - Online Submissions

All of those which will not be regulated. We are dealing with a very new technique and much remains speculation or are unknown.

As yet we do not know, but off -target changes are possible and therefore these techniques (such as CRISPR) need to be regulated.

Patent control will make them identifiable and therefore they will need to be labelled.

All carry risks and should be regulated.

This should not be allowed. Recent theories on gene drives suggest off target or out of field site is possible and uncontrollable. Therefore a total moratorium should be put in place regarding gene drives.

They are too risky and should be banned.

All techniques using genetic engineering/gene editing should be the trigger.

Regulations should begin with the process trigger.

Yes, too much reliance is placed on Industry generated data to show safety of GMOs at the moment. This is unreliable and unsatisfactory. More independent studies should be used.

The main policy of ensuring the health and safety of people and environment should be put before industry profits. The system appears to be already streamlined to approve all submissions, despite the rejection of several events by other jurisdictions. More independence should be apparent.

Make the OGTR the lead regulator to prevent the problem of 'passing the buck'.

There is no value in a tiered system. Each event has the potential for success and failure and each should be dealt with accordingly, with care and consistent regulations.

Where is the value in 'fast -tracking' when such new techniques are all capable of off-target consequences.

While Industry may value deregulation and fast tracking it will not gain public confidence and support.

Deregulation will come at a cost to the public and the environment.

There is none. This is just one of the problems with GM crops and why the public are unaccepting of them. They should be dealt with as medical GMOs and be thoroughly tested including long-term, generational feeding trials.

Each event should be dealt with individually but each should be thoroughly tested.

It is ridiculous that people are able to buy 'bio-hacking' kits on the internet. This should be stopped until clear regulations are put in place as to what should be available and to whom, and in what type of controlled space. Trivialising these new techniques ignores the potential for error and unexpected and potentially dangerous outcomes.

Currently we have unlabelled GM-derived food in our shops, being fed to Australian families and we are all guinea pigs with nobody studying the consequences because the producers of these events have told our regulatory bodies that their GMOs are safe. It is time that we had independent science looking at this.

States should retain the right to approve GMOs based on economic value.

The lack of transparency in GM food does not create public support for GMOs. Protection for non-GM growing farmers also needs to be put into place.

I believe that New Zealand will be regulating the new gene editing events. I would have to ask how trade between Australia and NZ would continue if events from gene editing were to be exported to NZ. Lack of transparency and harmonisation does not enhance trade prospects.

People do not trust our regulatory to look after our best welfare when to comes to GMOs. We mistrust the refusal to adopt transparent GM labelling which the EU has enjoyed for the last two decades.
The reluctance to accept independent science which raises concerns regarding the safety of GMOs is also disturbing for the public.
The push to deregulate these new gene editing events again makes the public concerned that Industry needs are put before the health and safety of people and the environment.

There is a real lack of transparency with regulatory bodies and their lack of accessibility to the public.

First and foremost the health and safety of people and the environment.
Transparency and public access to decision and changes.

There should be more transparency about what is being proposed.

GM-free states have unfettered access to all markets while GM growing states have non-GM farmers carrying the burden of maintaining segregation. in order to continue trading to non-GM demanding markets.

GMOs have been introduced into Australia heavily relying on them being invisible. We have no knowledge of who is growing GM crops, where it goes after harvest and where it ends up in our food. The majority of consumers would avoid GMOs given the choice. This is not a even playing field . Trade is not effective nationally . Let us get that right first and allow consumers the right to choose to be part of this experiment.

GM labelling, stricter controls on GM growers in order to rebalance the responsibility in maintaining segregation between GM and non-GM crops.

With the majority of consumers opposed to GMO s it is hard to see what benefits have been achieved. We are always being told what GMOs will achieve while the reality is the arrival of two crop types, each engineered to end up with elevated levels of pesticides inside them, which are then fed to farm animals or put into processed food s for us. All unlabelled and invisible.
New techniques will be the same. We will be in the dark, being used as guinea pigs with nobody doing the research to see what effect this experiment is having on us.

WE must keep coming back to the main policy...the health and safety of people and the environment.

Independent science must be considered alongside data from Industry.

To continue to regulate all new GM events including gene editing techniques.

Regulate and label all events.

Confusion over what a GMO is. The inconsistency on what product is GM and what is non-GM and why the emphasis and responsibility is so strict on non-GM labelling when there are virtually no rules on GM labelling.

The OGTR must be the lead regulator.

Transparency and GM labelling which enhance consumer confidence.

I am not aware of any confidence in the regulatory system mostly due to the lack of transparency and GM labelling. The potential to deregulate gene editing events will enhance the mistrust.

The public needs to know that approvals of GMOs are not solely based on industry data, not accessible to the public, and where independent research showing concerns is rejected.

Transparent GM labelling and regulations on any new GM technique must be put into place.

Food producers should label all GM-derived foods. This is the best way to educate the public.

Transparency and GM labelling.
Encouraging choice, and not just ensuring that the public is eating in the dark.

Is this about marketing? The reason the public is so reticent to engage with GMOs is because they have been denied access to transparency and choice for so long.
We have heard about all of the new techniques which will come in the future, but meanwhile we are invisibly and unwittingly eating food which we do not trust due to it being allowed to avoid the labelling standards which the EU has had in place for the last 20 years.

Informed consent would be a start.

I believe the GM Industry itself is doing its own advertising at the moment. I fail to see why regulatory bodies or governments should push the benefits of these techniques while allowing them to be protected by a shroud of invisibility since their introduction.

As far as I can see the only impediment is the refusal of the R&D team to acknowledge the changing requirements of the public. There is a global movement away from food based on price, and instead food based on health is being demanded. This is due to health concerns, specifically the rise in allergies and gut problems. GMOs do not fit into this idea of 'healthy' foods.