Issue 33
January 2001

Copyright
Prairie Grains Magazine
January 2001

Gene Technology in the Land Down Under

Commercial applications now limited, but research in full swing

By Tracy Sayler

With about 90% of its population urban dwellers who live on the coasts, and a dependence on exports to move about 80% of its agricultural production, it’s not surprising that biotechnology is a sensitive issue in Australia, one of the most urbanized nations in the world. Government and industry leaders realize that Australia could risk domestic and export markets if genetically modified products are commercialized. They also realize they could risk market share if Australia does not commercialize GM products.

Some foods on the market in Australia contain ingredients from GM crops. Soybeans, canola, corn, potatoes, sugarbeets, and cotton oil have all been approved for food use, and all except cotton oil are imported. Both industry and government play a role in assessing the safety of GM foods, with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA, www.anzfa.gov. au) the government agency responsible for ensuring the standards of safety of all food, including GM food.

Australian acceptance of GM foods lies somewhere between the United States and the United Kingdom, says Craig Cormick, manager of public awareness, Biotechnology Australia, a government program to help the public make more informed choices about the uses of the technology.

“Trends show that over the next few years, we will see Australians becoming cautious adopters of many GM applications including GM foods, as benefits to them or the environment become more apparent,” he says. For any new technology to be adopted by consumers, Cormick says five requirements have to be satisfied: 1) Understanding of the technology; 2) Some consultation in its application; 3) Confidence in its regulation; 4) Consumer choice; and 5) Consumer benefit.

On July 28, 2000, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (comprised of health ministers from the Commonwealth, New Zealand and the States and Territories of Australia.) agreed to new labeling rules for GM foods. The new food standard will require the labeling of food and food ingredients where novel DNA and/or novel protein is present in the final food. It also requires labeling of food and ingredients where the food has altered characteristics.

Genetically modified ingredients within a food will be identified in the ingredients panel of the label. For example, a loaf of bread containing GM soy flour and GM corn would identify these ingredients with the words “genetically modified” in the ingredient list.

The new standard allows any one ingredient in a food to contain up to 1% of GM material where its presence in the ingredient is unintended.

Exempt from these requirements are:

•  Highly refined food, where the effect of the refining process is to remove novel genetic material and/or novel protein;

•  Processing aids and food additives, except where novel genetic material and/or novel protein is present in the final food;

•  Flavors which are present in a concentration less than or equal to 0.1% in the final food; and

•  Food prepared at point of sale (such as restaurants and hotels).

To give food manufacturers and importers time to ascertain the status of their products and revise their labels, the new standard is scheduled to take effect in September, 2001. However, Australian consumers will notice the introduction of labels on food containing GM ingredients progressively during that time. Some manufacturers may decide to introduce labels indicating that food ingredients have been obtained from non-GM sources.

With the new standards, Australia and New Zealand will have one of the most rigorous labeling requirements for GM foods in the world. In fact, they are regarded as even slightly more stringent than those of the European Union, previously the benchmark for GM labeling legislation. Japan has a threshold of 5% GM content, above which labeling is required. The United States and Canada currently do not require the labeling of GM foods that have the same properties and characteristics of conventionally-produced counterparts.

While industry may be able to absorb a part of the new labeling costs, some costs may be passed onto consumers. In addition, consumers searching for GM-free foods may have to pay a premium to cover the costs by manufacturers of testing their ingredients, and complying with the new labeling rules.

One in two Australians have indicated in a survey that they would consume genetically modified food, if it was less expensive and better quality than conventionally produced food, says Shaun Coffey, acting chief of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which is similar to the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Biotech R&D Down Under
Commercial applications of biotechnology in Australian agriculture are now limited. Currently in the land Down Under, only genetically modified cotton and carnation plants are approved for commercial production. In 1999, Australia had less than 1% of the global transgenic crop, with an estimated 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres) of insect-resistant cotton and small areas of carnations genetically modified for better color and longer “vase-life.”

However, biotech research and development is being aggressively pursued, on virtually all facets of Australian agriculture. Transgenic R&D in Australia is being conducted by both commercial companies and public research organizations. Much of the public research is being conducted by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO, www.csiro.au) which is similar to the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rosalie Heppner is an assistant wheat breeder, and Stephen Jeffries a wheat breeder, at the University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, in Australia, where half the varieties grown in South Australia are developed. They have four broad wheat breeding objectives: Yield, disease resistance, adaptation, and milling and baking quality, which is now the primary breeding emphasis. There are only about a dozen public wheat breeders in Australia, and most are nearing retirement, so replacing them is an issue: It’s possible that the openings may open the door to more collaboration with private industry.

Over 100 field trials of transgenic crops and 80 extensions to those trials have taken place in Australia. Herbicide resistance is the trait most frequently tested, followed by insect resistance, disease resistance, product qualities, agronomic properties, and DNA markers. Cotton and canola are the most researched transgenic crops in Australia, together accounting for over half of the trials and extensions.

Transgenic research is also being conducted in Australia on wheat and barley. For example, crop scientists there are looking at making small changes to barley to make it easier to digest in formulated animal feeds. They’re also looking at how barley gets its nutrients from soil, which could lead to less fertilizer use.

Andrew Parratt, manager of research and development programs for Australia’s Grains Research and Development Corporation, says biotechnology is being used in various facets of wheat research, including improved traits such as yield, plant stress, and end-use characteristics, and a better understanding of the wheat plant itself.

For example, Australian scientists are researching the genetic reason why Japanese consumers prefer some varieties of Australian wheat over others to make noodles. They have discovered that the absence of one of the starch granule proteins in wheat flour made from a particular wheat variety leads to increased swelling of the noodle, leading to a preference among Japanese consumers for the noodles. The discovery will be valuable in tailoring future wheat varieties to produce flour and dough to meet the demands of the Asian market.

With the aid of biotechnology, the wheat plant of the future could have better tolerance to drought, salinity, and disease, a better root system, and enhanced quality and protein to meet specific market needs, says Parratt.

AWB Limited, the sole exporter of wheat in Australia, is not rushing to bring genetically-engineered wheat to market, but doesn’t want to pass up opportunities the technology may bring either, especially if it’s adopted by competitors and accepted by customers. That’s why the company invested in Graingene in 1999, a joint venture with Australia’s GRDC and CSIRO. The venture is applying gene technology in six research areas of grain: Genomics, new breeding technologies, yield, resistance to pests and diseases, environmental stress, and product quality. It will be at least 5 to 10 years before genetically-engineered wheat will be available, and even then, it is not known now if such a product would even be introduced in the marketplace, according to Joanne O’Connell, the company’s corporate communication advisor.

“Our stance is that we will market what the customer wants,” says O’Connell. “(Graingene) is an insurance policy more than anything.”

The following sources contributed information to this article: Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; Bureau of Rural Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, Australia; Biotechnology Australia; Australia New Zealand Food Authority.

You might think Paul Sandercock is pitching pasta, but actually, his primary objective is to promote meat. The National Meat Association of Australia, with Sandercock executive director of its South Australian division, is hoping to bring more Australian consumers back into butcher shops by promoting side items such as pasta that can be sold or given away along with purchases of meat, to make a complete meal. The side items are marketed under the brand name “Quinns,” with a marketing emphasis on Q for quality.

Gene technology in other areas
Along with research to improve the wheat plant itself, gene technology is being applied by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in other research areas as well that may affect Australia’s grain production sector. Some examples:

Pesticide breakdown—Many chemical pesticides do not break down easily in the environment. As a result, they tend to concentrate in the food chain and may affect the health of humans and other animals. Overuse of pesticides will kill most pests, but can also result in some that are able to resist pesticides. The offspring of the remaining ‘resistant’ pests were also unaffected by the chemicals. Research shows that resistant insects produce enzymes that break down the pesticides to harmless substances. CSIRO entomologists are working to use these enzymes to break down pesticide residues in the environment, a process is called bioremediation. Initial work shows the enzymes degrade organophosphates under conditions similar to those in the natural environment. CSIRO has recently signed an agreement with an Australian company to commercialize this technology.

Pest control—Australia has suffered more than any other continent from introduced animal species that have “gone feral.” The pests have flourished in the absence of their natural predators, diseases and parasites, inflicting huge losses to Australian agriculture and fisheries and to the environment.

Scientists at CSIRO’s Marine Science, Wildlife and Ecology and Entomology are working to develop a technique called “repressible sterility” to control pests. The technique involves attaching a special ‘genetic switch’ to a vital gene that controls fertility. Once the genetically modified pest is released into the wild it would become sterile and unable to breed. This may be the only way to control freshwater and marine pests. Within a decade, farmers may be controlling plagues with a genetically modified virus that prevents mice breeding. Gene technology also offers a new way of controlling rabbits humanely, with a virus that will prevent them breeding.

For more examples of CSIRO gene technology research information, visit the web site, genetech.csiro.au.