those and so is the views that have been expressed in this room. Politicians have this unique challenge of making decisions where they’ve got lemons, oranges, and apples, and a lot of people don’t appreciate that. It is a unique decision making situation they are in. One of the major risks for the GMO technology and all the people that want to use it, use it now and want to use it into the future safely, is political risk. A large part of the OGTR framework is not scientific-based. It’s actually about managing the political risk which is about groups in society that are expressing legitimate concerns and so forth. So yes, there’s a component to do with science, risk and evidence, but there’s also this political risk. From an IPC level, a major Western Australian institution, that’s the way I see it. It’s political risk and risk to brand is actually one of the major risks, not the scientific risk. I also have strong faith and integrity of the Food Safety Australia and New Zealand and OGTR framework. There’s one challenge in the future and that is that if we don’t manage the costs associated with assessing new GMOs and I’m not jumping through. This is rigorous. Maintain the quality of the rigour. But there’s a real danger that there’s a whole range of minor crops which will never be able to gain the benefit of the technology because the potential gains out of those crops will never be able to afford the regulatory costs. I just reiterate, it’s not about lowering the bar in terms of the quality of the outcomes. It’s just that the more we learn about these systems in a model risk managed framework, you can drop - there’s a QA audit quite frequently and then you drop it away as you get the clear evidence of reducing risk. That’s me. MR LINDWALL: Thank you very much, Doug. MR HALL: Thank you. MR LINDWALL: Anyone else? In which case I adjourn the proceedings. We resume tomorrow in Melbourne, so thank you all for coming. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 2.29 PM UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2016 AT 9.00 AM
those and so is the views that have been expressed in this room. Politicians have this unique challenge of making decisions where they’ve got lemons, oranges, and apples, and a lot of people don’t appreciate that. It is a unique decision making situation they are in. One of the major risks for the GMO technology and all the people that want to use it, use it now and want to use it into the future safely, is political risk. A large part of the OGTR framework is not scientific-based. It’s actually about managing the political risk which is about groups in society that are expressing legitimate concerns and so forth. So yes, there’s a component to do with science, risk and evidence, but there’s also this political risk. From an IPC level, a major Western Australian institution, that’s the way I see it. It’s political risk and risk to brand is actually one of the major risks, not the scientific risk. I also have strong faith and integrity of the Food Safety Australia and New Zealand and OGTR framework. There’s one challenge in the future and that is that if we don’t manage the costs associated with assessing new GMOs and I’m not jumping through. This is rigorous. Maintain the quality of the rigour. But there’s a real danger that there’s a whole range of minor crops which will never be able to gain the benefit of the technology because the potential gains out of those crops will never be able to afford the regulatory costs. I just reiterate, it’s not about lowering the bar in terms of the quality of the outcomes. It’s just that the more we learn about these systems in a model risk managed framework, you can drop - there’s a QA audit quite frequently and then you drop it away as you get the clear evidence of reducing risk. That’s me. MR LINDWALL: Thank you very much, Doug. MR HALL: Thank you. MR LINDWALL: Anyone else? In which case I adjourn the proceedings. We resume tomorrow in Melbourne, so thank you all for coming. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 2.29 PM UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2016 AT 9.00 AM
20160816-perth-agriculture.docx