GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry

Ruth Holtzapffel, Hilary Johnson and Osman Mewett

© Commonwealth of Australia 2007

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.

ISBN 1 921192 07 0

The Australian Government acting through the Bureau of Rural Sciences has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Bureau of Rural Sciences, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data set out in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Postal address: Bureau of Rural Sciences GPO Box 858 Canberra, ACT 2601

Copies available from: BRS Publication Sales GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601

Ph: 1800 020 157 Fax: 02 6272 2330 Email: salesbrs@brs.gov.au Internet: http://www.brs.gov.au

Preferred way to cite this report:

Holtzapffel R., Johnson H. and Mewett O., 2007, GM oilseed crops and the Australian oilseed industry, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

GM oilseed crops ii

Foreword Australia produces between 2 and 3 million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops. These two crops account for 92% of Australia’s total oilseed production. The gross value of oilseed production averaged $766 million over the three years to 2005/06, around 7% of the total gross value of Australian grain production.

This report summarises the environmental, agronomic and economic benefits seen in Australia and overseas as a result of growing GM oilseed crops. It details the types of GM oilseed crops being grown or developed in Australia and overseas; and discusses the issues that were raised during consultations with the oilseed industry in Australia. The consultations identified a widespread belief that the Australian oilseed industry will struggle over the next five to ten years. One of the reasons identified for this was the adoption of GM crops in competitor countries. Other reasons are also discussed in this report. Access to GM technology was widely viewed as one option that could assist the oilseed industry to remain viable and competitive in the future.

Dr Colin J. Grant Executive Director Bureau of Rural Sciences

GM oilseed crops iii

GM oilseed crops iv

Executive Summary Oilseed crops are important to Australian agriculture.

The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola), peanut, oil palm and sunflower. Australia produces between 2 and 3 million tonnes of oilseeds each year, with canola and cottonseed being the major crops. These two crops account for 92% of Australia’s total oilseed production with peanuts, soybeans and sunflower seeds accounting for the remaining 8%.

The gross value of oilseed production averaged around 7% of the total gross value of Australian broadacre crop production over the three years to 2005/06. Over the same period, Australian exports of oilseeds averaged around 8.5% of the total value of Australian exports of grain and oilseeds.

Some oilseeds also provide benefits to wheat and barley crops through their use in rotation cropping cycles.

Oilseeds are widely used in food, feed and industrial applications…

Vegetable oils are widely consumed in our diets, including in margarines and processed and fried foods. Meal derived from oilseeds is an important source of protein in the stockfeed industry and vegetable oils are also used in the manufacture of soaps, industrial lubricants and paints.

…and have been extensively modified to meet these needs.

Oilseeds have been selected over many generations to contain desirable fatty acids to suit their different uses. For example, canola was developed by selective breeding to contain low levels of anti-nutritional compounds. Other modifications have included breeding canola and sunflower varieties with high levels of monounsaturated fats to improve the frying quality of their oils. Chemical modifications can also be made to purified vegetable oils to make margarines or to improve their stability for cooking and industrial purposes.

Modifications are continuing to produce oilseeds that are easier and cheaper to grow…

The 2005 BRS report ‘What’s in the Pipeline?’ highlighted the significant amount of research currently being conducted on genetically modified (GM) oilseed crops. This includes a number of traits designed for easier, cheaper and more sustainable production (e.g. herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, increased yields). GM cotton varieties with herbicide tolerance and insect resistance have been widely adopted in Australia and provide benefits to the environment and farmers.

…produce healthier oils…

A significant amount of research is also being directed into developing healthier oilseeds, particularly those which produce high levels of polyunsaturated or long chain omega-3 fatty acids; higher levels of essential amino acids and/or vitamins; or decreased allergenicity. These improvements and modifications are expected to provide health benefits for people throughout the world and to add value to oilseed crops. There are commercial drivers for this research due to public health policies recommending consumption of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, industry pressures to reduce processing costs and the increasing appeal of healthy foods for consumers.

…and may produce pharmaceutical and

Research is also underway to produce oilseed crops designed to act as biofactories, producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds

GM oilseed crops v

industrial products in the future.

instead of food, feed or fibre. Examples include pharmaceuticals (antibodies, vaccines or enzymes) and industrial compounds (biofuels, bioplastics, lubricant oils or enzymes). These developments are reviewed in more detail in the 2007 BRS report ‘Plant molecular farming in Australia and overseas’.

GM oilseed crops that have been developed, or are in development, in Australia include herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton, and herbicide tolerant canola…

Combining a literature review and extensive consultations with representatives of the oilseed industry and State Government Agencies, BRS has identified a range of GM oilseed crops that are already in commercial production overseas or are under development in Australia and overseas.

In Australia, GM herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton varieties and GM herbicide tolerant canola have been approved for commercial release. Research is continuing into improving the fatty acid profiles (e.g. high oleic and/or low linolenic acid levels) and developing novel fatty acid compositions (e.g. long chain omega-3 fatty acids) for Australian oilseed crops.

…while overseas GM cotton, canola and soybean have been commercialised.

Overseas countries have approved the commercial release of a number of GM oilseed crops, namely cotton, canola and soybean varieties incorporating herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or a combination of the two. Overseas researchers are developing oilseed crops with improved environmental stress tolerance, improved disease resistance, increased nitrogen use efficiency, increased seed size, reduced pod shatter, increased yield and increased oil content. Further research overseas is investigating ways in which to produce oilseed crops with altered fatty acid profiles or novel fatty acid composition, increased essential amino acid content (e.g. methionine and lysine), production of essential vitamin precursors (e.g. Vitamin A and E), increasing the nutritional value of stockfeed (e.g. by reducing anti-nutritional compounds such as phytic acid), and as expression platforms for pharmaceutical and industrial products (e.g. plant-made vaccines or bioplastics).

Oilseeds play a vital role as rotational break crops for wheat and barley…

The stakeholder consultations highlighted the important place that oilseeds have in Australian agriculture. In particular, canola provides value as rotational break crops to our major crop exports: wheat and barley. Many people consulted were interested in the potential for lower production costs (first generation traits), higher value uses for oilseed crops such as specialty oils (second generation traits), or crops as biofactories (third generation traits) as potential ways to increase the value of oilseed crops. There was also a desire for public breeding programmes to continue to ensure that oilseed traits relevant to Australia are developed in the future.

…and there are opportunities for expansion and diversification.

Canola and other oilseeds provide significant benefits to the Australian agricultural sector. A number of opportunities for expansion and diversification of the Australian oilseed industry have been identified, including: supplying increased quantities of local oilseed meal to the stockfeed industry; developing stable oils for frying that compete with palm and soybean oil imports; developing value-added oils such as long chain omega-3 fatty acids to supply a niche market for omega-3-containing oilseed crops; producing high volumes of oil for use in biodiesel production; and

GM oilseed crops vi

meeting the needs of niche markets for GM and non-GM oilseeds as they develop.

Experience with GM oilseed crops in Australia and overseas show economic, environmental and agronomic benefits.

Experience with GM cotton crops in Australia and GM cotton and canola crops overseas has shown that there are benefits for farmers and the environment from growing these crops. For instance, in Australia the GM insect resistant cotton Bollgard II® led to an 85% reduction in insecticide use in comparison to conventional cotton over the first three seasons following its introduction in the 2002/03 season. The implementation of other Integrated Pest Management practices has also contributed to this reduction.

Results from studies overseas show net economic benefits for many farmers growing GM crops. For GM cotton, the level of this benefit varies between countries and regions within countries due to differences in environmental and climatic conditions and in some countries, the way that GM crops are developed and sold.

In Canada, a number of agronomic benefits have been associated with the adoption of GM canola, including: improved yields; decreased herbicide use and increased weed management options; and increased ease in adopting minimum and no-till cultivation practices.

A study by the Canola Council of Canada released in 2005 indicated that Canadian canola farmers who chose to grow GM varieties were better off when compared to those who continued to cultivate conventional canola varieties. Canadian growers have not lost market share in their main export markets despite the majority of their canola crop being comprised of GM varieties. There is no evidence that GM canola is having difficulty finding ready markets throughout the world. No price premium on bulk non-GM canola shipments has been identified.

Current challenges faced by the oilseed industry in Australia include drought, competition from soybean and palm oils…

Consultations with the Australian oilseed industry identified a number of current issues, perhaps the most immediate of which is that posed by the current drought. Canola production in the 2006/07 season is estimated to be the lowest in a decade with New South Wales the worst affected state.

The development of soybean and palm oil varieties that produce oil of similar quality to canola is of concern to the oilseed industry as both these oils are available in large volumes and at low prices on the world market. Developments such as these may affect the competitiveness of the Australian oilseed industry.

…and the inability to adopt GM food crops such as canola due to moratoria.

The stakeholder consultations also identified a number of important challenges that will need to be addressed if GM oilseeds are to be widely grown in Australia. The most important of these are the current State and Territory Government moratoria that restrict the commercial growing of GM crops in many parts of Australia.

Other challenges identified by stakeholders were the need to address the perceived lack of public acceptance of GM technologies; and supply chain management issues such as segregation and coexistence. Many stakeholders believed that the introduction of GM oilseeds was necessary for the future viability

GM oilseed crops vii

of the industry, while a few stakeholders strongly disagreed.

Further investment in developing Australian GM oilseeds will be encouraged when there is a transparent and predictable pathway to market. There is also a need for communication of independent, credible, factual and practical information to producers and consumers, to inform discussion of these issues.

Following a decade of growing GM cotton in Australia, it is clear that these crops have provided economic, environmental and agronomic benefits to Australia. Similar benefits may result from growing other GM oilseed crops, if the issues identified in this report can be addressed across the whole oilseed industry. The widespread introduction of GM oilseed crops overseas is likely to continue in the future. Many of the countries adopting GM crops are competing with Australia in the world oilseed market.

In conclusion, available information strongly suggests that there will be economic, environmental and agronomic benefits from growing GM oilseed crops in Australia and opportunity costs if they are not adopted.

GM oilseed crops viii

Contents Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................v Contents ............................................................................................................................................ix List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................xiii Part 1 – The Australian oilseed industry and the developments in GM oilseed crops..............1 Chapter 1 – Introduction...................................................................................................................3 Section 1.1 Why focus on the oilseed industry?.............................................................................3 Section 1.2 International oilseed production, supply and demand.................................................3 Section 1.3 Oilseeds are important to the Australian economy .....................................................6 Section 1.4 Manipulation of oils through conventional breeding or chemical modification ............7

1.4.1 Nutritional modifications ..........................................................................................8 1.4.2 Industrial modifications ..........................................................................................10

Section 1.5 Oils are readily substitutable .....................................................................................10 Section 1.6 Current opportunities and challenges for the Australian oilseed industry .................12 Chapter 2 GM oilseed developments in Australia and overseas .........................................15 Section 2.1 First generation traits.................................................................................................15

2.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................15 2.1.2 Herbicide tolerance................................................................................................15 2.1.3 Insect resistance....................................................................................................15 2.1.4 Other first generation traits ....................................................................................17

Section 2.2 Development of first generation traits in Australia.....................................................17 2.2.1 Cotton ....................................................................................................................17 2.2.2 Canola ...................................................................................................................19 2.2.3 Indian mustard.......................................................................................................19

Section 2.3 Development of first generation traits overseas........................................................20 2.3.1 Cotton ....................................................................................................................20 2.3.2 Canola ...................................................................................................................21 2.3.3 Indian mustard.......................................................................................................21 2.3.4 Soybean ................................................................................................................21

Section 2.4 Second generation traits............................................................................................22 2.4.1 Altered fatty acid profiles .......................................................................................23

Section 2.5 Development of second generation traits Australia...................................................23 Section 2.6 Development of second generation traits overseas ..................................................24

2.6.1 Altering levels of naturally produced compounds..................................................24 2.6.2 Novel fatty acid composition..................................................................................24 2.6.3 Enhanced minor components................................................................................25 2.6.4 Hypoallergenic foods .............................................................................................26

GM oilseed crops ix

2.6.5 Stockfeed...............................................................................................................27 Section 2.7 Third generation traits................................................................................................27

2.7.1 Pharmaceutical......................................................................................................28 2.7.2 Industrial ................................................................................................................28 2.7.3 Biofuels..................................................................................................................29 2.7.4 Bioplastics .............................................................................................................30

Section 2.8 Summary ...................................................................................................................31 Part 2 Issues discussed during stakeholder consultations...................................................33 Chapter 3 Opportunities for Australian oilseeds...................................................................35 Section 3.1 Expansion and/or diversification of the oilseed industry in Australia ........................35

3.1.1 Stockfeed...............................................................................................................35 3.1.2 Stable oils for frying ...............................................................................................36 3.1.3 Value-added oils....................................................................................................36 3.1.4 Biodiesel production ..............................................................................................38 3.1.5 Potential for the development of niche markets ....................................................40

Section 3.2 The regulatory environment ......................................................................................40 Section 3.3 Agronomic, environmental and economic benefits of GM crops...............................41

3.3.1 Agronomic and environmental benefits .................................................................41 3.3.2 Economic benefits of developing GM crops..........................................................44

Section 3.4 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................47 3.4.1 Opportunities for the Australian oilseed industry...................................................47 3.4.2 Regulatory environment ........................................................................................47 3.4.3 Effects of GM crops in Australia and overseas .....................................................48

Chapter 4 Challenges for Australian oilseeds .......................................................................49 Section 4.1 Seasonal variability....................................................................................................49 Section 4.2 Market challenge to canola from soybean and palm oils ..........................................50 Section 4.3 Consumer acceptance of GM foods..........................................................................51 Section 4.4 Effects of the State and Territory Government moratoria .........................................52 Section 4.5 Segregation and coexistence ....................................................................................54

4.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................54 4.5.2 Thresholds for adventitious presence ...................................................................55 4.5.3 Testing regimes .....................................................................................................55

Section 4.6 Legal liability ..............................................................................................................56 Section 4.7 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................56

4.7.1 Seasonal variability................................................................................................57 4.7.2 Competition from soybean and palm oils ..............................................................57 4.7.3 Moratoria on growing GM food crops ....................................................................57 4.7.4 Segregation and coexistence ................................................................................57 4.7.5 Legal Liability.........................................................................................................57

GM oilseed crops x

4.7.6 Conclusion.............................................................................................................58 Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................59 References .......................................................................................................................................61 Appendix A World production and trade of soybean ...........................................................73 Appendix B World production and trade of rapeseed..........................................................75 Appendix C World production and trade of cottonseed.......................................................77 Appendix D Australian oilseed, wheat and barley production and trade...........................79 Appendix E Stakeholder consultation questions .................................................................81

GM oilseed crops xi

GM oilseed crops xii

List of Abbreviations AA Arachidonic Acid

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics

AFPRG Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group

AOF Australian Oilseeds Federation

AOSCA Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies

BRS Bureau of Rural Sciences

CCA Cotton Consultants Australia

CCC Canola Council of Canada

CoA Coenzyme A

CRDC Cotton Research and Development Corporation

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

DHA Docosahexaenoic Acid

DIR Dealing involving Intentional Release

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EIQ Environmental Impact Quotient

ELISA Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay

EPA Eicosapentaenoic Acid

EU-JRC European Commission – Joint Research Centre

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations)

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand

GM Genetically Modified

GMAC Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

HDL High-Density Lipoproteins

HEAR High Erucic Acid Rapeseed

HO High Oleic

HT Herbicide Tolerant

IENICA Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications

IR Insect Resistant

ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications

IT Imidazolinone tolerant

Kt Kilotonne

LC-PUFA Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid

LDL Low-Density Lipoproteins

GM oilseed crops xiii

ML Megalitres

MMT Million Metric Tonnes

MT Metric tonnes

NVT National Variety Trials

OGTR Office of the Gene Technology Regulator

PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction

PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates

PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate

PIMC Primary Industries Ministerial Council

TT Triazine Tolerant

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDA-FAS USDA Food and Agriculture Service

USDA-FIO USDA Food and Industrial Oil program

USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services

VAD Vitamin A Deficiency

VIP Vegetative Insecticidal Protein

GM oilseed crops xiv

Part 1 – The Australian oilseed industry and the developments in GM oilseed crops

The first part of this report consists of two chapters. The first chapter outlines the importance of the oilseed industry to Australia, places Australian oilseed production in the context of world oilseed production, and discusses ways in which oilseeds have been manipulated previously and the inherent substitutability between different vegetable oils. The second chapter describes current developments in genetically modified oilseed crops both in Australia and overseas.

GM oilseed crops 1

GM oilseed crops 2

Chapter 1 – Introduction This report is the result of a study funded by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) using funds provided under the National Biotechnology Strategy to investigate the potential impacts of genetically modified (GM) oilseed crops on the Australian oilseed industry. The aim of this work is to enhance the understanding of applications of biotechnology in the agriculture and food sectors. This report identifies potential effects of GM oilseeds on Australian agriculture.

Research for this report was based on a combination of a desktop review of published literature, review of web-based information on Australian and international trials of GM crops and consultation with the Australian oilseed industry. These consultations focused on farmers, researchers, seed suppliers, food and feed manufacturers.

Definitions of the term ‘GM’ vary, but for this report, the term refers to plants that have acquired new genes by laboratory ‘gene technology’ methods, as defined in the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth).

Section 1.1 Why focus on the oilseed industry? The Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) report ‘What’s in the Pipeline?’ (Glover et al., 2005) highlighted the significant amount of research that is being conducted internationally into GM oilseed crops. This included a large amount of work on second generation traits, which alter the nutritional value of crops. For example, oilseed plants are being modified for enrichment of specific desirable oils, minimising the purification steps in the oil extraction process; modified to produce oils of consistent high quality and composition; and modified to produce desired ratios of different fatty acids. Oilseed crops are also being modified to increase the quality of the meal for animal feed.

First generation (input trait) GM cotton and canola varieties have already been approved for commercial production in Australia and GM cotton, canola and soybean crops are widely grown overseas. GM cotton was the first GM food crop grown commercially in Australia (e.g. cottonseed oil is used for deep frying applications by the food industry and cotton linters (short cellulose fibres) are used to manufacture a variety of food thickening agents), and GM canola is likely to be the next food crop to be grown. In addition, third generation traits are being developed to allow production of pharmaceutical or industrial products in plants.

Australia produces between 2 and 3 million tonnes of oilseeds each year; the major crops being canola and cottonseed. Together these two crops account for 92% of total oilseed production in Australia, with peanuts, soybeans and sunflower seeds accounting for the remaining 8%. The impact of GM oilseed traits on Australian agriculture could result from their direct uptake in these main crops, or via the uptake of GM traits in these or other oilseeds by key international competitors. Both of these alternatives need to be considered to allow informed decision making on the uptake of GM technology by the oilseed industry.

Section 1.2 International oilseed production, supply and demand

The world’s major oilseed crops are soybean, rapeseed (including canola, Box 1), peanut, oil palm and sunflower (Friedt and Luhs, 1998) (Table 1.1). Of these, palm oil and meal, soybean seed, oil and meal and sunflower oil and meal are the most traded commodities (in terms of both export volume and percentage of production that is exported). Approximately one third of the world’s soybean seed, meal and oil products are exported. Similarly, sunflower meal and oil and palm products have significant export markets. In contrast, the proportion of production that is exported

GM oilseed crops 3

is relatively low for peanut, cottonseed and rapeseed. These are mainly produced for Australian consumption (Table 1.1).

BOX 1 Canola versus Rapeseed – what’s the difference?

Canola is the name for Brassica oilseed crops that have less than 2% erucic acid (a fatty acid) and less than 30 micromoles of glucosinolates per gram of seed solids. Canola varieties were developed in Canada in the 1950s from Brassica napus and B. campestris (Canola Council of Canada, 2005a; Tribe and Kalla, 2005). It is also known as ‘double zero’ or ‘double low’ rapeseed (Gunstone, 2004; Canola Council of Canada, 2005a).

Prior to the development of canola-type varieties, rapeseed oil was used both as a food oil and in a variety of industrial purposes, with a long history of use as lamp oil (Tribe and Kalla, 2005). Following feeding experiments with rats that suggested that high dietary exposure to erucic acid could lead to fatty deposits and lesions in heart muscle, it was decided to decrease the levels of erucic acid in rapeseed oil (FSANZ, 2003a). Glucosinolate is an anti-nutrient that can reduce uptake of iodine in rats (Duncan, 1991).

The term ‘rapeseed’ is used in many countries to describe oilseeds produced from various Brassica species, including B. napus, B. rapa and B. campestris. Where the oil produced from these species has low erucic acid and the meal has low glucosinolate levels, it can be called canola. Canada and Australia are the main users of this term. When countries report rapeseed production levels, the figures will often also include Indian mustard (B. juncea).

Australia mainly grows canola varieties of rapeseed and the majority of GM research is occurring in these varieties. Therefore, the term canola is used frequently throughout this report. However, when describing world production figures, ‘rapeseed’ is used as this is the most common term.

Soybean is produced mainly in the United States, South America (predominantly Argentina and Brazil) and China (Appendix A). From Table 1.1 and Appendix D, it is clear that Australia grows relatively small quantities of soybean and is a net importer of this oilseed.

Although Australia is also a relatively minor rapeseed producer, in the three years to 2005-06 it accounted for 19% of world canola exports (if intra-European Union trade is excluded) (Foster and French, 2007). The countries that produce the largest amounts of rapeseed (the European Union, China and India) are usually net importers as they have large domestic markets. Production, supply and demand figures for world rapeseed (Appendix B) indicate that Canada is Australia’s main competitor for rapeseed markets. The major global import markets for rapeseed are shown in Figure 1.1.

Although cotton fibre is an important export commodity for Australia, the export market for cottonseed is small (Tribe and Kalla, 2005). Australia supplies approximately 28% of this market (Appendix C). The United States and Australia are the major exporters of cottonseed. The major import markets for cottonseed are shown in Figure 1.2. Australia is not a significant exporter of oilseeds other than canola and cottonseed.

GM oilseed crops 4

Japan (41%)

Mexico (20%) Pakistan (13%)

China, People’s Republic of, (8%) United States, (7%) EU-25 (4%)

Canada (3%)

Bangladesh (2%)

Figure 1.1 Relative sizes of global import markets for rapeseed (based on production 2003–2006).

Source: data in Appendix B

Mexico (30%) Japan (17%) EU-25 (17%)

Korea, Republic of (12%)

Turkey (10%)

South Africa, Republic of (7%) Saudi Arabia (4%) Others (2%)

Figure 1.2. Relative sizes of global import markets for cottonseed (based on production 2003–2006).

Source: data in Appendix C

GM oilseed crops 5

Section 1.3 Oilseeds are important to the Australian economy The gross value of oilseed production averaged $766 million over the three years to 2005/06; around 7% of the total gross value of Australian broadacre crop production (ABARE pers. comm., 2006). Over the same period, Australian exports of oilseeds averaged $478 million, around 8.5% of the total value of Australian exports of grain and oilseeds (ABARE, 2006). Oilseed production also provided benefits to wheat and barley crops through their use in rotation cropping cycles. Appendix D presents the amounts of oilseeds, wheat and barley produced in Australia, demonstrating the much larger volume of cereal production.

Meal derived from oilseeds is an important source of protein in the stockfeed industry. Canola and soybean meals are used extensively and cottonseed meals are also important. Sunflower meal is used to a minor extent (see Table 3.1 – Chapter 3). The stockfeed industry currently imports significant volumes of soybean meal, as there is insufficient production in Australia. For instance, imports of soybean meal can be up to 300 kt per year. There could be opportunities within the oilseed industry in Australia to expand to meet some of this demand with meal from other oilseeds, provided that there was also a market for the oil (Stakeholder Consultations).

Although oilseed crops make a relatively small contribution to the Australian economy as a domestic and export commodity, they have a high value as break crops for cereals, such as wheat and barley, that are of greater value to the Australian economy. A break crop is used in a crop rotation system in order to help control weeds and plant diseases. When planted as part of a crop rotation, they can increase the yield of subsequent cereal crops (Angus et al., 1991; Angus et al., 1999; Evans et al., 2003). The size of this impact by canola on the following wheat crop is variable. For instance, over a four year period (1990–1994) the two-year gross margin of canola-wheat was approximately 50% higher than for wheat-wheat, however, in 1995-1996, which were both good cropping seasons, the two-year gross margin was only about 25% higher for canola-wheat than for wheat-wheat (Evans et al., 2003). This benefit for the following cereal crop is a good reason to encourage the continuation of oilseed crops in Australian crop rotations where they contribute to the competitiveness and sustainability of Australian agriculture (Stakeholder Consultations).

GM oilseed crops 6

Table 1.1. World oilseed production and exports (2005/06)

Rapeseed (MMT)

Cottonseed (MMT)

Soybean (MMT)

Sunflower (MMT)

Palm fruit (MMT)a

Peanuts (MMT)

Total oilseed production

48.42 42.31 224.12 29.98 9.71b

130c 33.09

Total oilseed exports (% production)

6.35 (13%)

1.05 (2%)

66.35 (30%)

2.01 (7%)

0.10b (1%)

1.83 (6%)

Total meal production

25.37 14.24 143.90 11.10 5.06b 5.72

Total meal exports (% production)

2.23 (9%)

0.45 (3%)

48.48 (34%)

3.43 (31%)

3.76b (74%)

0.15 (3%)

34.80d Total oil production

16.59 4.67 33.87 10.46 4.20b

4.93

25.89d (74%)

Total oil exports (% production)

1.29 (8%)

0.11 (2%)

9.41 (28%)

3.09 (30%)

1.93b (46%)

0.17 (3%)

Note: India, China, Pakistan, Russia and Canada are the major producers of Indian mustard seed. Indian mustard production figures are not available as they are usually combined with figures for rapeseed production.

a. Oil is produced from both the mesocarp (flesh) and kernel of the palm fruit. Palm oil (from the mesocarp) is high in palmitic and stearic acid, while palm kernel oil is high in lauric acid (Gunstone, 2004). Meal is produced from the kernels.

b. Figures for palm kernel.

c. Estimate of total palm fruit production based on 30% oil (total of mesocarp and kernel, Gunstone, 2004) and 39 MMT oil production.

d. Figures for palm mesocarp.

Source: (USDA-FAS, 2006b)

Section 1.4 Manipulation of oils through conventional breeding or chemical modification

The most significant manipulation of an oilseed crop occurred in Canada in the 1950s when rapeseed was made more suitable for use as a food crop through the development of new varieties containing low levels of anti-nutritional factors (substances in foods which cause detrimental effects to human and animal growth or performance). As discussed in Box 1, canola is now a widely grown crop used in a variety of food applications, including cooking oils and margarines. This genetic manipulation of oilseed crops continues today as each crop sector of the oilseed industry strives to produce oils better suited to food or industrial applications at prices that are competitive with alternative supplies, and which contain lower quantities of trans-fatty acids. There is now a strong trend to breed crops that produce oils for specific end uses, rather than put naturally occurring oils through a range of industrial processes to prepare them for the food industry’s various requirements for stability, solidity etc. There is great potential for the production of designer oils for specific end uses. Such oils could potentially replace petrochemical-based

GM oilseed crops 7

products and may also lead to the development of new applications due to the unique properties present in some of the more unusual fatty acids (EPOBIO, 2006).

1.4.1 Nutritional modifications Fatty acids are essential to human and animal health and nutrition. However, high levels of consumption of some fatty acids can be detrimental to health. Consumption of high levels of saturated fatty acids (with the exception of stearic acid) can lead to an increase in total cholesterol, which in turn has been linked to coronary heart disease. Unsaturated fatty acids, on the other hand, reduce levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol (low-density lipoproteins or LDL), increase ‘good’ cholesterol (high-density lipoproteins or HDL) and improve coronary health. Stearic acid has a neutral effect on coronary health (Fernandez and West, 2005).

Fatty acids also vary in their stability and hence their suitability for a variety of cooking applications. Saturated and monounsaturated oils are very stable and are used for high-temperature deep frying, as well as applications that require solidity at room temperature. In contrast, polyunsaturated fatty acids are unstable and readily oxidise at high temperatures resulting in unpleasant odours, flavours and discolouration. Such properties have meant that cooking oils with high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids are routinely partly or wholly hydrogenated (chemically modified) to increase their saturated fatty acid content. Hydrogenated oils are more stable during cooking and are also solid at room temperature, allowing them to be used in margarines. However, partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fatty acids leads to the production of trans-fatty acids, which can cause health problems by raising total cholesterol and reducing HDL (‘good’ cholesterol), similar to the effects of a diet high in saturated fatty acids (Australian Oilseeds Federation, 2004).

In Australia, margarines are produced through a process of transesterification, where a soft oil and hard fat are mixed together and modified to produce a soft, spreadable product. This process does not produce trans-fatty acids (Stakeholder Consultations).

Figure 1.3 summarises the relative stability and ‘healthiness’ of different fatty acids and specifies the relative levels of each of the main fatty acids in canola and soybean oils. As indicated in this figure, oils containing higher levels of oleic or stearic acids result in more stable and healthy cooking oils for the food service industry.

Given this relationship between the nutritional and functional value of the different fatty acids, oilseeds that are high in oleic and/or stearic acid and low in palmitic and polyunsaturated fatty acids, produce healthy and stable cooking oils. Altering the oil profile of current oilseed crops to meet such a profile and thus improve their health benefits, has been a major focus of non-GM breeding programmes and GM oilseed crop research both domestically and overseas. Developments in GM oilseed crops are discussed further in Chapter 2.

High oleic canola (Monola) has been conventionally bred in Australia and is of value to the frying sector of the food industry, having 50% longer frying life than canola oil. It is produced in segregated supply chains on a relatively small scale (White, 2004). Similar varieties have been bred in Canada, where canola varieties with reduced linolenic acid and with high stearic acid have also been bred (Carr, 2005). Dow AgroSciences has also developed canola varieties under the trademark NexeraTM that produce high oleic acid oil called NatreonTM. As indicated in Figure 1.3, these combinations of fatty acids produce healthier and more stable oils.

Conventional breeding of soybean has also resulted in the development of varieties with increased oleic acid levels and/or reduced saturated fatty acids. Soybeans with low linolenic acid have been produced in the United States and are marketed as Vistive® by Monsanto. Although these traits are not the result of gene technology, they have been incorporated by the seed companies into GM herbicide tolerant soybeans because of their wide acceptance in North America and are not available in non-GM backgrounds.

GM oilseed crops 8

Other oilseeds have been similarly modified, with a GM high oleic acid cottonseed variety developed and trialled in Australia by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (Liu et al., 2002a; Liu et al., 2002b; OGTR, 2003f). Conventionally bred, high oleic sunflowers (e.g. Monosun and Sunola) have also been developed and are available commercially; they are produced in a segregated supply chain in Australia.

Some oilseed modifications can be made using conventional breeding techniques, however, some cannot and for these, GM techniques are required if these desirable traits are incorporated into the plants. An example of this is the production of omega-3 fatty acids in oilseeds discussed in Chapter 2.

Saturated oils Unsaturated oils Polyunsaturated oils

palmitic stearic oleic linoleic linolenic

Stable Unstable

↑ LDL = LDL ↓ LDL

Stable and healthy cooking oils

4% 2% Canola

62% 22% 10%

11% 4% Soybean

24% 54% 7%

6% 3% High-oleic soy

84% 3% 4%

11% 5% Low linolenic soy

26% 55% 3%

Figure 1.3 Relationship between selected oils and their nutritional and functional attributes.

Source: Figure modified from Carr (2005).

As shown in Figure 1.4, the changes being made to the fatty acid profiles of oilseed crops result in fatty acid compositions that are increasingly similar to one another, which is likely to lead to increased substitutability between these oils, dependant on relative availability and price, as discussed below in Section 1.5.

GM oilseed crops 9

Canola

Cottonseed

Soybean

HO Canola

HO Cottonseed

HO Soybean

Saturate Monounsaturate Polyunsaturate

Figure 1.4 Relative fatty acid compositions of conventional and high-oleic (HO) cultivars of major oilseed crops.

Source: Singh et al (2005)

1.4.2 Industrial modifications A major non-food use for vegetable oils is in the area of manufacturing surfactants, for example detergent and soap production. Currently, the main sources for production of detergents are coconut and palm kernel oil (EPOBIO, 2006). Vegetable oils are also manipulated for use as non-food industrial lubricants, for instance for use as machinery oils. Although vegetable oils are a renewable resource with lower pollution risks, they have some disadvantages in terms of stability and purity (Cahoon, 2003; Castro et al., 2006). For example, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research has research programmes that aim to increase the use of vegetable oils (particularly soybean oil) in industrial applications (e.g. USDA Food and Industrial Oils program (USDA-FIO), (2006). Vegetable oils may also be a sustainable replacement for petrochemicals in the production of paints, surface coatings, inks, plasticisers, solvents and high utility polymers (e.g. both flexible and rigid foams, and high performance adhesives, seals, gaskets and hard plastic parts) (EPOBIO, 2006).

The major advantages of vegetable oils are that they are biodegradable and have low toxicity. Although vegetable oils can sometimes outperform mineral oil based products, there are some drawbacks which currently restrict their use (EPOBIO, 2006). For example, one problem encountered when using vegetable oils is their tendency to oxidise more rapidly than mineral oils. They are also less stable at high temperatures, decreasing their usefulness for many industrial applications. These problems can be reduced through a chemical modification known as epoxidisation. Epoxidised soybean oil has been tested for suitability as a high temperature lubricant oil and shown to have increased performance over unmodified soybean oil (Castro et al., 2006).

Section 1.5 Oils are readily substitutable Most oilseeds contain combinations of five main fatty acids: stearic, palmitic (both saturated fats), oleic (a monounsaturated fat), linoleic and linolenic (both polyunsaturated fats) with a number of minor fatty acids (Table 1.2). The fatty acid profile of each oilseed crop is used to determine the applications for which it can be used (Tribe and Kalla, 2005). However, most oils have a variety of possible uses and substitution may occur between oils with similar properties. For example, linseed oil (primarily an industrial oil) has been used in margarine and cottonseed oil (an edible oil) has

GM oilseed crops 10

been used in the past to manufacture soap (Nyberg, 1970). The degree to which substitution occurs depends on both the composition and price of the oils in question.

Soybean and canola oils are readily interchangeable and this substitutability will increase with the growing availability of newly developed soybean varieties with oil profiles closer to that of canola, particularly high oleic varieties. As demonstrated in Figure 1.4, the current trend towards developing high oleic acid cultivars is resulting in increased similarity of the oil profiles for cottonseed, soybean and canola. Soybean dominates the world oilseed market due to its lower production costs, higher quality meal and increases in oil quality, resulting from both conventional breeding and GM technology, which will increase the value of its oil too. This could be a significant threat to the Australian oilseed industry in the future (Stakeholder Consultations). This is discussed further in Chapter 3 of this report.

Palm oil is widely used in the food services industry as it is very cheap; there are large volumes available; and it has good properties for cooking applications. Its high level of saturated fatty acids means that it has a high level of thermal stability and a long shelf life. As a result, it does not require hydrogenation and there are no trans-fatty acids associated with it. However, palm oil contains higher levels of saturated fats than many other vegetable oils (Gunstone, 2004). Health professionals recommend minimising the consumption of saturated fatty acids to decrease the risk of developing coronary heart disease (European Commission, 2001; NHMRC, 2003; USDHHS and USDA, 2005).

Substitution of palm oil with other sources of oil such as high oleic oils would allow Australian oilseeds to gain a larger domestic market (Stakeholder Consultations). The main impediment to this strategy would be the very low cost of palm oil; Australian production of alternatives is unlikely to be price competitive. There are also limits to such substitution. As an example, there are some popular biscuits manufactured in Australia for which there is no substitute for palm oil because the texture of these biscuits is not acceptable when another oil is substituted (Stakeholder Consultations).

GM oilseed crops 11

GM oilseed crops 12

Section 1.6 Current opportunities and challenges for the Australian oilseed industry

A range of people from the oilseed industry were interviewed using the questions presented in Appendix E. These people were farmers, seed producers, stockfeed manufacturers, food manufacturers and people working for relevant State Government agencies and had expertise in different aspects of the Australian oilseed industry. In total, 21 people, representing 17 organisations were interviewed. Six other organisations were approached but declined to participate. The organisations and people targeted for consultation were selected with the aim of gaining a balanced view of issues facing the oilseed industry and the effects that GM oilseeds may have on it. Thus people expressed both positive and negative opinions about GM oilseeds and the range of views has been reflected in this report. The issues raised are summarised below and are explored in more detail in Part 2 of this report.

• opportunities for expansion of the oilseed industry in Australia

• regulatory issues

• potential for developing niche markets

• potential for health benefits for consumers

• agronomic, environmental and economic benefits from GM cotton

• potential benefits from adopting GM canola

• effects of seasonal variability on the oilseed industry

• the necessity for canola to compete with improved soybean oil traits

• consumer attitudes towards GM foods

• segregation and coexistence strategies

• effects of the State and Territory Government moratoria on growing GM food crops

• liability issues.

Table 1.2 Fatty acid compositions of the major vegetable oils (%)

Oilseed Fatty acid

Canola Cottonseed HOcanola

HO soy

HO sunflower

Palm kernel

Palm mesocarp

Peanut Safflower Soybean Sunflower

Caprylic 3 Saturated

Capric

4 Saturated

Lauric 48 Saturated

Myristic 1 16 1 Saturated

Palmitic 4 22 4 15 4 8 45 11 7 11 7 Saturated

Stearic 2 3 2 2 5 3 4 2 2 4 5 Saturated

Arachidic 1 Saturated

Behenic 3 Saturated

Lignoceric 2 Saturated

Palmitoleic 1 Monounsaturated

Oleic 62 19 75 78 79 15 40 48 13 24 19 Monounsaturated

Gadoleic 2 Monounsaturated

Linoleic 22 54 17 4 11 2 10 32 78 54 54 Polyunsaturated

Linolenic 10 1 2 1 7 1 Polyunsaturated

Source: Liu et al (2002a) and Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (2006).

GM oilseed crops 14

Chapter 2 GM oilseed developments in Australia and overseas

In the last decade, significant developments have been made in the genetic modification of oilseed crops internationally and to a lesser extent, domestically. GM crop traits can be classified as belonging to one of three generations. First generation GM traits are those that provide agronomic benefits. Second generation traits aim to provide nutritional benefits, while third generation traits are those that use the plant as a ‘factory’ to produce industrial and pharmaceutical products. The classification of GM plants as second or third generation is not always clear cut, because both describe plants with altered output traits (Glover et al., 2005).

This section outlines the first, second and third generation GM oilseed traits that have been developed or are being developed in Australia and overseas, summarising information from Glover et al. (2005), published literature, regulatory websites and from interviews with stakeholders from the Australian oilseed industry.

Section 2.1 First generation traits 2.1.1 Introduction The main purpose of ‘first generation’ GM crops is to decrease the inputs required to grow the crop and to alter basic agronomic properties. Traits included in this class of GM crops are herbicide tolerance, pest and disease resistance and other traits of agronomic importance (e.g. environmental stress tolerance). Thus, these crops largely benefit primary producers but may also have downstream effects on consumer prices if the cost of growing the crop per hectare decreases or the yield per hectare increases. Although, difficult to quantify, such modifications also provide important environmental benefits through reduced insecticide usage and use of less residual herbicides (Chapter 3).

2.1.2 Herbicide tolerance Herbicide tolerance has been introduced into a number of oilseed crops (cotton, soybean, flax/linseed, canola and sunflower) by either GM techniques, or conventional mutagenesis, followed by backcrossing into elite cultivars. This allows a particular herbicide to be sprayed on the crop while it is growing as a means of in-crop weed control. Use of these crops can result in easier and cheaper weed control for the farmer and encourage the use of conservation tillage systems. Improved weed control reduces competition for the crop and can lead to increased yields and/or lowered costs.

A number of different types of herbicide tolerance have been introduced into herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. The modes of action of these herbicides are described briefly in Box 2.

2.1.3 Insect resistance Damage caused by insect pests is a major problem for many crops and leads to decreased yields (Ferry et al., 2004). Pesticide applications can contribute significantly to the input costs of growing the crops and can also present health hazards for the people applying the treatments. In addition, they are often non-specific and thus toxic for a wide range of species.

For instance, in Australia, cotton plants are attacked by many insect pests. Many of these insects are very common and pest management is a significant challenge for the cotton industry (Constable, 2004). Of particular concern are the caterpillars of Helicoverpa armigera and H. punctigera from the moth and butterfly family (Lepidoptera).

GM oilseed crops 15

Integrated Pest Management (which can include the use of GM insect resistant cotton varieties) has been adopted by the Australian cotton industry as a means of managing pests in a more sustainable manner (Cotton Australia, 2006). Background information on the development of GM insect resistant crops in Australia is available in Glover et al. (2005).

BOX 2: How do different herbicides work?

Herbicide Mode of Action Herbicide group

Glyphosate This herbicide resembles an amino acid, glutamate, and inhibits an enzyme (EPSPS synthase) which is essential for plant growth. This enzyme is not present in animals. Glyphosate tolerant plants have a different version of the enzyme that is not affected by the herbicide. This version of the enzyme originates from a soil bacterium (Agrobacterium spp.).

M

Glufosinate ammonium

This herbicide inhibits an enzyme involved in amino acid synthesis (glutamine synthetase). As a result, ammonia builds up inside the plant’s cells and poisons the plant. Glufosinate ammonium-tolerant plants produce an enzyme that inactivates the herbicide. This enzyme originates from a soil bacterium (Streptomyces hygroscopicus).

N

Sulfonylurea and Imidazolinone

These herbicides inhibit a different enzyme involved in amino acid synthesis (ALS); affected plants are stunted and eventually die. Tolerant plants produce a different version of the ALS enzyme that is not inhibited by these herbicides.

B

Bromoxynil and Triazine

These herbicides inhibit photosynthesis, resulting in the death of leaves that come into contact with these herbicides. Bromoxynil tolerant plants produce an enzyme that inactivates the herbicide. Triazine tolerant plants have an altered photosynthetic system that is less efficient but not inhibited by the herbicide.

C

Isoxazole This herbicide inhibits an enzyme that is involved in pigment synthesis (4-HPPD). The affected plants turn white and die. Isoxazole tolerant plants are still being developed and the mechanism of tolerance is not publicly available.

F

Dicamba This is a plant hormone analogue that disrupts the growth of the plant. It is more effective for killing broadleaf plants but can affect grasses too. Dicamba tolerant plants produce an enzyme (derived from a soil bacteria) that inactivates the herbicide

I

GM oilseed crops 16

2.1.4 Other first generation traits Other GM traits that are under development in Australia and overseas include disease resistance and a variety of agronomic traits such as improved yield or improved breeding systems. An improved breeding system for canola has been approved for commercial release as described below. Current developments at the field trial or commercial stage are briefly addressed in the following sections.

Section 2.2 Development of first generation traits in Australia

2.2.1 Cotton Herbicide tolerance Approximately 90%–95% of cotton growers in Australia grow at least one variety of GM cotton resulting in approximately 90% of cotton grown in Australia in 2005/06 being GM (Cotton Australia, 2006). This is a mixture of HT and/or insect resistant GM cotton varieties.

Cotton in Australia has been genetically modified to be tolerant to the herbicides glyphosate (Roundup Ready®) or glufosinate ammonium (Liberty®) and varieties have been bred which combine both the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant traits (e.g. Bollgard II®/Roundup Ready®). Australian farmers currently have access to three different types of GM herbicide tolerant cotton, tolerant to two different herbicides.

GM HT cotton, developed by Monsanto Australia Ltd (Monsanto), was first approved for commercial release (GR 9) in Australia by the Minister for Health and Aged Care on the basis of advice from Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) and the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in 2000. A ‘deemed’ licence for the commercial release was issued to Monsanto before the commencement of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) on 21 June 2001. In 2003, the Gene Technology Regulator issued licence DIR 023/2002 to Monsanto for the continued commercial release of this GM HT cotton (OGTR, 2003d). This GM cotton variety is marketed as Roundup Ready® and is tolerant to the applications of the herbicide glyphosate. It is widely grown in southern and central Queensland and northern New South Wales. Another variety of GM HT cotton, Roundup Ready Flex® has recently been approved for commercial release (OGTR, 2006b). This GM cotton variety has two copies of the gene conferring tolerance to glyphosate and allows the herbicide to be applied later in the season than is possible with the original Roundup Ready® cotton plants.

Two other types of herbicide tolerance have been introduced into cotton. One of these cotton varieties (known as LLCotton25) tolerates applications of herbicides containing glufosinate ammonium as the active ingredient. An application for commercial release of this GM cotton variety was approved by the Gene Technology Regulator in 2006 (DIR 062/2005). This HT cotton has approval for unrestricted commercial release in all current and potential cotton growing areas of Australia.

Prior to 2001, a GM cotton variety tolerant of the herbicide bromoxynil was trialled in Australia by CSIRO under the voluntary system overseen by the GMAC (PR-69 and extensions); however, this GM cotton has not been trialled under the current regulatory system.

Insect resistance Two varieties of GM cotton expressing the cry1Ac (Ingard®) or cry1Ac and cry2Ab (Bollgard II®) genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have been approved for commercial release in Australia. In 1996, Ingard® cotton received an advice to proceed for a general (commercial) release (GR-3) under the previous voluntary system that was overseen by GMAC. A ‘deemed’ licence for the commercial release of Ingard® cotton was issued to Monsanto before the commencement of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) on 21 June

GM oilseed crops 17

2001. In 2003, the continued commercial release (DIR 022/2002) of this cotton variety was approved by the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR, 2003c; d). The commercial release of Bollgard II® was approved in 2002 (OGTR, 2002b). Ingard® contained only one Bt gene and has now been phased out of production and replaced by Bollgard II®, which contains two genes and is expected to reduce the likelihood of resistance developing in insect populations. Although initially limited to being planted south of latitude 22ºS, risk assessment by the OGTR has recently concluded that the risk of GM IR cotton becoming a weed in northern Australia is negligible and the Gene Technology Regulator has issued a licence to allow GM cottons expressing the Bollgard II® trait to be grown throughout Australia (OGTR, 2006d).

Other GM insect resistant cotton varieties have also been trialled in Australia. Widestrike™ cotton (Dow AgroSciences Australia) is another GM cotton variety expressing two Bt genes. It was trialled in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia (DIR 040/2003 and DIR 044/2003) (OGTR, 2003g; 2004b).

Hexima Ltd (an Australian company with links to Melbourne University) is currently trialling insect resistant GM cotton producing serine protease inhibitors from an ornamental tobacco species (Nicotiana alata). These trials are occurring in southeast Queensland (OGTR, 2004c).

Another GM insect resistant cotton variety trialled in Australia produces the VIP3A protein, which is also from the Bt bacterium. This protein differs from the Cry proteins as it is not crystalline, is produced during a different growth phase in the bacteria and has a different mode of action (Lee et al., 2003). The Intellectual Property for this cotton variety belongs to Syngenta Seeds Pty Ltd (Sygenta), but a number of different organisations have trialled this variety in Australia (OGTR, 2002a; 2003e; 2005b; 2006a): CSIRO (DIR 017/2002 and DIR 025/2002) and Deltapine Australia Ltd (DIR 058/2005 and DIR 065/2006). These trials have occurred in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory.

Through the use of insect resistant cotton, the cotton industry hopes to be able to extend its growing regions to areas of Northern and Western Australia. Monsanto has recently been granted a licence by the Gene Technology Regulator (DIR066/2006) for the commercial release of GM insect resistant and/or herbicide tolerant cotton north of latitude 22°S. Monsanto proposes to release the lines: Bollgard II®; Roundup Ready®; Roundup Ready Flex®; Bollgard II/Roundup Ready®; and Bollgard II®/Roundup Ready Flex®. Before commercial GM cotton production could begin in northern Australia, Monsanto acknowledges that there are a range of industry, infrastructure and community issues which would first need to be resolved (OGTR, 2006d).

Disease resistance The Gene Technology Regulator has issued a licence (DIR 063/2006) to Hexima Ltd for a field trial of GM fungal resistant cotton in New South Wales and Queensland. This GM cotton produces a protein originally isolated from ornamental tobacco (Nicotiana alata) that inhibits growth of the organisms causing Fusarium wilt, blackroot rot and Verticillium wilt, which are major fungal diseases in cotton crops.

Other agronomic traits Monsanto has received a licence from the Gene Technology Regulator for a field trial of GM cotton with increased water use efficiency (DIR 064/2006). This is a proof of concept trial where the introduced genes encode proteins that are intended to enable normal plant growth with reduced amounts of water (drought tolerance) either by regulating the expression of cottons’ own genes or by altering biochemical pathways in the cotton plants.

GM oilseed crops 18

2.2.2 Canola Herbicide tolerance (HT) Two types of HT canola have been conventionally bred and are grown commercially in Australia. These tolerate the herbicides triazine (TT canola) and imidazolinone (IT canola). In South Australia, approximately 80% of the canola grown is herbicide tolerant, with 50% TT canola and 30% IT canola (Carr, 2005). In Western Australia TT canola accounts for close to 100% of the herbicide tolerant canola crop.

Two types of GM HT canola were approved for commercial release in Australia in 2003 by the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR, 2003a; b). These are Roundup Ready® canola (DIR 020/2002, tolerates glyphosate, developed by Monsanto Australia) and InVigor® canola (DIR 021/2002, tolerates glufosinate ammonium, developed by Bayer). However, State and Territory Government moratoria have prevented these canola varieties being grown commercially. Bayer was granted exemptions in 2004 to grow these GM canola varieties on a trial basis in both South Australia (approved by the South Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) and Victoria (approved by the Victorian Minister for Agriculture). Nufarm, which acquired Monsanto’s dormant Roundup Ready® canola programme, also received exemptions in late 2006 to establish trial sites in Victoria and South Australia.

Bayer has received approval from the Gene Technology Regulator for trialling another type of GM HT canola (OGTR, 2004a) in South Australia and Victoria (DIR 032/2002) (OGTR, 2004a). The identity of the herbicide tolerance gene that has been inserted into these canola plants has been declared Confidential Commercial Information and has not been publicly released.

Other agronomic traits Bayer’s GM InVigor® canola was approved for commercial release in 2003 (OGTR, 2003b). As well as herbicide tolerance (see earlier), this GM canola produces a protein that causes the pollen to be sterile and a second protein that restores fertility. This GM canola is subject to State and Territory Government moratoria that have prevented it being grown commercially.

The sterility/fertility restoration system in these GM canola plants makes hybrid breeding easier than with non-GM canola. Hybrid breeding is used to introduce increased vigour into the resulting plants. Male sterile plants producing infertile pollen are crossed with plants producing fertile pollen to produce hybrid offspring. The InVigor® trait ensures that the subsequent seeds produce plants that are not male sterile so that farmers can harvest seed from the hybrid crop (Buchanan et al., 2000).

2.2.3 Indian mustard Herbicide tolerance and other agronomic traits Indian mustard is grown on a limited scale in Australia as a condiment oil (Oram et al., 2005). It has some agronomic advantages over canola, including increased seedling vigour, resistance to the fungal disease blackleg, shatter resistant pods and increased drought and high temperature tolerance (Norton et al., 2004). B. juncea varieties have been bred in Australia to have oil quality approaching that of canola (Oram et al., 1999), with commercial varieties expected to be released in 2007 (Nicol, 2006b).

Canola-grade GM HT Indian mustard is currently being trialled in Australia by Bayer CropScience (DIR 057/2004 and DIR 069/2006) (OGTR, 2005a; 2007). These lines also contain the hybrid breeding system described for InVigor® canola. The herbicide tolerance trait has been declared Confidential Commercial Information and has not been publicly released.

GM oilseed crops 19

Section 2.3 Development of first generation traits overseas

Information in this section is mainly limited to technology developments in the United States, Canada and countries in the European Union. Other countries that are known to be growing GM oilseed crops are Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Mexico, Paraguay, South Africa, Romania and Uruguay (James, 2006). Up to date information for these countries can be difficult to obtain, particularly for field trials, but it has been included where available. The types of GM traits being developed or grown commercially in these countries are similar to those in the United States and Canada (Stakeholder Consultations).

2.3.1 Cotton Herbicide tolerance Three GM HT cotton traits have been developed and are approved for commercial use in the United States. These are glyphosate, glufosinate ammonium and bromoxynil tolerant cotton varieties. GM glyphosate tolerant cotton (Monsanto) has been grown since 1996 and is the most widely grown of the three. GM glufosinate ammonium tolerant cotton (Bayer) was first grown commercially in 2004 (Sankula et al., 2005). GM bromoxynil tolerant cotton (Calgene Inc.) has been grown since 1995, but its use is declining because the cotton varieties that are available with this trait have not been combined with insect-resistance traits; bromoxynil is not as effective a herbicide as glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium against the types of weeds commonly found in cotton crops in the United States; and the Environmental Protection Agency restricts the use of bromoxynil due to its toxicity to humans (Sankula and Blumenthal, 2004; Sankula et al., 2005).

GM sulfonylurea tolerant cotton developed by DuPont was granted de-regulated status in the United States in 1996 but was subsequently withdrawn from the market.

There are a number of other GM HT cotton varieties currently being trialled in the United States that are tolerant to either the glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium herbicides. Two companies are trialling herbicide traits that have been declared confidential information and the identities of the herbicides have not been publicly released (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

Recent GM crop trials in the European Union (approved 2004-2006) include a field trial of GM glyphosate tolerant cotton in Spain (European Commission – Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) (2006d)).

GM glyphosate tolerant cotton has been commercially released in Argentina and field trials have also been approved for glufosinate ammonium tolerant varieties (SAGPYA, 2005).

Insect resistance The Bt cotton varieties described in Section 2.2.1 have also been approved for commercial use in many other cotton growing countries. Countries known to be growing GM cotton, which would include Bt varieties, are the United States, Argentina, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Colombia (James, 2006). No other GM insect resistant oilseed crops have been approved for commercial release (AGBIOS, 2006).

In addition to these known commercial plantings of GM insect resistant cotton, GM crop trials in the European Union include a field trial of GM Bt cotton in Spain (EC-JRC, 2006).

GM oilseed crops 20

Other agronomic traits The USDA has approved a number of field trials of GM cotton varieties that have been developed for increased tolerance to environmental stress. No further information is available for this trait (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

2.3.2 Canola Herbicide tolerance GM HT canola is widely grown in Canada since it was approved for commercial use in 1995. In 2005, about 48% of canola grown in Canada tolerated applications of glyphosate (Roundup Ready®, Monsanto) and 34% was tolerant to glufosinate ammonium (LibertyLink®, Bayer) (Day, 2006). There was also a significant area of conventional HT canola (approximately 14% Clearfield®, imidazolinone-tolerant) and non-HT varieties were planted on the remaining area (Lyon, 2006).

Rhone-Poulenc (now Bayer) commercialised GM bromoxynil tolerant canola in Canada in 1998, but this product has since been discontinued.

The European Union does not commercially grow GM canola (rapeseed) and has no current trials of GM HT rapeseed (EC-JRC, 2006); however, as described below, there are some current trials of other GM rapeseed traits in the European Union. While China approved the use of GM canola in food and/or feed in 2004 (AGBIOS, 2006), it has not approved the commercial release of this crop (James, 2006).

Insect resistance and other agronomic traits Insect resistance does not appear to be a high priority trait for canola growers, although diamond back moth can cause problems in some seasons but yield losses are not common (North Dakota State University, 2006). There is one current field trial approved by the USDA for GM lepidopteran (caterpillar) resistant canola plants (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006). Recent and current field trials approved in the United States and the European Union include canola varieties with the following GM traits: increased nitrogen use efficiency, increased seed size, increased tolerance to environmental stress, reduced pod shatter, increased yield and increased oil content (EC-JRC, 2006; Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

2.3.3 Indian mustard Herbicide tolerance and other agronomic traits GM traits for Indian mustard are similar to those developed for canola. There is one current trial listed on the USDA website for Bayer’s GM HT Indian Mustard (the identity of the gene is confidential). These GM Indian mustard plants also include the male sterility/restoration of fertility trait known as InVigor®. Previous trials of GM Indian mustard traits have included increased salt tolerance (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

2.3.4 Soybean Herbicide tolerance The only commercially released GM trait for soybean plants is herbicide tolerance. Glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium tolerant soybean varieties were approved for commercial release in the United States in 1994 and 1998 respectively (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006). In 2004 in the United States, close to 85% of the soybean crop was

GM oilseed crops 21

GM HT soybean (Sankula et al., 2005). Isoxazole, dicamba and glyphosate tolerant varieties are currently being trialled in the United States. A variety with tolerance to an undisclosed herbicide is also being trialled (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006). Canada approved the use of glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties in 1995 (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2006).

GM HT soybeans were approved for commercial release in Brazil in 1998 but required further approvals from other agencies before it could be grown (CTNBio, 2006). Although the approval process has not been updated on the regulatory website, GM soybeans were reported to be grown on over 11 million hectares in 2006 (James, 2006). Glyphosate-tolerant soybean varieties were also approved for commercial production in Argentina in 1996 (SAGPYA, 2005) and approximately 98% of soybeans grown in 2004/05 included the Roundup Ready® trait (USDA-FAS, 2006a). The most recent ISAAA report on global GM crop production also lists China, India, South Africa, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico and Romania as producers of GM soybean crops (James, 2006).

GM HT soybeans were approved for field trial by the European Union in 2004 (EC-JRC, 2006).

Insect resistance Soybean plants can generally recover from losses of up to 35% of leaves prior to flowering without significant yield reductions (Pennsylvania State University, 2005). Therefore, control of leaf eating insects through GM technology may not be a high priority. Sap-sucking insects such as aphids and whitefly also cause problems (Bradley et al., 2006). In the United States, Pioneer Hi-Bred International is currently trialling GM soybean varieties that have resistance to aphids and Monsanto is trialling lepidopteran resistant soybeans.

Disease resistance Soybeans are susceptible to a range of diseases including phytophthora, pythium, fusarium rhizoctonia, sclerotinia and a range of viral diseases. Soybean cyst nematode is also an important pest (Bradley et al., 2006). Pioneer and Monsanto are currently trialling GM fungal and/or pathogen resistant soybeans in the United States (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006). The specific targets of this resistance are not listed in detail but include sclerotinia and nematodes.

Other agronomic traits The USDA has recently approved field trials for the following traits: increased resistance to environmental stress, increased yield and yield stability, altered stem properties and increased nitrogen utilisation efficiency (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

Section 2.4 Second generation traits While first generation GM crops improve the agronomic performance of the crop, the focus for the development of second generation crops is to improve the quality or economic value of the final product. By enhancing crop outputs, this class of GM crops provides direct benefits for the consumer. Second generation traits (also known as ‘output traits’) include the production of food and animal feed with increased nutritional value, enhanced quality and better processing characteristics. Oilseed crops have been at the forefront of second generation GM crop research, with a variety of traits being developed, including altered and novel fatty acid profiles, altered amino acid content, enhanced vitamin content and improved nutritional value of animal feed.

GM oilseed crops 22

Glover et al. (2005) presented information on second generation traits for both oilseed and non-oilseed crops. Similar information, focused solely on oilseed crops, is presented in this chapter along with more detailed information where available.

2.4.1 Altered fatty acid profiles The majority of research into second generation GM traits in Australia and overseas is focused on altering the fatty acid profiles of important oilseed crops such as soybean, canola and cotton. As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, conventional breeding methods are also being used, where possible, to achieve similar fatty acid profiles.

Section 2.5 Development of second generation traits Australia

CSIRO has developed GM cotton varieties with elevated levels of oleic (up to 77% compared to the normal 15%) and stearic acids (up to 40% from the normal 2 – 3%). Inter-breeding of the high-stearic and high-oleic lines produced a genotype high in both stearic and oleic acids. In addition, palmitic acid was significantly lowered to approximately 15% in the high-stearic (26% in conventional cottonseed), the high-oleic and the combined high-stearic and oleic lines (Liu et al., 2002b). Successful field trials were conducted with the high-oleic line in New South Wales (OGTR, 2003f), however, the cotton industry has requested that this trait be combined with a lower palmitic acid trait before commercialisation (Glover et al., 2005).

CSIRO has also been able to develop GM B. napus and B. juncea with higher levels of oleic acid (up to 89% and 73% respectively) (Stoutjesdijk et al., 2000). Field trials have not been conducted with either crop.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) approval has been given for the sale of products derived from soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce high levels of oleic acid. As a condition of the approval, all the products from those varieties must be labelled with a statement to the effect that the food has been genetically modified to contain high levels of oleic acid (FSANZ, 2006b). No GM soybean crops are currently grown commercially in Australia.

Omega-3 and omega-6 classes of LC-PUFAs are important for human health. Currently, the nutritionally important omega-3 oils such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and the omega-6 oil arachidonic acid (AA) are mainly obtained from the consumption of fish or fish-derived products. Many diets have inadequate intake of these oils, particularly those who do not have ready access to fish supplies (due to geographic or economic reasons), vegetarians and those with allergies to fish. In addition, global fish stocks are rapidly declining and are unlikely to meet the future demand for LC-PUFAs (Green, 2004) Although still in the technology discovery phase, significant developments have been made both domestically and overseas in synthesising LC-PUFAs in higher plants. In Australia, scientists at the CSIRO Food Futures Flagship have successfully managed to genetically modify the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana (a relative of the Brassica oilseeds) to produce DHA in its seeds.

GM oilseed crops 23

Section 2.6 Development of second generation traits overseas

2.6.1 Altering levels of naturally produced compounds GM soybean with elevated oleic acid was developed by DuPont in 1997, with the proportion of oleic acid increased from 24 to 84%. It has been approved for growing and commercial sale as food and feed in the United States and Canada, and for commercial sale as food in Australia (AGBIOS, 2006). Field trials for GM soy with altered fatty acid compositions (including high oleic, high stearic and low linolenic lines) have been undertaken in the United States and Argentina. Similar trials in the United States and/or Canada have been conducted with GM cotton, canola and Indian mustard with altered oil profiles.

In the European Union, the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education funded a major initiative to improve the nutritional value of B. napus (oilseed rape) for human food applications. This initiative was called NAPUS 2000. It ran from October 1999 to November 2005. Its vision was for the comprehensive utilisation of B. napus in human health and nutrition. It aimed to investigate naturally occurring oilseed compounds such as tocopherols and lecithin, as well as potentially beneficial introduced compounds such as the antioxidant resveratrol and Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (LC-PUFAs) (Leckband et al., 2002; Frauen and Leckband, 2004).

Cottonseed is a high energy and high protein oilseed that has limited use in human food and animal feed as it contains high levels of gossypol, a toxin that helps to protect the cotton plant from insect attack. Gossypol, found in the meal but not the purified oil, is toxic to non-ruminant animals and young ruminant animals (e.g. calves less than 4 months of age) (Blackwood, 2005). Processing reduces the amount of free gossypol and so cottonseed meal can be fed to some non-ruminant animals as long as the amounts are controlled (e.g. Willis, 2005). Some highly processed products including cottonseed flour are approved for human consumption in some countries but not in Australia (FSANZ, 2003b). Previous attempts to breed low-gossypol cotton for use in human food failed as gossypol was reduced throughout the plant leaving it vulnerable to insect attack. A recent publication has demonstrated the successful development of GM cotton plants producing low levels of gossypol in their seed while maintaining normal levels in the vegetative tissues (Sunilkumar et al., 2006). This reduced-gossypol cottonseed may be able to be used more widely in stockfeed or in human diets.

2.6.2 Novel fatty acid composition Omega class fatty acids As described in the previous section, omega class fatty acids are important for human health but intake is often inadequate. Concern has also been expressed about the level of environmental contaminants which may be present in fish. For example mercury is a heavy metal toxin which is found in varying levels in nearly all fish and shellfish. However, for most people the risk from mercury by eating fish or shellfish is not a health concern (USDHHS and USDA, 2005). Nevertheless, food safety authorities recommend that women of childbearing age who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children avoid some types of fish and shellfish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury (USDHHS and USDA, 2005; FSANZ, n.d.). These concerns have initiated the search for alternative sources of EPA, DHA and AA.

One potential alternative source is GM crop plants that synthesise these essential fatty acids. Higher level terrestrial plants are able to synthesise the main C18-PUFAs (linoleic and α-linolenic), but unlike marine microalgae, from which fish acquire LC-PUFAs, they do not

GM oilseed crops 24

have the same ability to elongate and desaturate these to produce EPA, DHA and AA. In order for crop plants to synthesise LC-PUFAs, they need to be modified to produce the enzymes needed to convert linoleic acid or α-linolenic into longer chain fatty acids (Singh et al., 2005).

Other groups overseas have also managed to synthesise AA and EPA in A. thaliana (Qi et al., 2004) and flax (Abbadi et al., 2004) and EPA and DHA in soybeans (Domergue et al., 2005).

Lauric acid One of the first commercially available oilseed crops with GM output traits was LauricalTM, which was developed by Calgene (now owned by Monsanto). This is a canola crop that produces high levels of lauric acid for use in products such as confectionary coatings and fillings, margarines, spreads, shortenings and commercial frying oils. Lauric acid also has industrial applications (see Chapter 3). Created by the insertion of a gene from the California bay tree (Umbellularia californica), LauricalTM can be used as a replacement for other lauric acid-containing oils such as coconut and palm kernel oil. The high lauric acid canola has regulatory approval for commercial growing and sale both as food and feed in the United States and Canada (AGBIOS, 2006).

Other types of fatty acids There are many unusual fatty acids produced by non-food plants that would be of industrial value if they could be produced cheaply and at high levels in oilseed crops. These include long chain fatty acids with epoxy or hydroxy groups, or other modifications introduced by delta-12 desaturase enzymes. Research is still at the technology discovery stage, with one major technical problem being production of sufficiently high levels of these fatty acids in GM plants (Singh et al., 2005).

2.6.3 Enhanced minor components Essential amino acids Amino acids are the building blocks for proteins and are essential to human and animal dietary health. Some amino acids, such as lysine and methionine are particularly important for dietary health, as they are limited in major food and feed crops. Genetically modifying the amino acid profiles of oilseed crops provides a way of increasing their nutritional benefits. However, this is not seen as a high priority by the stockfeed industry as stockfeed is currently mixed with synthetic amino acids to form a nutritionally balanced diet. This is seen as cheaper and easier than developing a GM plant (Stakeholder Consultations).

Despite being a major source of protein in dietary foods and feed, soybean is deficient in the amino acid methionine. The methionine content of soybean protein is normally in the range of 1–2%, which is below the basic minimal requirement for human consumption (Dinkins et al., 2001). For this reason, attempts have been made to increase the methionine content of soybean protein through genetic modification.

Initial success in achieving higher levels of methionine in soybeans was found through the insertion of methionine-rich 2S albumin from the Brazil nut. However, 2S albumin is a significant allergen and may cause severe reactions in some individuals. Therefore, this GM crop was never commercialised (Nordlee et al., 1996).

Other attempts have been made to increase methionine in soybeans by inserting a methionine-rich gene from maize, which managed to increase methionine content above natural levels. However, the resulting increase was considered to be too low for commercial viability of the GM soybean (Dinkins et al., 2001).

GM oilseed crops 25

Research programmes have also attempted to create GM soy and canola with raised lysine levels. After the insertion of two bacterial genes encoding enzymes in the lysine biosynthesis pathway, significant increases in lysine were observed in both canola and soybean seeds (Falco et al., 1995).

Field trials are currently being conducted in the United States by Monsanto with soy containing altered amino acid levels (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 2006).

Vitamins Vitamin A

Lack of Vitamin A is a major public health issue in the developing world, affecting more than 200 million people worldwide (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2004) and resulting in an estimated 500,000 cases of childhood blindness each year (Zimmerman and Qaim, 2004).

In addition to the well-publicised development of ‘Golden Rice’ containing increased levels of beta-carotene (a Vitamin A precursor), GM Indian mustard (B. juncea) is being developed to produce beta-carotene at a level that is believed sufficient to have an impact on Vitamin A deficiency in India, where it is the second most-consumed oil (Mackey, 2002). An advantage of producing beta-carotene in oil is that it is expected to have good bioavailability (Mackey, 2002).

Vitamin E

Research is also being conducted into elevating the Vitamin E content of oilseed crops. Although most diets contain the recommended daily requirements of Vitamin E, some research suggests that daily intake in excess of recommended amounts can improve the function of the immune system, lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and some cancers and slow the progress of degenerative diseases (Shintani and DellaPenna, 1998; van Eenennaam et al., 2003). However, some recent reviews of the literature suggest that there is no clear benefit to consuming high levels of Vitamin E (Asplund, 2002; Shekelle et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2005).

Such therapeutic levels could be achieved by increasing the Vitamin E in oilseeds, given that vegetable oils are currently the main dietary source of Vitamin E. Conventional oilseeds have low levels of α-tocopherol (the most active form of Vitamin E) but high levels of its biosynthetic precursor, γ-tocopherol (the least active form) (Shintani and DellaPenna, 1998). Several research groups including one at Monsanto have been able to identify and modify the gene responsible for converting γ-tocopherol to α-tocopherol in the model plant, A. thaliana. As the metabolic pathway is the same in soybean and canola as it is in A. thaliana, it is expected that the process will be transferable. This is expected to improve the nutritional value of canola and soybean oils (van Eenennaam et al., 2003; Karunanandaa et al., 2005).

2.6.4 Hypoallergenic foods Soybeans are among the eight foods that cause 90% of all food allergies, the others being peanuts, eggs, milk, shellfish, wheat, tree nuts (e.g. walnuts) and fish (Taylor, 2001). Currently 6–8% of children and 1–2% of adults in the United States are allergic to soy products. Similar percentages of the Australian population are reported to have food allergies (references in FSANZ, 2004). The proportion of these that are allergic to soybeans is not known. For those people allergic to soybean, the only option available to them is to avoid eating soy products, which can be difficult given its presence in many food items including salad oil, biscuits, cereal and baby food (Taylor, 2001; Suszkiw, 2002).

Researchers at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service are now attempting to produce hypoallergenic soybeans. Through gene-silencing techniques, soybeans have been developed

GM oilseed crops 26

with reduced amounts of the protein (P34), which causes at least 65% of the allergic reactions in people. Although years away from commercialisation, initial studies have been promising with early results from human blood serum tests in which the antibodies that normally bind to P34 could not detect the allergen in the hypoallergenic soybeans (Suszkiw, 2002). The potential benefits from this GM soybean are significant for food allergen sufferers and could potentially pave the way for the removal of other significant allergens from the other eight high allergy risk foods.

2.6.5 Stockfeed Both soybean meal and canola meal are rich sources of protein. While canola meal has the higher quality protein, its use in formulated animal feeds is influenced by the presence of higher levels of phytic acid, fibre and sinapine, which are anti-nutritional. Sinapine in particular can impart taint to eggs when laying hens are fed canola meal.

Phytic acid impairs protein and amino acid digestion. Phosphorus in canola and soybean meal is largely present in the form of an insoluble phytate (chemically bound with phytic acid) and monogastric animals such as poultry and pigs lack the phytase enzyme needed for the digestion of phytate. A significant amount of phosphorus in these meals is therefore not digestible and leads to high levels of secreted phosphorus in the faeces of poultry and pigs, which in turn contributes to the serious environmental problem of high phosphorus levels in surface and underground water resources. In addition, digestible forms of phosphorus must be added to the meal, which increases the cost of the feed.

A GM soybean is being developed that is lower in phytate and higher in digestible forms of phosphorus. The meal from the low-phytate GM soybean enables more dietary phosphorus to be absorbed by pigs and poultry than conventional soybean meal. It also decreases the phosphorus excretion in the manure of pigs and poultry by 50–60% (Etherton, 2003).

The digestive systems of ruminant animals are well suited for fibre and phytate consumption. However, ruminant animals do not make good use of the high quality protein component of soybean and canola meal because these proteins are hydrolysed too rapidly by rumen bacteria.

Many of the nutritional improvements to oilseeds for human consumption are also important for animal feed meal. Changes to the fatty acid and amino acid profiles of oilseeds provide animals with the same nutritional benefits as humans. The synthesis of omega 3 in oilseed crops will be of significant benefit for aquaculture, as it could allow GM crops to be used to feed farmed fish rather than continue the current practice of feeding farmed fish with harvested wild fish (Opsahl-Ferstad et al., 2003).

Aside from the nutritional benefits, changes in amino acids in animal feed will also have significant benefits for the environment. By increasing the levels of amino acids such as lysine and methionine, the essential amino acid requirements of animals such as pigs and poultry could be met with lower-protein diets. Lower-protein diets reduce excess levels of non-essential amino acids and hence reduce nitrogen excretion. This could reduce nitrogen contamination of surface and ground waters, which can be a significant environmental problem (Toride, 2002; Etherton, 2003).

Section 2.7 Third generation traits Third generation GM crops are designed to act as biofactories, producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds instead of being used for food, feed or fibre. Compounds include pharmaceuticals such as hormones, antibodies, vaccines or enzymes, specialty chemicals or precursors for industrial compounds such as biofuels, biodegradable plastics, industrial enzymes or lubricant oils. The majority of these GM crops are currently in the technology

GM oilseed crops 27

development stage of the pipeline and are still some years away from commercialisation, particularly in Australia.

2.7.1 Pharmaceutical A significant amount of research is currently being conducted into the production of pharmaceutical proteins in GM plants. It is envisaged that pharmaceutical protein production in plants will be significantly cheaper than microbial fermentation systems and mammalian cell cultures and will also avoid some of the difficulties in producing pure, uncontaminated pharmaceuticals (Twyman et al., 2003). This research is discussed in more detail in the BRS report ‘Plant molecular farming in Australia and overseas’ (Mewett et al., 2007).

Oilseeds have been identified as a potential platform for protein expression; their main advantage over other plants is their oil storage bodies that are surrounded by a layer of proteins called oleosins. Targeting the introduced proteins to these oil bodies enables an efficient physical separation of the proteins by simple flotation of the oil bodies in an aqueous extract (Green and Salisbury, 2001).

SemBioSys, a company based in Canada, has developed an oleosin-fusion technology in which the target recombinant protein is attached to the oleosin protein (Fischer et al., 2004; Stoger et al., 2005; SemBioSys, 2006). A simple enzymatic procedure is then used to cleave the recombinant protein from the oleosins that are recovered using the floatation separation system. This system has the added advantage in that the recovered protein is more soluble in aqueous solvents.

2.7.2 Industrial Oils produced by plants are an important source of chemicals for industry and are used in soaps, detergents, cosmetics, lubricants, fuels and plastics. Much of the research in genetically modifying oilseed crops for industrial uses focuses on altering specific fatty acid components or producing novel fatty acids through expressing foreign genes. Table 2.1 provides examples of traits modified in oilseeds for industrial uses. Most of these examples are discussed in more detail by Glover et al. (2005).

Oilseeds with industrial uses would require strict segregation from supply chains to the food industry for food safety reasons. An example is the segregation of High Erucic Acid Rapeseed (HEAR) from canola in Canada, which is a system regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and which uses a separate supply chain (Cahoon, 2003).

GM oilseed crops 28

Table 2.1 Summary of third generation research occurring in oilseed crops

Crop Modification Stage Use

Rapeseed (Canola) High lauric acid content

Commercial Detergent

High stearic acid content

Developed Grease

Petroselenic acid In development Food, monomer for nylon

Rapeseed Increased erucic acid content (HEAR)

In development Plastics, lubricants

Soybean High oleic acid content

Commercial Lubricants

High linolenic acid content

In development Coatings (paints, inks, varnishes)

Vernolic acid In development Plasticiser, coatings Source: Glover et al (2005) based on Taylor (2002), Cahoon (2003) and McKeon (2003).

High Erucic Acid Rapeseed (HEAR) rapeseed is used solely for industrial applications. HEAR oil is mainly used to produce erucamide, which is a slip additive used in injection moulded plastics and polythene manufacture. HEAR oil is also used in printing inks, lubricants and a range of other applications (IENICA, 2005). Market applications for HEAR oil would increase significantly if increases could be achieved in the level of erucic acid. Higher proportions of erucic acid would significantly reduce processing costs as well as meeting future demands for renewable and environmentally friendly industrial feedstocks. Several research groups have used genetic modification to increase erucic acid levels above the 66% currently achieved through conventional breeding, although there has been limited success to date.

There are a number of epoxy, hydroxy, acetylenic and capric fatty acids that could be used for industrial purposes if they can be produced at high enough levels in oilseed crops (Singh et al., 2005). Petroselenic acid is a C18 fatty acid produced naturally by parsley plants that can be used in making detergents and nylon (National Environment Research Council UK, 2005). Vernolic acid is a naturally occurring epoxy fatty acid (Cuperus and Derksen, 1996).

As mentioned in Chapter 2, canola with high levels of lauric acid has been developed. Aside from its food uses, lauric acid also has applications for use in detergents, soaps and shampoos. The transgenic canola also produces higher levels of myristic acid which has similar industrial applications as lauric acid.

2.7.3 Biofuels Another industrial application of oilseed crops is in biofuels and in particular biodiesel. Currently, there is a significant research effort in Australia and overseas focussing on producing biofuels from plant material and animal by-products such as tallow (Collie, 2006; Goode, 2006). Rapeseed is being used in the European Union as a feedstock for biodiesel production (Anon, 2006).

Using crops as biodiesel feedstocks may be uneconomic if significant quantities of waste products from other agricultural production systems such as tallow are available as alternative sources. However, first generation GM traits that aim to lower the cost of production may make the use of oilseeds in biofuel more cost competitive (Stakeholder Consultations). The

GM oilseed crops 29

rising costs of petroleum products will also act to make biofuels more competitive. The Australian Government has recently committed $7.72 million of funding to construct two pilot scale facilities for development of novel biofuels production technologies and to enhance related laboratory infrastructure at three universities. The first facility aims to use plant biomass as a feedstock for ethanol production; whilst the second is based around the conversion of microalgae to biodiesel (NCRIS, 2006).

There are several advantages in using oilseeds as a fuel source instead of petroleum based products. These including enhanced biodegradation, reduced toxicity, lower emissions and increased lubricity. Genetic modification is not essential for use of oilseeds in biodiesel production. However, there are two parameters that have limited the use of biodiesel – oxidative instability and cold flow in cooler climates. To improve these characteristics changes must be made by either genetic modification or conventional breeding to the oilseed fatty acid profile; however, cold flow and oxidative stability are inversely related in terms of optimal fatty acid composition. Increasing oleic acid (monounsaturated FA) levels and decreasing polyunsaturated and saturated fatty acid levels leads to fuel with increased oxidative stability that would be useful under most environmental conditions. Elevating oleic and stearic acid (saturated FA) levels would enhance fuel performance; however, it would also compromise cold flow. Such an oil profile would only be suitable for warm climates (Kinney and Clemente, 2005).

Interestingly, improved fuel use and higher nutritional value of oilseed crops can both be achieved with similar fatty acid profiles – i.e. high oleic and high stearic acid levels. Given this similarity in optimal oil profiles for both food and fuel use, there may be no need to segregate oilseed crops designated for fuel use from those intended for human consumption. The economics of biofuel production are heavily dependant inter alia on the value obtained from the residual meal after crushing, which in turn is dependant on the presence of demand from a feed industry of sufficient scale to take up the meal available from this source. Given that canola meal levels in monogastric rations are limited by intrinsic factors, an expansion of oilseed-based biofuel production in Australia may be assisted by the insertion of improved traits in seed meal, particularly canola meal, for example, low phytate and fibre through gene technology methods.

2.7.4 Bioplastics GM techniques are also being used to produce bioplastic in oilseed crops. This line of research is being pursued as GM oilseed crops are seen as a potential renewable source of biodegradable plastics that will be cheaper than the fermentation of bacteria that is currently employed. Much of the current research into the production of plastics in plants has focused on Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and in particular Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) (Scheller and Conrad, 2005)

PHB, a plastic similar to polypropylene, is naturally produced by the bacterium Alcaligenes eutrophus. PHB production in oilseed crops has been achieved by expressing the bacterial genes encoding the enzymes responsible for the synthesis of the polymer. The polymer is produced from the common metabolite acetyl-CoA. It is anticipated that oilseeds will prove the best vehicle for commercial production of PHB in plants, since they have a naturally high turnover of carbon through acetyl-CoA during oil synthesis and this should be able to be diverted to PHB synthesis (Green and Salisbury, 2001).

PHB production was initially achieved in A. thaliana and now much of the focus is on achieving higher levels of accumulation in GM rapeseed (B. napus). Monsanto initially played a major role in PHB production in rapeseed; however they have since shelved this research, with Metabolix purchasing their assets to expand their PHA products in 2001 (Metabolix, 2001). Research has also been conducted into PHB synthesis in cotton and flax,

GM oilseed crops 30

with the polymer introduced into existing fibres. In cotton, the fibres exhibited enhanced insulating properties, while in flax there was an inverse correlation between PHB production and the amounts of glucose, starch and linolenic acid in the plant (Michael, 2004; Scheller and Conrad, 2005).

Section 2.8 Summary In the last decade, significant progress in the development of GM oilseed crops has been made overseas and to a lesser extent, in Australia. For the purposes of this report, GM crop traits have been split into three categories: first, second and third generation traits. First generation (or ‘input’) traits are those that provide agronomic benefits to the producer. Second generation (or ‘output’) traits are those provide quality benefits, such as enhanced nutrition, to consumers. Third generation traits are those which use the plant as a ‘factory’ to produce industrial and pharmaceutical products. Using a combination of literature research and extensive consultation with representatives of the oilseed industry and State Government Agencies, this report describes a range of GM oilseed crops that are already in commercial production or are under development in Australia and overseas.

• In Australia, GM herbicide tolerant and insect resistant cotton plants and GM herbicide tolerant canola have been approved for commercial production.

• No GM broadacre crops incorporating second or third generation GM traits have been approved for commercial production in Australia, although this report describes a number of applications at varying stages of the product development pipeline. Of particular note is Australian research aiming to improve fatty acid profiles (e.g. high oleic acid and/or low linolenic acid levels) and developing novel fatty acid compositions (e.g. omega-3 production) for Australian oilseed crops.

• Countries overseas have approved the commercial release of a number of GM oilseed crops, namely cotton, canola and soybean varieties incorporating herbicide tolerance, insect resistance or a combination of the two. Other first generation GM traits under development in oilseed crops overseas include: improved environmental stress tolerance; improved disease resistance; increased nitrogen use efficiency; increased seed size; reduced pod shatter; increased yield; and increased oil content.

• GM canola producing increased levels of lauric acid was one of the first commercially available GM oilseed crops in North America. There is a significant amount of research into incorporating second and third generation GM traits into oilseed plants taking place overseas, including: altered fatty acid profiles or novel fatty-acid composition; increased essential amino acid content (e.g. methionine and lysine); production of essential vitamin precursors (e.g. Vitamin A and E); hypoallergenic foods; an increase in the nutritional value of stockfeed (e.g. reduced anti-nutritional compounds such as phytic acid); and as expression platforms for pharmaceutical and industrial products (e.g. plant-made vaccines or bioplastics).

GM oilseed crops 31

GM oilseed crops 32

Part 2 Issues discussed during stakeholder consultations

The following two chapters highlight the main issues discussed during the consultations that BRS undertook with stakeholders in the Australian oilseed industry. The opinions expressed reflect those of the people who were consulted. Where applicable, these opinions and comments have been placed in context through the addition of published data.

A range of people and organisations associated with the oilseed industry in Australia were consulted for this report. These included farmers, seed developers, stockfeed manufacturers, food manufacturers and relevant State Government Agencies. In total, 21 people, representing 17 organisations were consulted. Six other organisations were approached but declined to participate. The people consulted were given a list of questions to consider before being interviewed by one or more of the authors (Appendix E). Although these consultations were not designed to focus on canola, this was the crop that was most often mentioned during discussions. The consultations identified a number of opportunities and challenges for oilseeds in Australia:

• opportunities for expansion of the oilseed industry in Australia

• regulatory issues

• potential for developing niche markets

• potential for health benefits for consumers

• agronomic, environmental and economic benefits from GM cotton

• potential benefits from adopting GM canola

• the effects of drought on the oilseed industry

• the necessity for canola to compete with improved soybean oil traits

• consumer attitudes towards GM foods

• segregation and coexistence strategies

• the effects of State and Territory Government moratoria on GM food crops

• liability issues.

There was widespread concern among farmers and researchers that without increased profitability, the production of oilseeds will decline in Australia with impacts not only on the supply of locally produced vegetable oils, but also on the sustainability of broadacre cropping in Australia. As discussed in the introduction to this report, crops such as wheat and barley benefit from rotations with canola and other oilseed crops. These rotations also provide farmers with weed control options that would not exist if wheat or barley were to be grown without break crops. The significance of those weed control options should not be underestimated – farmers choose to sow about 50% of the current Australian canola crop with TT cultivars, non-GM HT types that provide an effective and efficient weed control option despite having a yield drag compared to other cultivars. There may also be opportunities to develop value-added traits in oilseeds other than canola and thus diversify the rotation cropping system.

GM oilseed crops 33

GM oilseed crops 34

Chapter 3 Opportunities for Australian oilseeds Section 3.1 Expansion and/or diversification of the

oilseed industry in Australia 3.1.1 Stockfeed Replacement of imported soybean meal Canola, soybean and cottonseed meal are the major oilseed ingredients in stockfeed, with lesser amounts of sunflower meal used (Table 3.1). Safflower meal is also used to a minor extent (Stakeholder Consultations). Large volumes of soybean meal (up to 300 kt per year) are imported for stockfeed. As the largest soybean-producing countries grow significant proportions of GM soybean (United States, Brazil and Argentina), this soybean meal is likely to contain a GM component.

Table 3.1 Oilseed meal usage in Australia (‘000 tonnes)

Range (excluding major drought years)

Meal type Typical year Min Max

Canola 228 210 246

Soybean 32 32 56

Sunflower 48 42 72

Cottonseed 160 144 224

Total 468 428 598

Imports

Soybean 200 150 300

Other 20 10 25

Total Imports 220 160 325

Total Meal Usage 688 588 923 Source: Willis (2003)

There is an opportunity to expand oilseed production in Australia to reduce the need to import substantial quantities of soybean meal. Growing more soybean crops would provide benefits for cereal and sugarcane crops in northern New South Wales and Queensland because legumes add nitrogen to the soil during their growth, reducing the need for fertiliser applications in the subsequent crop. However, suitable regions for growing soybeans are limited in Australia. Other oilseeds, such as sunflower (Australian Sunflower Association, 2004) and safflower (Wachsmann et al., 2001) can also be used successfully as break crops and there may be opportunities to encourage the expansion of the cropping areas for these crops too. Although there could be an opportunity for the Australian oilseed industry to expand to replace some of the imported soybean meal with locally grown product, it is important to remember that markets would be needed for the increased oil supply as well. Drought is also likely to impact on the ability of the oilseed industry to increase production. This challenge is discussed in Chapter 4.

Replacement of animal meal A voluntary ban on feeding ruminant meat to ruminant animals was adopted throughout Australia in 1996, to reduce the risk of introducing Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (mad cow disease). The Australian State and Territory Governments introduced legislation to

GM oilseed crops 35

enforce this ban in 1997. The ban has since been extended to prevent the feeding of meat products from any animal (including fish and birds) to ruminant animals, however, animal products may still be fed to non-ruminants such as poultry, pigs and horses.

There is continuing pressure on the stockfeed industry to reduce the amount of animal protein in stockfeed to avoid possible transmission of diseases (Stakeholder Consultations). If the use of animal protein in stockfeed continues to decrease, there will be a concurrent increase in demand for high quality sources of vegetable protein. GM oilseed varieties may be one way to meet this increased demand if they produce higher yields thus increasing production. It is also possible to develop GM oilseeds with improved amino acid profiles to provide a balanced protein source, however the addition of synthetic amino acids to stockfeed is cheap and easy and there is little pressure from the stockfeed industry for such modifications (Stakeholder Consultations).

3.1.2 Stable oils for frying Over 100 kt/year of palm oil is imported into Australia (Appendix D) at relatively low cost; primarily for use in the food service industry (e.g. fried and manufactured foods). Palm oil is a very stable oil for frying purposes, but has higher levels of saturated fats than many other vegetable oils (Gunstone, 2004). Because of low price and high volume, palm oil imports are seen as a major threat to the oilseed industry in Australia, particularly for our major oilseed commodity, canola. In recent years, improved palm tree breeding, cloning and selection techniques in South East Asia have increased yield from 4–5 t/ha to 7 t/ha with a corresponding increase in the amount of palm oil on the world market (Stakeholder Consultations).

Australian, North American and European government health agencies have all released dietary health guidelines that recommend reducing consumption of saturated and trans-fatty acids. These recommendations are based on evidence that a high intake of saturated and trans-fatty acids may increase the risk of coronary heart disease (European Commission, 2001; NHMRC, 2003; USDHHS and USDA, 2005). The Australian Government’s National Collaboration on Trans Fats is working to reduce the amount of trans fats in food without increasing the amount of saturated fats (FSANZ, 2006c).

As consumers become increasingly aware of the differences between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ oils, there may be pressure on the food service industry to use healthier oils such as those with high oleic and low linolenic oil profiles in producing fried foods despite the increased costs that may result. These varieties may be GM or non-GM as both types are being developed. This could provide opportunities for Australian oilseed growers to increase their production levels and compete with imported palm oil (Stakeholder Consultations).

3.1.3 Value-added oils There are a number of value-added oils being developed (Chapter 2) that may provide opportunities for the oilseed industry to target new areas where consumer benefits exist and the value may be higher. The major focus is likely to be improved health.

The nutritional value of oilseeds is determined by their fatty acid profile, namely the different types and relative quantities of distinct fatty acids present in a given oil, these may be saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated. Tribe and Kalla (2005) nominate four main health issues that have been debated in the scientific literature in regard to fatty acid profiles of oilseed. These are:

• Recommendations by the medical community to consume low levels of saturated fats.

GM oilseed crops 36

• Recognition of the value of oils such as canola and olive oil, which are linked to a reduction in undesirable cholesterol levels and reduced risk of heart disease. The value of these oils is related to their high content of monounsaturated fatty acids (such as oleic acid) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (such as linolenic acid).

• Recognition that an abundance of trans-fatty acids in the diet is linked to high blood cholesterol levels.

• Medical recognition of the health value of LC-PUFAs, such as omega-3, in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, mitigation of dementia and enhancement of intelligence.

The health benefits of nutritionally enhanced oils are likely to be most noticeable in developing countries, where nutrient deficiencies are a major public health issue. In developed countries, including Australia, the public health impact of nutritionally enhanced foods may not be as great as in those countries where daily food intake may be insufficient in quality or quantity to maintain health or prevent disability. However, in the developed world, there is a continuing demand for higher quality and nutritionally enhanced foods. For example, in the developed world the resources of public health systems are being stretched by the advent of lifestyle-related diseases such as adult onset (type II) diabetes (Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, 2006).

Accurately quantifying the health benefits that nutritionally-enhanced GM oilseeds will bring to a population is difficult, particularly due to the relatively young age of the technology and a subsequent lack of empirical data. However, available published data suggest that there may be potential health benefits from fortifying oil profiles. The example of omega-3 fatty acids is described below.

Long chain omega-3 fatty acids The development of long-chain omega-3-containing oilseeds will be an advantage as these oils continue to grow in importance for Australian and international consumers. Current food products and supplements on the market often contain omega-3 fatty acids derived from imported fish stocks. This is not a sustainable practice and the development of a renewable source of long-chain omega-3 oils in oilseed crops will have benefits for Australian food manufacturers (Stakeholder Consultations). Food manufacturers expect that plant-produced long-chain omega-3 oils will be cheaper than fish oil and of higher quality because the grain can be crushed and the oil extracted and stabilised relatively quickly (Stakeholder Consultations).

Omega-3 fatty acids can have a positive effect on the health of many people, particularly in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, and better brain function and mental health. Currently, the intake of omega-3 fatty acids in peoples’ diets comes predominantly from the consumption of fish or fish-derived products. The production of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in oilseeds could provide cheaper and more varied sources of these fatty acids and relieve demand on natural fish stocks and aquaculture as major sources of omega-3 fatty acids.

A number of observational studies have revealed associations between consumption of fish-derived omega-3 fatty acids and decreased cholesterol levels and incidence of cardiovascular disease (Ruxton et al., 2004). For example, a comparison of fish eaters with non-fish eaters in Southern India revealed significant differences in the HDL:LDL cholesterol ratio, with higher ratios for the fish eaters (Bulliyya, 2002; Ruxton et al., 2004). A similar study of three different ethnic groups in Quebec revealed that the Inuit, regular consumers of fish, had the lowest risk of suffering from cardiovascular disease (Dewailly et al., 2003; Ruxton et al., 2004).

GM oilseed crops 37

In addition, a large scale epidemiological study (84,688 women) of nurses in the United States reported that deaths related to cardiovascular disease were 50% lower in women who consumed fish five times per week (Hu et al., 2002; Ruxton et al., 2004). An analysis of 11 clinical trials where participants consumed varying quantities of omega-3 fatty acids concluded that these fats could reduce overall mortality, mortality due to heart attack and sudden death in patients with coronary heart disease (Bucher et al., 2002; Ruxton et al., 2004).

Significant progress has been made towards the development of GM plants producing long chain omega-3 fatty acids (Robert et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2005), although the levels are low compared to fish, microalgae and other microorganisms, there is considerable potential to increase these levels and produce a commercially viable product. Products are expected to be on the market within the next decade.

3.1.4 Biodiesel production An alternative to growing canola for food oil may be to grow it as a commodity crop for biodiesel production. However, oilseed crops would be competing with cheap waste products such as tallow from the meat industry and used vegetable oil from restaurants (Stakeholder Consultations). The economics of this will need to be examined closely: if canola were priced low enough to compete with waste products for biodiesel production, there may not be a sufficient profit margin for farmers. Another consideration would be the production of large volumes of oilseed meal and glycerine (a by-product from biodiesel production). If markets of sufficient size existed for both these products, then this would increase the viability of biodiesel production from canola. As discussed earlier, there is significant potential for expansion of the oilseed industry to supply the stockfeed industry, so a market for the meal would probably exist. Glycerine is currently used in making soap, explosives and cosmetics; alternative markets may develop if supplies increase.

Biodiesel has advantages over petroleum diesel, including a higher cetane number (indicates the speed at which the fuel ignites) and greater lubricity than current low-sulphur petroleum diesel (Radich, 2004). A cetane number of at least 46 is required by the 2002 Australian Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001. Blends of low-sulphur petroleum and biodiesel could be developed to optimise both these parameters. The main disadvantages of biodiesel are decreased fuel economy and poorer performance in cold conditions. The cloud point of diesel is the temperature at which wax crystals become visible. These can clog fuel lines and filters. At lower temperatures, the fuel becomes a gel and no longer flows in the engine (Radich, 2004). The higher cloud points for many biodiesels may restrict their use in areas with very cold winters unless blended with petroleum diesel or additives designed to decrease the cloud point.

Each oilseed crop produces biodiesel with different properties. The production volume per hectare will depend on both the seed yield and the percentage of oil within the seed. Of five common vegetable oils (soybean, canola, sunflower, safflower and corn) canola has the highest estimated production level at 1 426 L/ha. Corn is the lowest at 202 L/ha. Cetane numbers are similar between the five crops, varying between 52 (sunflower) and 55 (canola), however, the cloud and pour points vary considerably as indicated in Table 3.2. Biodiesel made from used vegetable oils is reported to have a higher cloud point than biodiesel made from fresh soybean oil (Radich, 2004).

GM oilseed crops 38

Table 3.2 Estimates of Biodiesel production and characteristics

Crop Production (L/ha)

Cetane number

Cloud point (ºC)

Pour point (ºC)

Canola 1 426 55 -4 -32

Sunflower 1 145 52 +7 -15

Safflower 831 -- -12 -21

Soybean 539 53 +7 -12

Corn 202 53 -1 -40 Source: Schuler (2006).

Stakeholders identified Indian mustard (B. juncea) as a crop that may also be developed as a biodiesel feedstock. The high levels of erucic acid in B. juncea plants could have advantages for biodiesel production, further increasing the lubricity of the fuel (Nicol, 2006a). Canola quality B. juncea varieties (reduced erucic acid and glucosinolates) have been bred and are reported to be suitable for growing in lower rainfall areas with the potential to out-yield B. napus hybrids in high stress environments (Nicol, 2006b). B. juncea could increase the area on which biodiesel feedstock is grown and could also increase yields on currently planted, marginal land. Herbicide tolerant B. juncea varieties (GM and/or non-GM) may need to be developed to assist with crop establishment (Nicol, 2006b).

Increases in yield, oil content and other characteristics that lower production costs will be advantages for oilseed crops destined for the biofuels market, just as they are for the food and feed markets. These improvements may result from either conventional breeding or genetic modification. Hybrid varieties and herbicide tolerance are traits that will be important in this context.

Increasing crude oil prices are likely to drive innovation in the development of biofuels but government incentives may also be required. The Australian Government has a current target of 350 ML/yr of biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) production by 2010 and has also set up a scheme to encourage the production of renewable energy sources. The European Union has issued a Directive (2003/30/EC) that outlines targets to decrease dependence on petroleum fuels (European Union, 2003). By 2010, 5.75% of fuel energy in Europe should be derived from biofuels. The Canadian Government has announced a target of 5% renewable fuel in petrol and diesel by 2010 (Canola Council of Canada, 2006). The United States established a Renewable Fuels Standard in 2005. This requires the use of at least 4 billion litres (approximately 2.8% of US fuel supply) of renewable fuels in 2006, increasing up to at least 7.5 billion by 2012 (ACE, 2005).

Cargill is investing in a rapeseed crushing plant in France that will sell most of the resulting oil to a nearby biodiesel plant, with the meal being sold for stockfeed. Cargill is also investing in other biodiesel plants in the European Union and the United States (Cargill, 2006).

The following companies have been funded under the Australian Government’s Biofuels Capital Grants Programme:

• CSR Distilleries Operations, an ethanol plant at Sarina, Queensland ($4.16m)

• Biodiesel Industries Australia, a biodiesel plant at Rutherford, New South Wales ($1.28m)

• Schumer Pty Ltd [Rocky Point Sugar Mill and Distillery], an ethanol plant at Woongoolba, Queensland ($2.4m)

• Biodiesel Producers Ltd, a biodiesel plant at Barnawatha, Victoria ($9.6m)

GM oilseed crops 39

• Australian Renewable Fuels Pty Ltd, a biodiesel plant in Port Adelaide, South Australia ($7.15m)

• Riverina Biofuels Pty Ltd, a biodiesel plant at Deniliquin New South Wales ($7.15m) and

• Lemon Tree Ethanol Pty Ltd, an ethanol plant at Millmerran Queensland ($5.85m).

These are one-off capital grants for projects that were competitively judged by Invest Australia to be the best prepared for commercial operation (Energy Industries Australia, 2006). These plants will not necessarily use vegetable oils as the primary feedstock and some will produce ethanol rather than biodiesel, but investment in these plants indicates the importance that the Australian Government places on encouraging biofuel production in the future.

3.1.5 Potential for the development of niche markets Foster and French (Foster and French, 2007) recently completed a review of international and national market acceptance of GM canola. This review concluded that the great bulk of GM canola is sold at very similar prices to conventional canola in most major canola markets throughout the world. There is some very limited evidence of price premiums for certified GM-free canola, though these markets are still very much small niches. For example, eighteen canola growers on Kangaroo Island (South Australia) have negotiated contracts with a Japanese importer to supply 2 000 tonnes of non-GM canola for 2006 at an unspecified ‘premium’ price. Such a small market would not be able to support the majority of canola growers in Australia (Foster and French, 2007). Regionalisation may be a strategy that could be used in the future to ensure the reliable segregation of different types and standards of oilseed crops (Stakeholder Consultations).

Some of the second and third generation GM traits being developed (Chapter 2) may meet the needs of specific markets (e.g. altered nutritional value, or pharmaceutical products) and niche markets for these products may develop with significant price premiums possible, depending on demand.

Soybean is one of the few oilseeds that is used as a protein source in human diets as well as a source of oil, with soybeans fermented to produce tofu or processed into soymilk or other food products. Protein and DNA will be present in these products and according to some stakeholders there may be an incentive to maintain a non-GM source for these foods (Stakeholder Consultations). For example, some soy milk products are labelled as made from non-GM soybeans. Sanitarium states that identity preservation is used to ensure only non-GM soybeans are used (Sanitarium, 2006), while VitaSoy states that it uses Australian soybeans to ensure non-GM content (Vitasoy, 2004). Soybeans grown overseas are predominantly GM varieties and some Australian producers have reported gaining a premium for non-GM soybeans by supplying a niche non-GM market. However it is important to note that Australia’s soybean production is very small by world standards. In the last 20 years soybean production in Australia has rarely exceeded 50,000 ha or 100,000 tonnes, with minimal exports.

Section 3.2 The regulatory environment The introduction of new GM oilseed crops will need to take account of all relevant regulatory requirements. In addition to the need to comply with the legislative requirements of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth), the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth) and State and Territory Government legislation, such as the GM moratoria, compliance will also be necessary with the Food Standards Code as summarised below.

GM oilseed crops 40

Two first generation GM HT canola varieties have already been approved by Gene Technology Regulator for commercial cultivation. They have also been approved for human consumption in Australia by FSANZ and are listed in Standard 1.5.2, Clause 2, Table 2 of the Food Standards Code (FSANZ, 2006a) along with a number of other GM varieties that are grown overseas and could potentially be imported into Australia.

If commercial GM canola production were to proceed in Australia, then domestically crushed oil from first generation GM HT cultivars used for food would not require labelling as “GM” under Standard 1.5.2 Clause 4(1)(c) of the Food Standards Code. This is because the oil is “highly refined food, [without] altered characteristics, where the effect of the refining process is to remove novel DNA and/or novel protein” (FSANZ, 2006a). However, oil from second generation GM cultivars may be required to be labelled as GM if it is deemed to have “altered characteristics”. For example, the label on oil derived from high oleic acid soybeans “must include a statement to the effect that the food has been genetically modified to contain high levels of oleic acid” (FSANZ, 2006a).

In addition, meal from domestically crushed first or second generation GM cultivars can be used in feed without a requirement to label the resulting animal product as GM. This is because the animal itself has not had its genes altered. This is spelt out in the Food Standards Code (Standard 1.5.2) that notes in the definition of “a food that is produced using gene technology” that food produced from an animal or other organism that has been fed food produced through gene technology, is not GM unless the animal or organism itself is a product of gene technology (FSANZ, 2006a). Other countries that have GM legislation also take the same approach.

In both cases described above, there may be consumer-driven issues that lead some food retailers who seek to sell into GM-averse niche markets for foodstuffs to label their product ‘non-GM’. This may require the sourcing of identity preserved materials that have not involved the use of GM crops or by-products in order to support any statement about GM status on product labels. For example some markets may require certification that the product does not contain GM stockfeed inputs.

In addition, any health claims made on food labels as a result of genetic modifications would need to be substantiated as described in the ‘Policy guideline on nutrition, health and related claims’ (Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, 2003).

Section 3.3 Agronomic, environmental and economic benefits of GM crops

The benefits of GM cotton and canola are summarised below and in Section 3.2.2, but are discussed in more detail in the BRS report “Genetically modified crops: tools for insect pest and weed control” (Holtzapffel and Mewett, In Preparation).

3.3.1 Agronomic and environmental benefits The Australian cotton industry The introduction of the insect resistant cotton varieties Ingard® and Bollgard II® (containing either one or two insecticidal genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) respectively), together with herbicide tolerant (e.g. Roundup Ready®) cotton has resulted in benefits for both farmers and the environment.

Over the eight growing seasons (1996/97 – 2003/04) in which Ingard® was cultivated in Australia, there was an average 44% reduction in pesticide use per hectare in comparison to conventional cotton. The introduction of Bollgard II® in 2002/03 saw an even greater

GM oilseed crops 41

reduction in average insecticide use per hectare in comparison with conventional cotton (Browne et al., 2006). For example, in the 2004/05 season, Bollgard II® varieties received an average of three insecticidal sprays, in comparison to conventional cotton which required an average of 11.4 sprays (Doyle et al., 2005b). .

When Ingard® was first introduced, there was concern that insect pests could develop resistance to the Bt pesticide. As a result, growers entered into agreements to limit the area planted on farms with Bt-cotton to a maximum of 30% of their cotton crop area. Providing a non-Bt plant refuge for insect foraging without insecticidal selection pressure was seen as a way of ensuring there was an abundance of Bt-susceptible mating partners to mate with any Bt-resistant insects. However, the two genes in Bollgard II® are expected to provide adequate insurance against the emergence of insect resistance to Bt insecticidal proteins and so no cap has been put in place for these varieties. Instead, areas of non-GM cotton crops or other specified crops are planted to maintain satisfactory refuges to generate abundant Bt-sensitive mating partners. The larger areas that can now be planted with Bt-cotton have further reduced overall insecticide usage (Tribe and Kalla, 2005).

The benefits of reduced insecticide use are significant, with the Australian Cotton CRC (2005) reporting a benefit of $250 million over a five year period from the 1999/2000 season to the 2003/04 season. Over the same period, there has been a significant reduction in synthetic insecticide runoff into streams, with the Cotton CRC (2005) reporting a benefit of $2 million. Endosulfan levels (one of the more persistent insecticides) in the Namoi River (one of the major rivers of the irrigated northern cotton growing area of New South Wales) are reported to be 50% lower since the introduction of GM cotton (Tribe and Kalla, 2005). Such benefits cannot, however, be solely attributed to the introduction of GM cotton as insecticide use on conventional crops has also significantly reduced due the adoption of other Integrated Pest Management practices which coincided with the introduction of Ingard® cotton (Cotton CRC, 2005).

Weeds are an expensive problem for farmers. Costs of weeds can be indirect, such as yield losses, poor returns and/or product contamination; or direct, measured in the cost of herbicides and their application (Martin, 2003). The introduction of Roundup Ready® cotton in 2000 led to reductions in herbicide use that have benefited both growers and the environment. For instance, the Australian Cotton CRC (2005) reports a benefit of $18 million over five years due to the adoption of Roundup Ready® cotton.

The adoption of Roundup Ready® cotton has also seen a change in the types of herbicides used. There are two broad classes of herbicides used by cotton farmers: residual or non-residual. Non-residual herbicides have a short period of activity in the environment, as a result of rapid degradation or inactivation through soil contact. Residual herbicides are persistent in the environment and subsequently remain active over a longer period of time. Because residual herbicides are active for longer, they have a greater risk of damaging ecosystems (Crossan and Kennedy, 2004). If their application is poorly managed, they can also reduce subsequent crop yields as a result of this residual effect. Roundup Ready® cotton, with its resistance to the non-residual herbicide glyphosate, has led to a reduction in the precautionary and possibly unnecessary usage of pre-emergent herbicides and an increased reliance on post-emergent herbicides directly applied to germinating weeds.

Glyphosate has a relatively low persistence and has no herbicidal activity once bound to soil particles. It has low human and aquatic toxicity and unlike other herbicides, has low soil mobility. These properties render glyphosate one of the least environmentally hazardous herbicides to non-target organisms. The trend away from pre-emergent weed control also promotes both no-till and conservation tillage practices, which are particularly important for conserving soil moisture (Crossan and Kennedy, 2004; Tribe and Kalla, 2005; Day, 2006). Reduced soil cultivation can assist in conservation of soil structure, increasing soil carbon and nitrogen (reducing greenhouse gas emissions), reducing erosion and water loss (Crossan and

GM oilseed crops 42

Kennedy, 2004; Lyon et al., 2004; Tribe and Kalla, 2005). Other benefits include reduced labour, fuel use and machinery wear (Fawcett and Towery, 2002; Lyon et al., 2004).

Canola Weeds are a significant economic and agronomic cost for canola farmers. Table 3.3 shows the estimated financial and yield losses due to weeds in Australian canola crops. The adoption of GM herbicide tolerant canola could potentially lead to a significant reduction in these costs through reducing herbicide costs and weed prevalence. In Canada, where GM canola has been extensively adopted, a number of agronomic benefits associated with its use have been identified. Improved yields through earlier seeding have been achieved due to the reduced need to wait for a burn down or significant weed growth prior to seeding. Reduced herbicide usage has been achieved not just during the canola cropping rotation, but also in the crops preceding and following canola. GM canola has also been found to improve greatly the ability to achieve no-till practices in Canada and significantly reduce soil erosion in western Canada (Day, 2006).

Table 3.3 Estimated costs of weeds in Australian canola crops

Herbicide costs $72 million

Cultivation costs $16 million

Per unit weed cost $106/ha

Losses due to contamination of grains $2 million

Monetary losses due to residual weeds in crops $56.6 million

Yield losses due to residual weeds 157.6 kt

Source: Adapted from Jones et al. (2000)

Herbicide tolerant canola in Australia Canola varieties that are tolerant of triazine herbicides (Group C herbicides) were introduced in 1993. Triazine tolerant (TT) canola was rapidly adopted by farmers following its introduction in 1993 due to the relatively low cost broadleaf weed control that can be achieved with triazine herbicides. This resulted in a rapid increase in area planted to canola with expansion across southern Australia and particularly in Western Australia (Norton et al., 1999; Sutherland, 1999).

A second herbicide tolerant canola was introduced into Australia in 2000. IT canola is tolerant of imidazolinone herbicides (Group B herbicides), but has not been as widely adopted as TT canola. This is mainly due the high level of resistance to Group B herbicides in weeds, particularly in Western Australia, where TT canola is planted on an estimated 90% of canola fields (Walsh et al., 2001; Norton, 2003).

A problem with TT canola is that it has yield penalties in comparison to non-herbicide tolerant canola varieties when grown in weed-free situations (Robertson et al., 2002). This is due to an altered photosynthesis process resulting from the mutation that confers triazine tolerance. However, despite this inherent yield drag, TT canola has been widely adopted in Australia because of its ability to be grown in cropping areas where there are serious problems in dealing with weeds such as wild radish (Tribe and Kalla, 2005). In high weed pressure situations, TT canola can provide better weed control and thus give better results than conventional canola varieties.

GM oilseed crops 43

The value of canola as a break crop

A major factor for the growth of the canola industry in Australia has been its usefulness as a break crop in rotations with wheat and barley. It has been shown that the average yield of wheat sown after a canola rotation is nearly 20% higher than for wheat grown after wheat. Similar increases in yield were observed when either Indian mustard or Linola™ (a variety of linseed bred by CSIRO to be suitable for food rather than industrial applications (Gunstone, 2004)) were substituted for canola as break crops, with Indian mustard providing the greatest benefit (Angus et al., 1999).

During the 2002–2004 drought, some farmers incurred economic losses from growing broadleaf rotation crops, especially canola (Rice, 2005). This has highlighted the ‘riskiness’ of canola crops which do not have the same physiological robustness and yield stability of cereal crops (Rice, 2005 and Stakeholder Consultations). However, provided that the canola sale price is at least 60% more than the wheat price, the gross margin for a canola-wheat rotation is estimated to remain higher than that for wheat-wheat (Angus et al., 1999). As discussed elsewhere in this report (Chapter 1), the profitability of break crops such as canola could be increased by developing varieties that produce specialty oils or other higher value products.

3.3.2 Economic benefits of developing GM crops Cotton in Australia In Australia, the majority of cotton farmers have received economic benefits from cultivating GM cotton, although results can vary due to environmental or climatic differences for different locations and seasons. Comparing the economic return of Bollgard II® cotton with that of conventional cotton shows that in the 2003/04 growing season, 84% of paired comparisons showed an economic surplus. In the 2004/05 growing season, 66% showed a surplus (Doyle et al., 2005a).

Cotton overseas Research in developing countries indicates that highly variable, but generally positive, economic returns have been realised as a result of adopting GM crops (Raney, 2006). The performance advantage of GM insect resistant varieties over conventional cotton varieties in five developing countries is shown below (Table 3.4) (Raney, 2006).

Table 3.4 Performance advantage of insect resistant cotton in developing countries (expressed as % variation from results for non-GM cotton).

Argentina China India Mexico South Africa

Yield +33 +19 +34 +11 +65

Revenue +34 +23 +33 +9 +65

Pesticide costs -47 -67 -41 -77 -58

Seed costs +530 +95 +17 +165 +89

Profit +31 +340 +69 +12 +299 Source: Raney (2006)

Although these averaged data (collected over two or three seasons for each country) conceal a large amount of temporal and spatial variation, the overall trend is that farmers who adopted GM technology in these countries experienced higher effective yields, higher revenue and lower pesticide costs. These factors compensated farmers for the technology fees they were

GM oilseed crops 44

required to pay for the GM seed. The higher profit level in China is likely to be due to the high level of public investment in developing insect resistant cotton, which will compete with Monsanto’s varieties. This has resulted in lower seed prices in comparison to Argentina and Mexico. The high level of profit found in the South African studies was influenced by the farming system in the study area: a local cooperative provided seed on credit with technical advice and ran the local cotton gin, allowing guaranteed debt collection at the end of the season, thus reducing the risks for the seed supplier. This system has since been disrupted by the opening of another gin in the area (Raney, 2006).

Variable results were found in a study of different regions of India with GM insect resistant cotton in one State in particular (Andhra Pradesh) having a negative economic impact. It was suggested that this was due to the lack of appropriate cultivars for that region (Raney, 2006).

Canola in Canada Canada is Australia’s major global competitor in the commercial production and export of canola. Canada has large-scale adoption of GM herbicide tolerant and hybrid canola varieties. In 2004, GM canola varieties dominated the Canadian market, with 46% Roundup Ready® canola and 31% Liberty Link® canola. This translates into 9.8 million hectares of GM canola being grown in Canada in 2004 (Ripley, 2005). In 2005, 48% of the canola grown in Canada was Roundup Ready®, 34% was Liberty Link and 14% was the non-GM herbicide tolerant Clearfield variety (Day, 2006; Lyon, 2006). Segregation of GM and non-GM occurs only in vertically-integrated niche markets. Despite the fact that there were over 30 types of registered conventional canola varieties available for purchase by Canadian farmers in 2005, only 4% of the canola acreage were sown to these varieties (Day, 2006). These data suggest that for most Canadian farmers there are significant agronomic, environmental and/or economic advantages in using GM canola varieties (Day, 2006).

The Canola Council of Canada commissioned an independent report examining the impact of GM canola on growers, industry and the environment between 1997 and 2000 (Canola Council of Canada, 2005b). The results of the study indicated that Canadian growers who chose the GM varieties were better off when compared to those who continued to grow conventional canola varieties. The results of the Canadian study are summarised in Table 3.5 (Canola Council of Canada, 2005b).

GM oilseed crops 45

Table 3.5 Impacts of GM canola in Canada (1997–2000)

Benefit or Cost Measurement Parameter

Improved weed management 80% of GM growers said weed management was more effective.

Improved yield GM varieties resulted in 10% yield advantage over conventional varieties.

Reduced dockage1 Only 3.87% dockage in GM varieties compared to 5.14% in conventional varieties.

Reduced cultivation ‘In crop’ weed control permits GM growers to direct seed with pre-seeding tillage operations. This has soil conservation benefits.

Savings on fuel use and cost

GM growers used less fuel due to fewer field operations.

Fuel saving varied from 9.5 million litres in 1997 to 31.2 million litres in 2000. This equates to Can$13.1 million saving based on a fuel price of Can$0.42 per litre.

Increased fertiliser cost

More fertiliser was required by GM growers. This was related to the type of cultivation system used which differed from that used by the majority of conventional growers.

Decrease in herbicide use Herbicide costs were 40% lower for GM growers.

There was a reduction of 1500 tonnes of herbicide applied in 1997 and 6000 tonnes in 1999 and 2000.

Increase in grower revenue An average Can$5.80/acre increase on net return reported by GM growers in 2000.

Large indirect impact of GM technology Total indirect impact of GM technology for 1997–2000 period estimated to range between Can$58–215 million.

Source: Canola Council of Canada (2005c)

A recent ABARE report noted that Canadian growers have not lost market share in their main export markets despite the majority of their canola crop being GM (Apted et al., 2005). Since adopting GM canola, Canadian farmers have maintained their contracts to export wheat to GM sensitive markets such as Europe. This wheat is grown in rotation with GM canola and shares much of the same grain handling infrastructure. Day (2006) reports that growing wheat on the stubble of GM canola in Western Canada has not affected their ability to market that wheat in the United Kingdom.

Foster and French (2007) reported that there was no evidence that GM products were having difficulty finding ready markets throughout the world. This report found only small price premiums for non-GM containerised trade and no price premium on bulk non-GM canola shipments. The same conclusion was reached in a 2004 report to the Victorian Government (ACIL Tasman and Food Horizons, 2004).

Without GM canola, Australian canola producers are reported to be forgoing substantial earnings: continued non-adoption could result in a loss of gross national product of $3 billion dollars in net present value terms over the next ten years (Apted et al., 2005). It should be

1 Dockage is the decrease in price paid for grain based on the level of non-grain contaminants present.

GM oilseed crops 46

noted that this analysis assumed that GM wheat and GM barley crops could also be grown with increased productivity.

A recent Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (AFPRG) report (the ‘Corish’ report) stated that if Australia falls behind in adopting the next generation of GM crops, Australian growers would lose ground to our major competitors in the global grain market, namely the United States, Argentina and Canada, who are investing in, and adopting, GM crops (Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, 2006). This report warns that not adopting GM crops threatens the capacity of Australian farmers to remain globally competitive because their competitors continue to benefit from reduced input costs, increased productivity and higher value crops.

In addition to forgoing reported agronomic benefits, Australia may lose access to markets if its competitors develop GM crops that achieve a higher quality that becomes adopted as a market standard that Australia is unable to meet with conventional crops.

Ultimately, to take advantage of many of the opportunities discussed above, the oilseed industry will need to develop a strategic plan for the next 10 to 20 years, focused solely on the oilseed industry and identifying the types of traits that should be developed and the funding sources which will be available. For example, a recent review of the Canadian University of Alberta canola breeding programme outlined a potential strategic breeding programme for that region of Canada (Thomas, 2005).

Section 3.4 Summary and conclusions 3.4.1 Opportunities for the Australian oilseed industry As discussed throughout this report, canola and other oilseeds provide significant benefits to the Australian agriculture sector. Consultations with stakeholders within the Australian oilseed industry identified a number of opportunities for expansion and/or diversification:

• supplying increased quantities of local oilseed meal to the stockfeed industry

• developing stable oils for frying that can compete with soybean and palm oil imports

• developing value-added oils such as long chain omega-3 fatty acids that can replace fish oil and create a niche market for omega-3-containing oilseed crops

• producing high volumes of oil for use in biodiesel production

• meeting the needs of niche markets for GM or non-GM oilseeds as they develop.

To make the most of these opportunities, it will be important for the oilseed industry to plan strategically to ensure that traits needed in the future are identified for research and development early enough to allow time for varieties to be developed and tested for suitability for Australian conditions.

3.4.2 Regulatory environment The majority of stakeholders consulted for this report agreed that a science-based regulatory system like the one currently in place was essential and that it provided benefits through ensuring the safety of crops before they were released and food before it was eaten. The introduction of any new GM oilseed crops in the future will need to first satisfy all relevant statutory requirements.

GM oilseed crops 47

3.4.3 Effects of GM crops in Australia and overseas In Australia, the introduction of GM cotton, together with the adoption of Integrated Pest Management practices, has led to major reductions in herbicide and pesticide use by the cotton industry. In Canada, a number of agronomic benefits have been associated with the adoption of GM canola, including improved yields; decreased herbicide usage and increased weed management options; and an increased ability to achieve no-till practices. In Australia, a majority of cotton farmers have realised economic advantages from cultivating GM cotton. Research in developing countries has indicated that positive economic returns have been realised as a result of adopting GM crops. Canadian farmers have experienced an increase in grower revenue since adopting GM canola varieties.

It has been estimated that Australia could lose up to $3 billion over the next decade if further GM crops are not introduced in Australia, but our competitor countries are doing so. To realise this significant monetary benefit, it will be important that many of the challenges identified in Chapter 4 are addressed across the whole oilseeds industry.

GM oilseed crops 48

Chapter 4 Challenges for Australian oilseeds Section 4.1 Seasonal variability The most immediate issue raised by many stakeholders was drought. The forecast for winter crop production in 2006/07 by ABARE in December 2006 was 15.5 million tonnes (Brown et al., 2006). This is a 62% decrease from the previous season. Canola production was the lowest in a decade with New South Wales the worst affected state(an estimated 92% decrease from 2005/06). Figure 4.1 compares canola production in recent years with production during the 1994/95 and 2002/03 droughts.

Decreased rainfall for many summer crops (cotton, sunflower, soybean) also resulted in subsequent reductions in production (Brown et al., 2006).

Figure 4.1 Canola production and ABARE forecasts

150

100

Pro

duct

ion

(kt)

50

0 2002/03 1994/95 2005/06 2006/07

The 2005/06 value represents the ABARE estimate of production, while the 2006/07 values represent the ABARE forecasts from June 2006 (black), September 2006 (dark grey) and December 2006 (light grey).

Source: Brown et al. (2006)

There are no drought tolerant GM plants being commercially grown anywhere in the world. Drought tolerance is a complex physiological problem and unlike herbicide tolerance, there is unlikely to be a simple solution that relies on inserting or modifying a single gene.

A number of researchers are investigating the possibility of developing crops with increased water-use efficiency. However, any commercial crops are likely to be 10–15 years away as the research is at an early stage. For instance, Monsanto is conducting proof-of-concept field trials in the United States and Australia to test the effects of a number of different genes in cotton (Monsanto Australia, 2006). The identities of these genes have not been revealed, however, many are transcription factors, which may control the expression of a number of genes within the plant (OGTR, 2006c).

BASF Plant Science and the Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre (MPBCRC) are jointly funding a research programme aiming to develop drought tolerant wheat. BASF Plant Science has a comprehensive gene collection that includes candidates for drought tolerance while the MPBCRC own intellectual property for developing GM wheat (MPBCRC, 2006). The Victorian Department of Primary Industries is also researching the development of wheat with improved performance in drought and have lodged an application with the OGTR to allow field trials for drought tolerant GM wheat (OGTR, 2006e).

Biotechnology can also assist farmers to adopt management techniques such as conservation tillage and dry sowing that help mitigate the effects of drought. Conservation tillage can lead

GM oilseed crops 49

to increased water retention in soils and may assist crops during droughts or dry seasons. Dry sowing can also be used, where seed is sown before rains fall, allowing crops to germinate immediately following the arrival of rain. Both systems are easier to implement using herbicide tolerant crops (both GM and non-GM) as they provide good in-crop herbicide control.

Section 4.2 Market challenge to canola from soybean and palm oils

As highlighted in Section 1.5, soybean and palm oils present a significant threat to Australian oilseed production, particularly for canola. Globally, soybean has the greatest production volume of the major oilseeds, however, soybean oil and palm oil are produced in similar volumes and these volumes are approximately double those of canola oil (USDA-FAS, 2006b). Canola is grown primarily for its oil, which constitutes approximately 40% of the seed. This oil has traditionally been of higher value than both soybean and palm oils due to its healthier fatty acid profile. Canola meal is used for stockfeed but is of lower value than soybean meal as a result of lower protein and energy levels (Willis, 2003 and Stakeholder Consultations).

Soybean has a wider range of uses, being the preferred meal for pig and poultry feed (Willis, 2003). It is also used in foods such as tofu and soymilk and is the source of lecithin, an additive used in a large number of processed foods, including margarine, chocolate and ice-cream. There are large volumes of soybean oil sold on the world market and it sets the price for many other oils. Although soybean oil is widely used, it is often hydrogenated to increase its stability. Partial hydrogenation of polyunsaturated fatty acids results in the formation of trans-fatty acids, which can act to increase the risk of heart disease (Section 1.4.1).

While canola oil currently has a price advantage over soybean oil due to its healthier fatty acid profile, Monsanto has developed a conventionally bred low linolenic soybean variety (marketed as Vistive®) with an oil profile similar to canola and containing the GM glyphosate resistance trait. Oils from this cultivar will not require hydrogenation and, therefore, will not contain trans-fatty acids. The development of these soybean varieties overseas is expected to have an adverse effect on Australian canola export markets, because of the large volumes of soybean oil produced by the United States, Argentina and Brazil and the rate at which GM soy can be introduced into their farming systems (Stakeholder Consultations). As discussed in Chapter 1, oil profiles are becoming less distinct and increasingly substitutable as a result of the development of high oleic and/or low linolenic varieties.

In order to compete with soybean and palm oil products and remain a profitable crop in Australia, canola would require lower production costs or increased value of its oil and/or meal. Weed control costs in canola are very high (Jones et al., 2005). This is reflected in the popularity of the TT canola variety, particularly in Western Australia. Many stakeholders expressed the view that the introduction of Roundup Ready® canola varieties could benefit the canola industry through providing a cheaper weed control option, while the introduction of InVigor® canola varieties could benefit the industry through increased vigour, higher yields and the option to use a herbicide that is not widely used in broadacre cropping.

HT canola varieties in Canada have been reported to have economic benefits for farmers (Section 3.1.4) and can provide alternative weed control options. There was some disagreement among people consulted for this report as to whether or not GM canola hybrids grown in Canada are more vigorous and higher yielding than non-hybrid varieties in Australia (Stakeholder Consultations). Regardless of this debate, the vigour and yield of these crops overseas can only be used as a guide to the performance of similar crops in Australia; trials

GM oilseed crops 50

with cultivars developed specifically for Australian conditions will be needed to determine if they provide benefits to Australian farmers.

Another option for canola that was raised during the Stakeholder Consultations was to shift the production focus from the supply of commodity markets (dominated by soybean and palm oils) to meeting the needs of niche markets through the production of specialty oils and other higher value products (e.g. nutraceuticals). The development of such varieties may require a combination of public and private investment. An example is the current collaboration between Cargill and the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (Vic DPI). Cargill is using Vic DPI breeding material as a base for developing specialty oils through conventional breeding.

Section 4.3 Consumer acceptance of GM foods A major barrier to the use of GM technology in Australia is the perceived lack of public acceptance of the technology. Many stakeholders consulted for this report felt that clearer demonstrations of benefits from GM oilseed crops for the environment, farmers and consumers may assist in addressing this barrier. For instance, it was suggested that the net environmental benefits that have resulted from the introduction of insect resistant/herbicide tolerant cotton in Australia could be more widely publicised. Other stakeholders indicated that there is currently a lot of contradictory information in the public sphere about GM crops. They felt that there is a need to get independent, credible, factual and practical information to farmers and consumers so that they can make decisions about the merits or otherwise of the GM varieties in comparison to conventional varieties.

However, consumer acceptance of GM foods is a complex area and this has been explored in a recent report by Biotechnology Australia (Cormick, 2005). The report summarises a range of information on consumer attitudes, highlighting that:

• surveys do not always reflect peoples’ actual behaviour

• general food attitudes can be the best predictor of attitudes towards GM food

• there are many other concerns for consumers that rate more highly than GM foods

• there is are some misconceptions about what genetically modified means with some people believing that many fruits and vegetables in the supermarket are GM

The overall conclusion is that the question “How many consumers will eat GM food?” is too simplistic as there are many variables that will change the response.

In Australia, consumers can choose whether or not to eat food produced from GM crops. Current labelling laws allow this choice and require any food produced using gene technology and containing novel DNA and/or novel protein at 1% or higher level or with altered characteristics (FSANZ, 2006a) to be labelled.

During the consultations, some stakeholders argued that GM oilseed crops should only be developed in response to consumer needs and that their ability to meet those needs should be communicated clearly before commercialisation is attempted (Stakeholder Consultations). If people decide that the benefits do not outweigh the perceived risks, the products will not be successful (Stakeholder Consultations).

One issue raised by stakeholders is the acceptance of the use of GM oilseed meal in stockfeed. If GM oilseeds are widely adopted in Australia, some stakeholders believe it will cause problems for the stockfeed industry as there are few sources for meal outside of the traditional oilseeds mentioned above (Stakeholder Consultations). Lupins and field peas can be used to some extent, but their production is currently too irregular to supply the stockfeed industry (Stakeholder Consultations). One stakeholder argued that the profitability of local

GM oilseed crops 51

crushers would rely on markets being available for both the oil and meal. According to some stakeholders, if GM oilseeds are introduced, the development of cost-effective supply chains and agreed segregation and coexistence measures will be necessary to support the production and local processing of oilseed crops for stockfeed users that require assurances about GM status. However it is important to note that in Europe soy and maize are imported for stockfeed usually without differentiation between GM and non-GM, and in North America there is little or no segregation of GM and non-GM soybeans, maize, cotton and canola which are also used in stockfeed.

Section 4.4 Effects of the State and Territory Government moratoria

Between 2003 and 2004, all Australian states and territories (with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory) introduced moratorium legislation preventing the commercial plantings of GM canola crops or more broadly, GM crops (Table 4.1). The moratorium in New South Wales excludes GM cotton.

The Stakeholder Consultation process highlighted a widespread opinion that the existing State and Territory moratoria on growing GM food crops are preventing Australia adopting new canola varieties that may be higher yielding and have healthier oil profiles. People felt that failing to adopt GM varieties is having an adverse impact on the competitiveness of the Australian oilseed industry. There was concern that as a result, canola might become a minor crop in Australia, with flow-on effects to other grain producers (particularly wheat and barley) who will lose the benefits of canola for subsequent crops in the rotation; and oilseed crushers, who may no longer be able to source sufficient seed from Australia to meet demand for both oil and meal and will have to import more canola from overseas, increasing costs for consumers.

If GM HT oilseed crops consistently produce a higher yield and have greater vigour than their non-GM counterparts in weedy situations, adoption could make the industry more viable and internationally competitive. However, some people consulted for this report were sceptical about the true performance of these crops under Australian conditions. Independent trials with cultivars developed for Australian conditions are needed (Stakeholder Consultations). However, the moratoria have stalled GM canola breeding programmes and it would take a minimum of three years to breed the herbicide tolerant traits into contemporary cultivars.

The National Variety Trials (NVT) are one source of information that farmers can use when selecting varieties for planting. The NVT website (National Variety Trials, 2006) will be regularly updated with the results of trials being conducted around Australia and aims to give farmers and agronomic advisers the information they need to select varieties that are likely to perform well in their region. However, for inclusion in these trials, GM canola varieties must be close to commercial release with governing State and Commonwealth law permitting the commercial release of nominated lines to growers within two years of first entering the NVT (GRDC, 2005).

Some stakeholders suggested that the current moratoria were acting as disincentives for private investment in oilseed breeding. Private seed companies appear reluctant to invest money in Australia when there are larger and easier opportunities overseas. Australia still has some publicly-funded breeding programmes and stakeholders felt that this public investment should continue to be supported to ensure that canola breeding met the needs of Australian farmers.

It was generally agreed during the Stakeholder Consultations that if the moratoria were lifted immediately, it would take a minimum of three years to breed the GM traits approved for commercialisation by the Gene Technology Regulator in 2003 into elite local cultivars to

GM oilseed crops 52

maximise performance. Thus there would be a significant delay before GM canola would be available to farmers.

Table 4.1 Gene technology moratoria legislation

Jurisdiction Legislation Moratorium on GM canola/crops Sunset/Expiry or Review Date

ACT Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2004 (ACT)

The Act allows the Minister to make orders prohibiting the growing of GM Crops. Orders have been given prohibiting the cultivation of GM Canola varieties Roundup Ready® and Invigor®. s39 enables Minister to set an expiry date after 17 June 2006.

s39 provides that the Act expires on a date fixed by the Minister by written notice not earlier than 17 June 2006.

New South Wales

Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2003 (NSW)

The Act allows the Minister to make orders prohibiting the growing of GM Food Crops. Orders have been given prohibiting the cultivation of GM Canola varieties Roundup Ready® and Invigor®.

s43 of the Act provides that the Act expires on 3 March 2008. There is no statutory requirement for a review of the legislation.

South Australia

Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004 (SA)

The Act provides for a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of all GM food crops in designated areas. Regulations designate the whole State as an area in which the cultivation of genetically modified food crops is prohibited.

Minister to conduct review of the Act within 4 years (i.e. by 29 April 2008) of its commencement (s29). Report to be tabled before both houses of Parliament. Under Schedule 1, s1(2) of the Act, the regulation expire on 29 April 2008.

Tasmania Genetically Modified Organisms Control Act 2004 (SA)

The Act provides for a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of all GM crops (including GM canola) in designated areas. Ministerial order designated the entire State.

s36 provides that the Act expires on 16 November 2009.

Victoria Control of Genetically Modified Crops Act 2004 (Vic)

The Act allows the Minister to make orders prohibiting the growing of GM Crops. An order has been given prohibiting the cultivation of both GM Canola varieties Roundup Ready® and Invigor® until 2008.

No expiry or review provisions within the Act. Order expires 29 February 2008 (s3 of order).

Western Australia

Genetically Modified Crop Free Areas Act 2003 (WA)

The Act provides for a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of all GM crops (including GM canola) in designated areas. Minister for Agriculture designated whole state by Order on 22 March 2004.

s19 of the Act requires the Minister to carry out a review after the expiration of 5 years ( i.e. after 24 Dec 2008). Report to be tabled in both houses of parliament before 24 Dec 2009 (c).

Northern Territory

No legislation Nil. N/A

Queensland No legislation Nil. N/A

GM oilseed crops 53

There were some concerns expressed by stakeholders consulted for this report about the relevant regulatory systems in Australia. For instance some felt that the assessment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator should be broadened to include market risks. This issue was also raised and addressed in the Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the Gene Technology Agreement 2001. The independent review considered whether there was any basis for concluding that the particular characteristics of GMOs were such that their assessment should be extended to include market risks but found no compelling case for extension (Timbs, 2006).

Other stakeholders mentioned concerns that the costs of registering a herbicide for use on a (non-GM) herbicide tolerant variety were too expensive for small volume oilseed crops, with subsequent agronomic losses for these crops. However, the majority agreed that a science-based regulatory system was essential and provided benefits through ensuring the safety of crops before they were released and food before it was eaten.

Section 4.5 Segregation and coexistence 4.5.1 Introduction Practical mechanisms for maintaining separation between crop varieties with different attributes need to be developed. For instance, segregation strategies may be needed to keep GM and non-GM crops or food and non-food applications separate. Coexistence of crops meeting different market requirements will allow diversity within the oilseed industry. Effective coexistence would enable the Australian oilseed industry to produce both non-GM and GM oilseed crops with farmers choosing which to grow based on their assessment of the benefits and costs (Stakeholder Consultations)

Decisions about coexistence need to address issues from a whole of industry viewpoint, both in terms of the individual components (e.g. thresholds, testing regimes, low cost coexistence) and individual sectors of the agricultural industry (grains, dairy, cattle, pork, chicken etc.), including all parts of the supply chain within each sector.

The grains industry is developing policies and strategies for dealing with segregation and coexistence and is beginning to consider carefully its use of gene technology. It has published a report ‘Towards a single vision for the Australian grains industry’ (GRDC et al., 2005), which discusses issues such as segregation and how the industry as a whole will need to work together to achieve its future aims. The report emphasises the need for all sectors of the industry to have a common vision for the future to prevent divisions developing within the industry. This common vision will be important to ensure that if segregation systems are required, they can be introduced effectively throughout the industry. The Single Vision strategy is currently being implemented (Single Vision Grains Australia, 2006).

During the Stakeholder Consultations a concern was expressed that the coexistence strategies being developed by the grains industry place too much responsibility on non-GM farmers developing mechanisms for keeping GM grains out of their harvests and not enough on GM farmers keeping their crops contained. This concern emphasises the need for all sectors of the industry to be involved in developing a coexistence framework and for effective communication to occur with all stakeholders.

In the future GM crops which produce high value pharmaceutical or industrial products may be developed that are not intended for the food supply chain. In cases where such crops are not intended for use in food or feed, they may require different and more rigorous coexistence frameworks. This may involve closed-loop supply chains, including the use of containment

GM oilseed crops 54

facilities in some circumstances. Although this would be likely to result in increased costs throughout the supply chain, it is expected that the higher value of such crops would make it feasible to maintain these systems. Nexera™, a conventionally bred canola variety developed by Dow AgroSciences, is an example of a higher value oilseed crop developed to produce healthier oil with higher levels of oleic acid. It requires segregation to ensure the purity of its oil. Nexera™ varieties are grown under identity-preserved contracts with farmers, with a highly managed supply chain to ensure consistent quality (Dow AgroSciences, 2006). It is likely that similar systems would develop as other high value crops are developed, whether or not they are intended for food or feed use.

4.5.2 Thresholds for adventitious presence The coexistence of GM and non-GM production and supply cannot be cost effective unless realistic thresholds are established for adventitious (unintended) presence of approved GM plants. Costs associated with meeting these levels will increase as the threshold level decreases (ACIL Tasman, 2005).

Zero tolerance for accidental presence of approved GM varieties is likely to be prohibitively expensive to achieve. It should also be noted that these approved GM varieties have passed the food safety assessment of FSANZ and as such are safe for use in food. Grain suppliers already acknowledge that foreign matter, broken grain, other varieties and off-types contaminate their grain to some degree. There are tolerance levels for these and levels are also set for pesticide residues. Seed breeders also deal with similar issues as they need to be able to grow different varieties in a relatively small area and keep them pure for certification and sales. There is acceptance that varietal purity is never 100% and seed suppliers certify their seed to different levels of purity (AOSCA, 2001).

The Australian Seed Federation established in 2003 via its national Code of Practice for Seed Labelling & Marketing, a non-GM canola tolerance threshold for the adventitious presence of 0.5% GM seed in non-GM planting seed. The Australian Oilseeds Federation has also recommended an adventitious presence tolerance of 0.9% in order to satisfy non-GM market opportunities (AFAA, 2005).

In 2005, the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) noted that trace levels of approved GM canola had been detected in Australia’s non-GM canola production systems. PIMC agreed to a nationally consistent definition of threshold levels in canola grain (0.9%) and seed (0.5%) for traces of those GM events approved by the Gene Technology Regulator.

Where a GM ingredient has been approved for import, Japan permits up to 5% of that ingredient before the product is required to be labelled as containing GM ingredients. If a GM product has been assessed as safe in the exporting country, but not in Japan, the level of adventitious presence allowed in stockfeed is 1% (USDA FAS, 2006).

Similarly, provided that a GMO has been approved for import into the European Union, 0.9% adventitious presence is permitted without labelling of the product as containing GMOs. If the GMO has not been approved for import, but has been assessed as safe by the European Food Safety Agency, the European Union permits that GMO to be present in imports up to the level of 0.5% (USDA FAS, 2005; European Commission, 2007).

4.5.3 Testing regimes If industry and/or markets determine that identity preservation is necessary, then segregation systems would need to be developed throughout the whole supply chain, from seed supply, through to grain-handlers, crushers and oil and meal retailers to meet market requirements.

GM oilseed crops 55

Individual producers and processors may need to assure themselves of the composition of their product.

There are both DNA- and protein-based methods for detecting the presence of GM materials in bulk commodities and food, with each method having advantages and disadvantages. Box 4 provides a brief overview of each method and outlines situations in which each method would and would not be useful.

To determine purity in grain, a visual check before the grain is sold can determine if the grain will meet specific tolerance levels, but it is not possible to detect GM seeds this way (Stakeholder Consultations). Some consultees expressed a wish to have access to rapid, low-cost and simple testing kits for use on-site to determine the degree of purity of non-GM produce. Simple, rapid tests are available for some GM crops, for example, approved varieties of canola. However tests have limited sensitivity and are not all quantitative and are not able to detect all GM crops.

Section 4.6 Legal liability There is debate both within Australia and overseas regarding potential liability issues associated with GM crops. Some, including the Australian Government, believe that any problems posed by GMOs could be dealt with under existing legislation. Others believe that agricultural biotechnology poses new risks and requires a special legal liability regime to ensure that a farmer who incurs losses as a result of GMOs can be compensated (Dalton et al., 2003).

During the Stakeholder Consultations, a concern was raised that farmers who chose to market their produce as non-GM may suffer an economic loss in the event of there being the unintended presence of a GM event in their crop. This could have an impact on contractual arrangements for GM-sensitive markets. Previously, consultations with farmers carried out by the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA) also identified that some farmers would be reluctant to grow GM crops without a clearer indication of their potential liability (Lunney and Burrell, 2006).

In drafting the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth), the Legislature considered the liability issues associated with GMOs but chose not to implement a specific liability regime. This decision was made to ensure that comparable activities are dealt with equally and with the consistent application of general principles (Dalton et al., 2003). A Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) was recently conducted and the issue of strict liability was once again raised. On balance, the Review concluded that a strict liability regime should not be introduced, noting that there is no other product in Australia which has attracted a strict liability presumption under the common law. In the past, courts have imposed strict liability in relation to ‘superhazardous goods’. However, since the object of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) is to manage risks to protect human health and safety and the environment, it would be “contradictory to categorise any GMO assessed by the Regulator and licensed for intentional release as a superhazardous good” (Timbs et al., 2006).

Section 4.7 Summary and conclusions The Australian oilseed industry faces a number of challenges. The following were identified by stakeholders within the industry as issues that were affecting, or may affect, the future viability of the industry.

GM oilseed crops 56

4.7.1 Seasonal variability Presently, the most significant challenge to the oilseed industry is the ongoing drought. Canola production in the 2006/07 season was the lowest in a decade, with NSW the worst affected state. Current GM and non-GM HT canola varieties can play a role in conservation tillage and dry-sowing systems. These systems can conserve soil moisture, allowing crops to be grown in drier conditions.

In the future, GM water-use efficient crops may be a tool for farmers to reduce losses in bad seasons, however, drought tolerant crops are still at an early stage in the development pipeline and unlikely to be commercially available for 10–15 years.

4.7.2 Competition from soybean and palm oils The development of soybean varieties that produce oil of similar quality to canola is of concern to the oilseed industry in Australia as soybean oil is available in large volumes and at low prices on the world market. Palm oil, which is also abundant and cheap, has excellent cooking qualities due to high levels of saturated fatty acids and it is widely used in the food service industry to produce fried and processed foods. Canola oils with increased oleic acid content are being bred using conventional breeding techniques but the cost of production may remain too high to compete with soybean and palm oils.

4.7.3 Moratoria on growing GM food crops It is estimated that not adopting GM crops in Australia, other than GM cotton, could result in a loss of $3 billion to the Australian economy over the next 10 years. Continued non-adoption is threatening Australian farmers’ capacity to remain globally competitive as their competitors continue to benefit from the adoption of GM technology. An important challenge that will need to be addressed if GM oilseed crops, other than GM cotton, are to be widely grown in Australia is the State and Territory moratoria that currently prevent GM food crops from being grown in many parts of Australia. Some stakeholders believed that if GM HT oilseed crops consistently produce higher yields and have greater vigour than their non-GM counterparts in high weed pressure situations, then adoption could increase the viability and competitiveness of the Australian oilseed industry. Other stakeholders expressed their doubt about the performance of such crops under Australian conditions.

4.7.4 Segregation and coexistence Segregation and coexistence strategies may be developed, if markets require them, to allow the production of identity preserved, high value products and to enable consumers to differentiate between different types of products. The coexistence of crops meeting different market requirements will give the oilseed industry the opportunity to diversify. To achieve these opportunities, the Australian grains industry is developing policies and strategies for dealing with segregation and coexistence. In the future, different and more rigorous coexistence frameworks may be required for those GM crops which are not intended for the food supply chain.

4.7.5 Legal Liability The Australian Government believes that problems posed by GMOs can be dealt with under existing legislation, and that there is no need to establish a special legal liability regime to

GM oilseed crops 57

ensure that a farmer who incurs losses as a result of GMOs can be compensated. This position was confirmed in the recent Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) in which it was noted that there is no other product in Australia which has attracted a strict liability presumption under the common law.

4.7.6 Conclusion It is likely that there will be an increased emphasis in the future on using GM techniques to identify genes that will provide the required traits and then using conventional breeding to introduce these genes where possible. There will be instances where this is not possible, for example, introduction of long chain omega-3 fatty acids into land plants and in these cases GM techniques will continue to be used, if not by Australian farmers, certainly by their competitors.

GM oilseed crops 58

Acknowledgements This study was financially supported by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Rural Policy and Innovation Division using funds provided by the National Biotechnology Strategy.

The authors wish to acknowledge the many people who contributed to this report through taking part in our consultations. They were generous with their time and provided valuable input to this report.

Thanks also to the reviewers of this report: Peter Carr, Allan Green, officers from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Max Foster, David Cunningham and Julie Glover who provided extensive and valuable feedback on the report.

GM oilseed crops 59

GM oilseed crops 60

References ABARE 2006, Statistical tables. In Australian Commodities, vol. 13, no. 1,, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Abbadi, A., Domergue, F., Bauer, J., Napier, J., Welti, R., Zahringer, U., Cirpus, P. and Heinz, E. 2004, 'Biosynthesis of Very-Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Transgenic Oilseeds: Constraints on Their Accumulation', The Plant Cell, 16: 2734-2748.

ACE 2005, Summary of ethanol-related provisions in H.R6, the Energy Security Act of 2005, American Coalition for Ethanol, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACERFSSummary.pdf, accessed 8 November 2006.

ACIL Tasman 2005, Managing genetically modified crops in Australia, GM crops, segregation and liability in Australian agriculture, ACIL Tasman, Canberra.

ACIL Tasman and Food Horizons 2004, Genetically modified canola: Market issues, industry preparedness and capacity for segregation in Victoria. Report prepared for the Victorian Government's Interdepartmental Canola Steering Committee, ACIL Tasman, Melbourne.

AFAA 2005, Biotech Bulletin 15: Adventitious Presence, Agrifood Awareness Australia Ltd, accessed 8 May 2007.

AGBIOS 2006, GM Database, AGBIOS, http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php, accessed 15 March 2006.

Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group 2006, Creating our future: Agriculture and food policy for the next generation, Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group, Canberra.

Angus, J.F., Desmarchelier, J.M., Gardner, P.A., Green, A., Hocking, P.J., Howe, G.N., Kirkegaard, J.A., Marcroft, S., Mead, A.J., Pitson, G.D., Potter, T.D., Ryan, M.H., Sarwar, M., van Hervaarden, A.F. and Wong, P.T.W. 1999, 'Canola and Indian mustard as break crops for wheat', 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia.

Angus, J.F., van Herwaarden, A.F. and Howe, G.N. 1991, 'Productivity and break crop effects of winter-growing oilseeds', Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 31: 669-677.

Anon 2006, 'Biofuel: Ethanol not all beer and skittles', Queensland Country Life, 3 April 2006.

AOSCA 2001, Genetic and crop standards of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, Meridan, Idaho.

Apted, S., McDonald, D. and Rodgers, H. 2005, Transgenic crops: welfare implications for Australia, in, Australian Commodities Vol. 12 No. 3, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 532-542.

Asplund, K. 2002, 'Antioxidant vitamins in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review', Journal of Internal Medicine, 251: 372-392.

Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council 2003, Policy guideline on nutrition, health and related claims, Department of Health and Aging, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/foodsecretariat-policydocs.htm/$FILE/nutrition_guidelines.pdf, accessed 9 November 2006.

GM oilseed crops 61

Australian Oilseeds Federation 2004, Nutrition fact sheets: types of fat, Australian Oilseeds Federation, http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/page/275/Types_of_Fat.pdf, accessed 28 March 2006.

Australian Sunflower Association 2004, The big black sunflower pack, The Australian Oilseeds Federation, http://www.australianoilseeds.com/australian_sunflower_association/big_black_sunflower_pack, accessed 6 November 2006.

Blackwood, I. 2005, White cottonseed - a supplementary feed for beef cattle, NSW Department of Primary Industries, http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/drtsuppfeeding/dai274.pdf?MIvalObj=15092&doctype=document&MItypeObj=application/pdf&name=/dai274.pdf, accessed 23 November 2006.

Bradley, K.W., Sweets, L.E., Bailey, W.C., Kendig, J.A. and Wrather, J.A. 2006, 2006 Missouri pest management guide: corn, grain sorghum, soybean, winter wheat, University of Missouri Extension, http://muextension.missouri.edu/explorepdf/manuals/m00171.pdf, accessed 15 March 2006.

Brown, A.P., Drum, F., Lawrence, L. and Mues, C. 2006, Australian Crop Report No. 140, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_06/cr_dec06.pdf, Canberra.

Browne, R., Pyke, B. and Williams, A. 2006, 'Sustainability: Key to the Australian cotton production practices. Technical seminar - Sustainability: Biotechnology and crop management', Fifth Open Session, 65th Plenary Meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee, Goiania, Brazil.

Buchanan, B.B., Guruissem, W. and Jones, R.L. 2000, Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants, John Wiley and Sons, Bognor Regis, UK.

Bucher, H.C., Hengstler, P., Schindler, C. and Meier, G. 2002, 'N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials', American Journal of Medicine, 112: 298-304.

Bulliyya, G. 2002, 'Influence of fish consumption on the distribution of serum cholesterol in lipoprotein fractions: comparative study among fish-consuming and non-fish-consuming populations', Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 11: 104-111.

Cahoon, E.B. 2003, 'Genetic enhancement of soybean oil for industrial uses: Prospects and challenges', AgBioForum, 6: 11-13.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2006, Decision documents - determination of environmental and livestock feed safety, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dde.shtml, accessed 4 October 2006.

Canola Council of Canada 2005a, Canola standards and regulations, Canola Council of Canada, http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/Standards1-2.pdf, accessed 22 March 2006.

Canola Council of Canada 2005b, Impact of transgenic canola on growers, industry and environment, Canola Council of Canada, http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/17908_Transgenic_Canola_1.pdf, accessed 22 March 2006.

Canola Council of Canada 2005c, Why growers choose GM canola, Canola Council of Canada, http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/17908_Transgenic_Canola_1.pdf, accessed 23 March 2006.

GM oilseed crops 62

Canola Council of Canada 2006, 'Canada's biofuel target announced', From Farm to Fuel, 1: 1.

Cargill 2006, Cargill plans to construct new rapeseed crush plant in France for supply of biodiesel, Cargill, http://www.cargill.com/news/news_releases/060503_rapeseedplantinfrance.htm, accessed 23 May 2006.

Carr, P. 2005, The future for canola in South Australia, Government of South Australia, Primary Industries and Resources SA, Adelaide.

Castro, W., Perez, J.M., Erhan, S.Z. and Caputo, F. 2006, 'A study of the oxidation and wear properties of vegetable oils: soybean oil with additives', Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, 83: 47-52.

Collie, G. 2006, 'Biofuel: Hopes for biodiesel from crops in arid areas', Queensland Country Life, 3 April 2006.

Constable, G. 2004, 'Research's contribution to the evolution of the Australian cotton industry', 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Cormick, C. 2005, What you really need to know about what the public really think about GM foods, Biotechnology Australia, Canberra.

Cotton Australia 2006, Biotechnology fact sheet, Cotton Australia, http://www.cottonaustralia.com.au/factSheets/resources/biotechnology2.pdf, accessed 31 March 2006.

Cotton CRC 2005, Final Report 1999 - 2005; Annual Report 2004-2005, Australian Cotton CRC, Narrabri.

Crossan, A. and Kennedy, I. 2004, A snapshot of Roundup Ready cotton in Australia: Are there environmental benefits from the rapid adoption of Roundup Ready cotton in Australia?, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of Sydney, Sydney.

CTNBio 2006, Commercial approvals, Comissao Tecnica Nacional de Biosseguranca, Brasilia, http://www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php/content/view/3662.html, translated using http://babelfish.altavista.com/, accessed 22 November 2006.

Cuperus, F.P. and Derksen, J.T.P. 1996, High value-added applications from vernolic acid, in J. Janick, Progress in new crops, ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA., 354-356.

Dalton, D., Jones, B. and Maxwell, B. 2003, Liability issues associated with GM crops in Australia, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Day, S. 2006, A prairie experience with weed control in zero-till and with GM canolas, GRDC Research Update for Advisors - Southern Region http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s06/day.htm, accessed 3 April 2006.

Dewailly, F., Blanchet, C., Gingras, S., Lemieux, S. and Holub, B.J. 2003, 'Fish consumption and blood lipids in three ethnic groups of Quebec (Canada)', Lipids, 38: 359-365.

Dinkins, R.D., Reddy, M.S.S., Meurer, C.A., Yan, B., Trick, H., Thibaud-Nissen, F., Finer, J.J., Parrott, W.A. and Collins, G.B. 2001, 'Increased sulfur amino acids in soybean plants overexpressing the maize 15 kDa zein protein', In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant, 37: 742-747.

GM oilseed crops 63

Domergue, F., Abbadi, A. and Heinz, E. 2005, 'Relief for fish stocks: oceanic fatty acids in transgenic oilseeds', Trends in Plant Science, 10: 112-116.

Dow AgroSciences 2006, Nexera seeds as Natreon source, Dow AgroSciences, http://www.dowagro.com/natreon/seeds/index.htm, accessed 16 November 2006.

Doyle, B., Reeve, I. and Coleman, M. 2005a, The CCA 2005 Bollgard comparison report: A survey of cotton growers' and consultants' experience with Bollgard in the 2004-2005 season, Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Consultants Australia Inc.

Doyle, B., Reeve, I. and Coleman, M. 2005b, The Cotton Consultants Australia 2005 Bollgard Comparison Report: A survey of cotton growers' and consultants' experience with Bollgard in the 2004-2005 season, University of New England Institute of Rural Futures, Armidale, Australia.

Duncan, A.J. 1991, Glucosinolates, in J. D'Mello and C. Duffus, Toxic substances in crop plants, Royal Society for Chemistry, Cambridge, 126-147.

EC-JRC 2006, Deliberate Releases and Placing on the EU market of Genetically Modified Organisms, http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/, accessed 30 October 2006.

Energy Industries Australia 2006, Biofuels, Energy Industries Australia, http://www.investaustralia.gov.au/index.cfm?menuid=94B2003B-D0B7-180C-1610699D0B337DF9, accessed 31 October 2006.

EPOBIO 2006, EPOBIO: Realising the economic potential of sustainable resources - bioproducts from non-food crops, EPOBIO Workshop: Products from Plants - the Biorefinery Future, Foundation paper for the Plant Oil Flagship, EPOBIO, http://www.epobio.net/workshop0605/foundationpaper_plantoils.pdf, accessed 11 December 2006.

Etherton, T. 2003, 'Improving animal agriculture through biotechnology', Economic Perspectives Agricultural Biotechnology, 8: 26-28.

European Commission 2001, Eurodiet - nutrition & diet for healthy lifestyles in Europe: science and policy implications, European Commission, http://europdiet.med.uoc.gr/eurodietcorereport.pdf, accessed 16 March 2006.

European Commission 2007, Food Safety - From the Farm to the Fork - Biotechnology, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate - General, accessed 4 May 2007.

European Union 2003, Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, European Union, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_123/l_12320030517en00420046.pdf, accessed 31 October 2006.

Evans, J., Scott, G., Lemerle, D., Kaiser, A., Orchard, B., Murrary, G.M. and Armstrong, E.L. 2003, 'Impact of legume 'break' crops on the yield and grain quality of wheat and relationship with soil mineral N and crop N content', Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 54: 777-788.

Falco, S.C., Guida, T., Locke, M., Mauvais, J., Sanders, C., Ward, R.T. and Webber, P. 1995, 'Transgenic canola and soybean seeds with increased lysine', Bio-Technology, 13: 577-582.

Fawcett, R. and Towery, D. 2002, Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plow, Conservation Technology Information Center, West Lafayette.

GM oilseed crops 64

Fernandez, M.L. and West, K.L. 2005, 'Mechanisms by which dietary fatty acids modulate plasma lipids', Journal of Nutrition, 135: 2075-2078.

Ferry, N., Edwards, M.G., Gatehouse, J.A. and Gatehouse, A.M.R. 2004, 'Plant-insect interactions: molecular approaches to insect resistance', Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15: 155-161.

Fischer, R., Stoger, E., Schillberg, S., Christou, P. and Twyman, R.M. 2004, 'Plant-based production of biopharmaceuticals', Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 7: 152-158.

Foster, M. and French, S. 2007, Market acceptance of GM canola, ABARE Research Report 07.5 prepared for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Frauen, M. and Leckband, G. 2004, NAPUS 2000 - Functional food from transgenic rapeseed, http://www.brassicagenomics.ca/ECTG/WorkShop/Martin%20Frauen.pdf, accessed 26 February 2007.

Friedt, W. and Luhs, W. 1998, 'Recent developments and perspectives of industrial rapeseed breeding', Fett-Lipid, 100: 219-226.

FSANZ 2003a, Erucic acid in food: A toxicological review and risk assessment - Technical report series 21, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Erucic%20acid%20monograph.pdf, accessed 19 May 2006.

FSANZ 2003b, Food derived from bromoxynil-tolerant cotton transformation events 10211 and 10222, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/A379%20BXN%20cottonv2.doc#_Toc42590595, accessed 8 December 2006.

FSANZ 2004, Quantitative consumer survey on allergen labelling: Benchmark survey 2003 - Evaluation report series 7, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/combined_Allergy_Final%20Report_16Feb%20.pdf, accessed 19 May 2006.

FSANZ 2006a, Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/thecode/foodstandardscode.cfm, accessed 17 May 2006.

FSANZ 2006b, GM current applications and approvals, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm, accessed 22 September 2006.

FSANZ 2006c, Trans fatty acids, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/factsheets/factsheets2006/transfattyacids24oct3388.cfm, accessed 7 November 2006.

FSANZ n.d., Advice on fish consumption - mercury in fish, Sood Standards Australia New Zealand, accessed 26 February 2007.

Glover, J., Mewett, O., Tifan, M., Cunningham, D., Ritman, K. and Morrice, B. 2005, What's in the Pipeline? Genetically modified crops under development in Australia, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Goode, M. 2006, 'Aust's biggest biodiesel producer to expand', Farm Weekly, Western Australia, 5 April 2006.

GM oilseed crops 65

GRDC 2005, National Variety Trials - the protocols, Grains research and Development Corporation, http://www.grdc.com.au/news/nvt_the_protocols060505.rtf, accessed 2 November 2006.

GRDC, GCA and Pocknee and Associates Consulting Pty Ltd 2005, Towards a single vision for the Australian grains industry, Grains Research and Development Corporation and Grains Council of Australia, Canberra.

Green, A. and Salisbury, P. 2001, 'Novel plant products from gene technology', 10th Australian Agronomy Conference, Tasmania.

Green, A.G. 2004, 'From alpha to omega - producing essential fatty acids in plants', Nature Biotechnology, 22: 680-682.

Gunstone, F. 2004, The chemistry of oils and fats. Sources, composition, properties and uses, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Holtzapffel, R. and Mewett, O. In Preparation, Genetically modified crops: tools for insect pest and weed control, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Hu, F.B., Bronner, L., Willett, W.C., Stampfer, M.J., Rexrode, K.M., Albert, C.M., Hunter, D. and Manson, J.E. 2002, 'Fish and omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women', Journal of the American Medical Association, 287: 1815-1821.

IENICA 2005, Oilseed rape and turnip rape, Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, United Kingdom.

Information Systems for Biotechnology 2006, Field test releases in the US, http://www.isb.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm, accessed 30 October 2006.

Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils 2006, Food, fats and oils - 9th edition, Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, http://www.iseo.org/foodfatsoils.pdf, accessed 19 March 2006.

James, C. 2006, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006, ISAAA Brief 35, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY.

Jones, R., Alemseged, Y., Medd, R. and Vere, D. 2000, 'The distribution, density and economic impact of weeds in the Australian annual winter cropping system', CRC for Weed Management Technical Series, 4: 1-53.

Jones, R., Vere, D., Alemseged, Y. and Medd, R. 2005, 'Estimating the economic cost of weeds in Australian annual winter crops', Agricultural Economics, 32: 253-265.

Karunanandaa, B., Qi, Q.G., Hao, M., Baszis, S.R., Jensen, P.K., Wong, Y.H.H., Jiang, J., Venkatramesh, M., Gruys, K.J., Moshiri, F., Post-Beittermiller, D., Weiss, J.D. and Valentin, H.E. 2005, 'Metabolically engineered oilseed crops with enhanced seed tocopherol', Metabolic Engineering, 7: 384-400.

Kinney, A.J. and Clemente, T.E. 2005, 'Modifying soybean oil for enhanced performance in biodiesel blends', Fuel Processing Technology, 86: 1137-1147.

Leckband, G., Frauen, M. and Friedt, W. 2002, 'NAPUS 2000. Rapeseed (Brassica napus) breeding for improved human nutrition', Food Research International, 35: 273-278.

Lee, M.K., Walters, F.S., Hart, H., Palekar, N. and Chen, J.-S. 2003, 'The mode of action of the Bacillus thuringiensis vegetative insecticidal protein Vip3A differs from that of Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin', Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69: 4648-4657.

GM oilseed crops 66

Liu, Q., Singh, S.P. and Green, A. 2002a, 'High-oleic and high-stearic cottonseed oils: nutritionally improved cooking oils developed using gene silencing', Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 21: 205S-211S.

Liu, Q., Singh, S.P. and Green, A.G. 2002b, 'High-stearic and high-oleic cottonseed oils produced by hairpin RNA-mediated post-transcriptional gene silencing', Plant Physiology, 129: 1732-1743.

Lyon, D., Bruce, S., Vyn, T. and Peterson, G. 2004, 'Achievements and future challenges in conservation tillage', 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Lyon, N. 2006, 'Canadian canola could go all GM', The Land, 2 March 2006.

Mackey, M. 2002, 'The application of biotechnology to nutrition: An overview', Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 21: 157S-160S.

Martin, P. 2003, Killing us softly - Australia's green stalkers. A call to action on invasive plants and a way forward, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide.

McKeon, T.A. 2003, 'Genetically modified crops for industrial products and processes and their effects on human health', Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14: 229-241.

Metabolix 2001, Metabolix purchases Biopol assets from Monsanto, Metabolix, http://www.metabolix.com/publications/pressreleases/PRbiopol.html, accessed 31 October 2006.

Mewett, O.P., Holtzapffel, R. and Johnson, H. 2007, Plant molecular farming in Australia and overseas, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Michael, D. 2004, Bioplastics supply chains - implications and opportunities for agriculture, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Miller, E.R.I., Pator-Barriuso, R., Dalal, D., Riemersma, R.A., Appel, R.J. and Guallar, E. 2005, 'Meta-analysis: High-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality', Annals of Internal Medicine, 142: 37-46.

MPBCRC 2006, BASF Plant Science strengthens MPB investment, Molecular Plant Breeding CRC, http://www.molecularplantbreeding.com/pdfs/MPBNewsIss15-Jun06.pdf, accessed 21 November 2006.

National Environment Research Council UK 2005, Why produce GMOs?, National Environment Research Council of the UK, http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/gmo/gmo.pdf, accessed 13 March 2006.

National Variety Trials 2006, National Variety Trials - NVT Online, http://www.acasnvt.com.au/ACAS/, accessed 31 October 2006.

NCRIS 2006, Biotechnology Products: Alternative Fuels, http://www.ncris.dest.gov.au/capabilities/biotechnology_products.htm#Alternative_fuels, accessed 11 December 2006.

NHMRC 2003, Dietary guidelines for Australian adults, National Health and Medical Research Council, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/dietsyn.htm, accessed 20 April 2006.

Nicol, A. 2006a, 'Industrial canola lures NSW growers', Ground Cover, Grains Research and Development Corporation, 19.

GM oilseed crops 67

Nicol, A. 2006b, 'Low-rainfall canola arrives', Ground Cover, Grains Research and Development Corporation, 3.

Nordlee, J.A., Taylor, S.L., Townsend, J.A., Thomas, L.A. and Bush, R.K. 1996, 'Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans', New England Journal of Medicine, 334: 688-692.

North Dakota State University 2006, North Dakota Insect Management Recommendations - Canola, http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/ICG_06/09b_CanolaCropInsects06.pdf, accessed 30 October 2006.

Norton, R. 2003, Conservation farming systems and canola, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Norton, R., Burton, W. and Salisbury, P. 2004, 'Canola quality Brassica juncea for Australia', 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Norton, R., Kirkegaard, J., Angus, J. and Potter, T. 1999, Canola in rotations, http://www.canolaaustralia.com/__data/page/168/Chapter_5_-_Canola_in_Rotations.pdf, accessed 22 September 2006.

Nyberg, A.J. 1970, 'The demand for lauric oils in the United States', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52: 97-102.

OGTR 2002a, DIR017/2002: Agronomic assessments and effiancy studies of transgenic cotton expressing a new insecticidal protein gene, OGTR, accessed 29 March 2007.

OGTR 2002b, DIR 012/2002: Commercial release of Bollgard II® cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir012.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003a, DIR 020/2002: General release of Roundup Ready® canola (Brassica napus) in Australia, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir020.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003b, DIR 021/2002: Commercial release of genetically modified (InVigor® hybrid) canola, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir021.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003c, DIR 022/2002: Commercial release of insecticidal (Ingard® Event 531) cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir022.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003d, DIR 023/2002: Commercial release of herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready®) and herbicide tolerant/insect resistant (Roundup Ready/Ingard®) cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir023.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003e, DIR 025/2002: Seed increase and efficacy studies in Northern Australia of transgenic cotton expressing a new insecticidal protein gene (VIP3A), Office of the Gene technology Regulator, accessed 29 March 2007.

OGTR 2003f, DIR 039/2003: Field evaluation of genetically modified high oleic cotton with modified fatty acid desaturase and antibiotic resistance genes, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/ir/dir039finalrarmp.pdf, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2003g, DIR 040/2003 - Agronomic assessment and seed increase of transgenic cotton expressing insect tolerance genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, accessed 29 March 2007.

GM oilseed crops 68

OGTR 2004a, DIR 032/2002: Seed increase and field evaluation of herbicide tolerant genetically modified canola incorporating a hybrid breeding system, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir032.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2004b, DIR 044/2003: Agronomic assessment and seed increase of GM cottons expressing insecticidal genes (cry1Fa and cry1Ac) from Bacillus thuringiensis, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir044.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2004c, DIR 048/2003: Field trial to assess transgenic insecticidal cotton expressing natural plant genes, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir048.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2005a, DIR 057/2004: Field trials of genetically modified hybrid, herbicide tolerant Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir057.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2005b, DIR 058/2005: Limited and controlled release of insect resistant (VIP) cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir058.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2006a, Application for Licence for Limited and Controlled Release of GMOs into the Environment: Application No. DIR 065/2006 Limited and controlled release of GM insect resistant (VIP3A and/or modified Cry1Ab) cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, accessed 29 March 2007.

OGTR 2006b, DIR 059/2005: Commercial release of herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready Flex® MON 88913) and herbicide tolerant/insect resistant (Roundup Ready Flex® MON 88913/Bollgard II®) cotton south of latitude 22º South in Australia, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir059.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

OGTR 2006c, DIR 064/2006: Limited and controlled release of water-efficient GM cotton, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir012.htm, accessed 15 November 2006.

OGTR 2006d, DIR 066/2006: Commercial release of GM herbicide tolerant and/or insect resistant cottons north of latitude 22 degrees South, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir066.htm, accessed 26 October 2006.

OGTR 2006e, DIR 071/2006: Limited and Controlled release of GM drought tolerant wheat, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, accessed 8 May 2007.

OGTR 2007, Application for Licence and Controlled Release of GMOs into the Environment: Application No. DIR 069/2006 Limited and Controlled release of GM Herbicide Tolerant hybrid canola and Indian mustard, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, accessed 29 March 2007.

Opsahl-Ferstad, H.G., Rudi, H., Ruyter, B. and Refstie, S. 2003, 'Biotechnological approaches to modify rapeseed oil composition for applications in aquaculture', Plant Science, 165: 923-923.

Oram, R., Salisbury, P., Kirk, J. and Burton, W. 1999, Brassica juncea breeding, in P.A. Salisbury, T.D. Potter, G. McDonald and A.G. Green, Canola in Australia - the first 30 years, Organising Committee of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress, 37-40.

Oram, R.N., Kirk, J.T.O., Veness, P.E., Hurlstone, C.J., Edlington, J.P. and Halsall, D.M. 2005, 'Breeding Indian mustard Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. for cold-pressed, edible oil production - a review', Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 56: 581-596.

GM oilseed crops 69

Pennsylvania State University 2005, Agronomy Guide 2005-06, http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/pm/sec4/sec43a.cfm, accessed 30 October 2006.

Qi, B.X., Fraser, T., Mugford, S., Dobson, G., Sayanova, O., Butler, J., Napier, J.A., Stobart, A.K. and Lazarus, C.M. 2004, 'Production of very long chain polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in plants', Nature Biotechnology, 22: 739-745.

Radich, A. 2004, Biodiesel performance, costs and use, Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/, accessed 9 November 2006.

Raney, T. 2006, 'Economic impact of transgenic crops in developing countries', Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 17: 174-178.

Rice, A. 2005, Break crops - 'Providing a break' or 'sending you broke'?, GRDC Research Update for Growers - Southern Region http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/south/s05s/rice.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

Ripley, V. 2005, Trends and priorities for the Canadian canola industry, GRDC Research Update for Advisors - Southern Region http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res-upd/south/s05/ripley.htm, accessed 16 March 2006.

Robert, S.S., Singh, S.P., Zhou, X.R., Petrie, J.R., Blackburn, S.I., Mansour, P.M., Nichols, P.D., Liu, Q. and Green, A.G. 2005, 'Metabolic engineering of Arabidopsis to produce nutritionally important DHA in seed oil', Functional Plant Biology, 32: 473-479.

Robertson, M.J., Holland, J.F., Cawley, S., Potter, T.D., Burton, W., Walton, G.H. and Thomas, G. 2002, 'Growth and yield differences between triazine-tolerant and non-triazine-tolerant cultivars of canola', Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 53: 643-651.

Ruxton, C.H.S., Reed, S.C., Simpson, M.J.A. and Millington, K.J. 2004, 'The health benefits of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: a review of the evidence', Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 17: 449-459.

SAGPYA 2005, Evaluaciones OGM, Secretaria de Agricultura Ganaderia, Pesca y Alimentos, Republica Argentina, http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/conabia/liberaciones_ogm.php, translated using http://babelfish.altavista.com/, accessed 10 February 2006.

Sanitarium 2006, So Good - about us, Sanitarium, http://www.sogood.sanitarium.com.au/aboutus/about-so-good.aspx, accessed 9 November 2006.

Sankula, S. and Blumenthal, E. 2004, Impact on US agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003 - An update of eleven case studies, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington.

Sankula, S., Marmon, G. and Blumenthal, E. 2005, Biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2004 - impacts on US agriculture, National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington.

Scheller, J. and Conrad, U. 2005, 'Plant-based material, protein and biodegradable plastic', Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 8: 188-196.

Schuler, R.T. 2006, Comparing bio-oils for use as biodiesel fuel, Wisconsin University, http://ipcm.wisc.edu/wcm/pdfs/2006/OctSchuler.pdf, accessed 9 November 2006.

SemBioSys 2006, SemBioSys core technology, http://www.sembiosys.com/Main.aspx?id=4, accessed 31 October 2006.

GM oilseed crops 70

Shekelle, P.G., Morton, S.C., Jungvig, L.K., Udani, J., Spar, M., Tu, W., Suttorp, M.J., Coulter, I., Newberry, S.J. and Hardy, M. 2004, 'Effect of supplemental vitamin E for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease', Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19: 380-389.

Shintani, D. and DellaPenna, D. 1998, 'Elevating the vitamin E content of plants through metabolic engineering', Science, 282: 2098-2100.

Singh, S.P., Zhou, X.R., Liu, Q., Stymne, S. and Green, A.G. 2005, 'Metabolic engineering of new fatty acids in plants', Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 8: 197-203.

Single Vision Grains Australia 2006, Welcome to Single Vision Grains Australia, http://www.singlevision.com.au/, accessed 31 October 2006.

Stoger, E., Ma, J.K.C., Fischer, R. and Christou, P. 2005, 'Sowing the seeds of success: pharmaceutical proteins from plants', Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 16: 167-173.

Stoutjesdijk, P.A., Hurlestone, C., Singh, S.P. and Green, A.G. 2000, 'High-oleic acid Australian Brassica napus and B. juncea varieties produced by co-suppression of endogenous delta 12-desaturases', Biochemical Society Transactions, 28: 938-940.

Sunilkumar, G., Campbell, L.M., Puckhaber, L., Stipanovic, R.D. and Rathore, K.S. 2006, 'Engineering cottonseed for use in human nutrition by tissue-specific reduction of toxic gossypol', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103: 18054-18059.

Suszkiw, P. 2002, 'Researchers develop first hypoallergenic soybeans', Agriculture Research, 50: 16-17.

Sutherland, S. 1999, Canola weed management, http://www.canolaaustralia.com/__data/page/168/Chapter_12_-_Canola_Weed_Management.pdf, accessed 22 September 2006.

Taylor, D.C., Katavic, V., Zou, J.T., MacKenzie, S.L., Keller, W.A., An, J., Friesen, W., Barton, D.L., Pedersen, K.K., Giblin, E.M., Ge, Y., Dauk, M., Sonntag, C., Luciw, T. and Males, D. 2002, 'Field testing of transgenic rapeseed cv. Hero transformed with a yeast sn-2 acyltransferase results in increased oil content, erucic acid content and seed yield', Molecular Breeding, 8: 317-322.

Taylor, S. 2001, Assessing allergenic potential of genetically modified foods and using food biotechnology to remove allergens from foods, American Medical Association, http://www.whybiotech.com/html/pdf/ama_taylor.pdf, accessed 3 April 2006.

Thomas, P. 2005, Review of University of Alberta canola breeding program, BrassicaCorp Ltd. and SJ Campbell Investments Ltd., Lacombe, Alberta.

Timbs, S., Adams, K. and Rogers, W.M. 2006, Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and The Gene Technology Agreement, Gene Technology Review Secretariat, Canberra.

Timbs, S.c. 2006, Statutory Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and The Gene Technology Agreement, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Toride, Y. 2002, 'Lysine and other amino acids for feed: production and contribution to protein utilization in animal feeding', Protein sources for the animal feed industry., Bangkok, Thailand, 161-165.

Tribe, D. and Kalla, R. 2005, 'Economic impacts of two GM crops in Australia', 9th ICABR conference on agricultural biotechnology: ten years later, Ravello, Italy.

GM oilseed crops 71

Twyman, R.M., Stoger, E., Schillberg, S., Christou, P. and Fischer, R. 2003, 'Molecular farming in plants: host systems and expression technology', Trends in Biotechnology, 21: 570-578.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization 2004, Agricultural Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor? The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations.

USDA FAS 2005, EU-25 Annual agricultural biotechnology report, Global Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200506/146129925.pdf, accessed 6 June 2006.

USDA FAS 2006, Japan agricultural biotechnology report, Global Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200601/146176576.pdf, accessed 6 June 2006.

USDA-FAS 2006a, Biotechnology - Argentina annual report, Global Agriculture Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200610/146249372.pdf, accessed 2 March 2007.

USDA-FAS 2006b, Production, supply and distribution online, USDA Foreign Agriculture Service, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdquery.aspx, accessed 19 September 2006.

USDHHS and USDA 2005, Dietary guidelines for Americans, US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, http://www.health.gov/DietaryGuidelines/, accessed 3 April 2006.

van Eenennaam, A.L., Lincoln, K., Durrett, T.P., Valentin, H.E., Shewmaker, C.K., Thorne, G.M., Jiang, J., Baszis, S.R., Levering, C.K., Aasen, E.D., Hao, M., Stein, J.C., Norris, S.R. and Last, R.L. 2003, 'Engineering vitamin E content: From Arabidopsis mutant to soy oil', Plant Cell, 15: 3007-3019.

Vitasoy 2004, Your questions, Vitasoy Australia Products Ltd, http://www.vitasoy.com.au/questionsHome.html, accessed 13 November 2006.

Wachsmann, N.G., Knights, S.E. and Norton, R.M. 2001, 'The potential role of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) in Australia's southern farming systems', 10th Australian Agronomy conference, Hobart.

Walsh, M.J., Duane, R.D. and Powles, S.B. 2001, 'High frequency of chlorsulfuron-resistant wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) populations across the Western Australian wheatbelt', Weed Technology, 15: 199-203.

White, K. 2004, Monola cultivars and oil - innovations and issues, GRDC Research Update - Southern Region http://www.grdc.com.au/growers/res_upd/irrigation/i04/white.htm, accessed 4 April 2006.

Willis, S. 2003, 'The use of soybean meal and full fat soybean meal by the animal feed industry', 12th Australian Soybean Conference, Toowoomba, Australia.

Willis, S. 2005, Practical pig diet formulation, Queensland Government, http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/pigs/4419.html, accessed 24 November 2006.

Zimmerman, R. and Qaim, M. 2004, 'Potential health benefits of Golden Rice: a Philippine case study', Food Policy, 29: 147-168.

GM oilseed crops 72

Appendix A World production and trade of soybean

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Production (1000 MT)

United States 75,055 78,672 75,010 66,778 85,013 83,999

Brazil 39,500 43,500 52,000 51,000 53,000 56,500

Argentina 27,800 30,000 35,500 33,000 39,000 40,500

China, Peoples Republic of

15,400 15,410 16,510 15,394 17,400 18,300

India 5,250 5,400 4,000 6,800 5,500 6,000

Paraguay 3,502 3,547 4,500 3,911 4,050 4,000

Canada 2,703 1,635 2,336 2,263 3,042 3,160

Bolivia 1,150 1,245 1,650 1,850 2,027 2,060

EU-25 1,188 1,309 888 633 786 862

Indonesia 1,020 870 780 820 825 832

Others 3,430 3,506 3,859 4,302 4,942 5,589

World Total 175,998 185,094 197,033 186,751 215,585 221,802

Exports (1000 MT)

Brazil 15,469 15,000 19,734 19,816 20,136 25,991

United States 27,103 28,948 28,423 24,128 30,011 24,494

Argentina 7,414 6,004 8,714 6,926 9,312 10,499

Paraguay 2,509 2,285 2,806 2,776 2,850 2,650

Canada 747 502 726 914 1,124 1,167

Uruguay 14 48 180 327 519 520

China, Peoples Republic of

208 300 265 319 390 400

Ukraine 12 1 7 61 36 200

Bolivia 250 155 130 74 140 140

South Africa, Republic of

0 5 4 67 70 95

Others 145 189 208 430 203 221

World Total 53,871 53,437 61,197 55,838 64,791 66,377

GM oilseed crops 73

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Imports (1000 MT)

China, Peoples Republic of

2,180 2,080 2,111 2,283 2,231 2,400

EU-25 881 961 657 1,126 1,026 1,175

Japan 345 425 512 600 669 800

Mexico 2,361 775 51 419 316 650

Taiwan 544 198 59 174 107 400

Thailand 224 226 240 243 108 150

Indonesia 250 179 185 125 78 140

Korea, Republic of

7 0 1 16 15 15

Iran 7 8 7 11 10 11

Turkey 0 1 1 0 1 0

Others 7,016 4,978 4,021 5,240 5,028 6,206

World Total 53,157 54,515 63,167 54,284 64,607 65,360Source: USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd)

GM oilseed crops 74

Appendix B World production and trade of rapeseed

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Production (1000 MT)

EU-25 11,288 11,483 11,652 11,174 15,336 15,411

China, Peoples Republic of

11,381 11,331 10,552 11,420 13,182 13,050

Canada 7,205 5,017 4,178 6,771 7,728 9,660

India 3,725 4,500 4,050 6,800 6,500 6,800

Australia 1,775 1,756 871 1,703 1,496 1,400

United States 909 908 697 686 608 717

Russian Federation 148 140 115 192 276 303

Ukraine 132 135 61 51 149 285

Pakistan 297 231 221 235 241 260

Bangladesh 249 238 233 218 230 248

Others 299 291 272 173 304 293

World Total 37,408 36,030 32,902 39,423 46,050 48,427

Exports (1000 MT)

Canada 4,836 2,673 2,421 3,763 3,493 4,675

Australia 1,429 1,358 502 1,206 1,080 950

EU-25 509 482 861 119 200 190

Ukraine 73 68 22 33 81 180

United States 220 218 287 305 140 150

Russian Federation 54 24 20 48 48 65

Romania 74 94 10 3 37 50

Chile 0 0 0 0 0 3

Others 1 1 4 1 0 0

World Total 7,196 4,918 4,127 5,478 5,079 6,263

GM oilseed crops 75

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Imports (1000 MT)

Japan 2,180 2,080 2,111 2,283 2,231 2,400

Mexico 881 961 657 1,126 1,026 1,175

Pakistan 345 425 512 600 669 800

China, Peoples Republic of

2,361 775 51 419 316 650

United States 217 125 197 243 467 465

EU-25 544 198 59 174 107 400

Canada 224 226 240 243 108 150

Bangladesh 250 179 185 125 78 140

Norway 7 0 1 16 15 15

Switzerland 7 8 7 11 10 11

Others 0 1 1 0 1 0

World Total 7,016 4,978 4,021 5,240 5,028 6,206

Source: USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd)

GM oilseed crops 76

Appendix C World production and trade of cottonseed

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Production (1000 MT)

China, Peoples Republic of

7,960 9,560 8,850 8,870 11,500 10,270

United States 5, 838 6,761 5, 610 6, 046 7, 437 7, 413

India 4,900 5,100 4,400 5,944 8,070 7,800

Pakistan 3,570 3,614 3,396 3,290 4,797 4,140

Uzbekistan, Republic of 1,920 2,100 2,000 1,800 2,250 2,450

Brazil 1,522 1,229 1,448 2,240 2,300 1,750

Turkey 1,170 1,267 1,356 1,332 1,350 1,125

Australia 1,062 968 498 480 912 814

EU-25 760 778 652 597 750 794

Syria 739 705 495 570 705 680

Others 3,970 4,300 4,010 4,400 5,103 4,739

World Total 33,411 36,382 32,715 35,569 45,174 41,975

Exports (1000 MT)

United States 213 248 335 322 344 386

Australia 698 411 166 168 245 260

EU-25 106 31 21 34 45 105

Brazil 8 3 4 106 115 55

Burkina 0 5 5 24 18 32

Azerbaijan, Republic of 0 8 7 13 13 30

Cote d'Ivoire 10 12 32 92 46 28

Cameroon 20 32 20 20 24 27

Zimbabwe 21 0 1 16 10 20

Togo 42 56 35 31 40 20

Others 165 147 94 99 128 80

World Total 1,283 953 720 925 1,028 1,043

GM oilseed crops 77

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Imports (1000 MT)

Mexico 244 296 265 244 308 280

Japan 154 159 157 156 158 160

EU-25 202 146 122 205 127 130

Turkey 110 66 4 64 97 122

Korea, Republic of

107 115 125 106 127 110

South Africa, Republic of

49 42 49 78 70 55

Saudi Arabia 41 23 15 17 74 30

United States 339 297 94 2 1 23

Nigeria 7 21 14 9 8 5

Others 5 5 1 5 3 0

World Total 1,258 1,170 846 886 973 915 Source: USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd)

GM oilseed crops 78

Appendix D Australian oilseed, wheat and barley production and trade

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006

Barley (1000 MT)

Production 6,743 8,280 3,865 10,387 7,708 9,900

Import – – – – – –

Export 3,967 4,676 1,984 6,398 4,261 5,500

Cottonseed (1000 MT)

Production 1,062 968 498 480 912 814

Import – – – – – –

Export 698 411 166 168 245 260

Cottonseed meal (1000 MT)

Production 147 217 145 120 230 228

Import – – – – – –

Export 37 11 9 7 10 12

Cottonseed oil (1000 MT)

Production 50 75 50 41 79 78

Import – 1 1 7 3 3

Export 1 1 1 – – –

Palm oil (1000 MT)

Production – – – – – –

Import 115 120 105 112 112 125

Export – – – – – –

Peanut (1000 MT)

Production 37 37 21 40 40 40

Import 8 37 28 12 8 16

Export 7 7 5 23 4 13

Rapeseed (1000 MT)

Production 1,775 1,756 871 1,703 1,496 1,400

Import – – – – – –

Export 1,429 1,358 502 1,206 1,080 950

Rapeseed meal (1000 MT)

Production 210 225 230 250 245 240

Import – – – 11 – –

Export – – – – – –

GM oilseed crops 79

Rapeseed oil (1000 MT)

Production 147 157 161 175 171 168

Import – – – – – –

Export 25 38 30 52 40 50

Soybean (1000 MT)

Production 61 76 18 74 60 70

Import – 18 35 48 6 1

Export 11 6 8 3 8 6

Soybean meal (1000 MT)

Production 36 50 47 63 58 51

Import 263 400 319 355 380 360

Export 5 6 3 11 5 5

Soybean oil (1000 MT)

Production 8 11 11 15 13 12

Import 9 12 13 14 16 15

Export – – – – – –

Sunflower seed (1000 MT)

Production 70 63 25 58 62 112

Import 1 0 1 1 2 2

Export 2 3 1 3 3 10

Sunflower meal (1000 MT)

Production 34 31 12 28 31 56

Import – – – – – –

Export 1 1 1 1

Sunflower oil (1000 MT)

Production 27 23 10 22 24 42

Import 10 22 19 30 28 29

Export 6 10 6 1 2 8

Wheat (1000 MT)

Production 22,108 24,299 10,132 26,132 22,600 24,500

Import 74 76 286 73 75 75

Export 15,930 16,409 9,146 18,031 14,742 17,500 Source: USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd)

GM oilseed crops 80

Appendix E Stakeholder consultation questions A wide range of people and organisations involved the Australian oilseed industry were consulted for this project. These included farmers, seed developers, stockfeed manufacturers, food manufacturers, marketers and relevant State Governments. In total, 21 people, representing 17 organisations were consulted. Six other organisations were approached but declined to participate. They were given the list of questions below to consider before being interviewed by the authors either in person or over the telephone. People consulted included farmers, seed developers, stockfeed manufacturers, food manufacturers and State and Territory Governments.

The following questions canvass answers for a range of oilseed crops, not just canola, and for a wide range of traits including agronomic, nutritional and industrial/pharmaceutical.

Section 1 – The Australian oilseed industry – current status and trends

1. What do you believe are the most significant threats or challenges to your sector of the oilseed industry over the next 5–10 years?

2. What trends are you aware of in regard to developing new oil traits (GM or non-GM) in oilseed crops or other vegetable oil crops (e.g. palm oil), in Australia and overseas?

3. Which of these oil traits do you foresee being introduced into oilseed crops in Australia, and into oilseed crops or other vegetable oil crops overseas, in the next 5–10 years?

4. What other traits, non-GM or GM, would you see as being most advantageous for your oilseed crop or sector in the next 5–10 years?

5. What opportunities for Australian oilseeds do you see for your sector of the industry, and what challenges do you see in realising those opportunities?

Section 2 – Potential effects of GM oilseed crops on Australian agriculture

When considering the following questions, we would like you to bear in mind a range of effects of GM technology – agronomic, economic, environmental, and social.

6. What do you see as the potential advantages and disadvantages of adopting GM oilseed crops

(a) for your sector?

(b) for the Australian oilseed industry more broadly?

7. How might the adoption of crops with novel GM traits affect the viability and competitiveness of the Australian oilseed industry?

8. What do you think your sector of the Australian oilseed industry needs to do to remain viable 5–10 years from now?

9. Do you want to raise any other issues surrounding the use of GM technology in oilseeds in Australia?

Section 3 – Implications for Australia of overseas adoption of GM oilseed traits

10. What might be the impacts on our current and future markets if GM oilseed traits are adopted overseas but not in Australia?

11. Do you see any opportunity for Australia for non-GM or GM oilseeds fulfilling any specific niche markets in Australia or overseas?

12. Are you aware of any initiatives overseas that could help strengthen the Australian oilseed industry if adopted?

GM oilseed crops 81

13. What are the significant constraints or limitations to Australia adopting novel GM oilseed traits?

Section 4 – Policy issues

14. What policy issues would need to be addressed in Australia if new GM oilseed crops were to be adopted? These issues could involve the industry, governments, markets, and/or regulators.

GM oilseed crops 82