Australian attitudes to biotechnology

1. 1
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS BIOTECHNOLOGY
IN AUSTRALIA
Results of a survey of public attitudes 2009-10
Research context
In 2009, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research commissioned the
IPSOS-Eureka Social Research Institute to undertake research on community attitudes to
biotechnology. Previous surveys had been conducted every two years from 1999, to determine
public attitudes towards biotechnology and biotechnology applications in Australia.
Methodology
The project took place between December 2009 and June 2010, and involved the collection of
both qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically, the research involved:
• Six focus groups of an exploratory nature (held in a metropolitan and a rural location)
(total n=47 participants);
• Three stakeholder consultations (total n=15 participants); and
• A survey of n=1,024 people across Australia, sampled to be demographically
representative of the wider population, conducted both online and via computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI).
Key findings
The Australian public has continued to strongly support biotechnologies that provide health or
environmental benefits, but their support for genetically modified (GM) foods has dropped a little
since 2007.
Biotechnologies of key interest to the public include genetic modification (GM), cloning, stem cell
research and using organisms to clean up pollution.
GM food continues to be one of the least
well supported biotechnologies, although the
public perceive the benefits (70%) still
outweigh the risks (48%). This is a drop from
2007 in benefits (77%) and risks (54%), yet
still much higher than the 2005 figure of
perceived benefits (64%) but lower than the
2005 figure of perceived risk at 71%.
In 2009-10, GM food is more highly supported than foods containing preservatives and foods grown
with pesticides.
While 67% per cent of the public say that GM foods are acceptable, half of those opposed would
change that position if there was long-term evidence of no harm being caused. About 45% per cent
of those opposed to GM foods would change their position if labelling explained what ingredients
had been modified and why. This support varies depending on the amount of GM in the food, why
the modification was made and whether the food was a fruit and vegetable or other crop.
The Australian public has continued to
strongly support biotechnologies that
provide health or environmental benefits,
but their support for genetically modified
(GM) foods has dropped a little since
2007...

2. 2
Figure 1: Changes in support for different applications of biotechnology over ten years.
(Note: The large support for all applications in 2007 was linked to concerns about the state of the globe and the role of
new technologies in alleviating problems of climate change, pandemics and food shortages etc)
Other key findings include an increasing public trust in Australian regulators and a drop in perceived
value of using biotechnologies to address climate change and to produce biofuels. Overall, support
for health and medical applications of biotechnology was higher than support for applications in
food or agriculture; mean ratings were 6.2 and 5.2 out of 10, respectively. This difference was
consistent with 2007 findings.
Figure 2: Overall support for health and medical vs food and agricultural applications
Awareness and perceptions of applications of biotechnology
Participants were presented with a number of applications of biotechnology, and for each, were
asked whether they had heard of it, whether they felt it was likely to be useful to society,
whether it would be risky to society, and whether it would be acceptable to them.
Overall, prompted awareness of various applications of biotechnology was fairly high. Apart
from the role of biotechnology in medicine production, medical applications of biotechnology
rated highly, with more than three quarters aware of ‘using stem cells to conduct medical
5
2
4
4
5
19
10
17
15
7
12
9
4
6 5
8
23
11
16
9
4
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 - Completely against it 2 4 6 8 10 - Fully suportive
%
Health and medical
Food and agricultural
Base: 2007: n=1,118; 2010: n=1,024
Mean 2007 2010
Health & med 6.9 6.2
Food & ag 5.7 5.2
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2010
Use human genes in
medicines/vaccines
Make plants more pest
resistant
Using Stem cells to
conduct medical research
and treat diseases
Using gene technology in
food and drinks
Using human genes in
animals for growing
organs

3. 3
research and treat disease’ (93%), ‘using genetic information in medical research’ (81%), and
‘using genetic modification to grow human tissue or organs…’ (79%). Among the food,
agricultural and environmental applications, awareness of genetically modifying plants to
produce food (82%) was far higher than ‘using biotechnology in the production of food from
plants’ (67%), ‘using genetic modification in the control of introduced pest animals’ (55%), and
‘modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops’ (54%).
For each of these applications, more than two thirds
considered the application useful. Perceived utility was
particularly high for ‘using genetic information in
medical research’ and ‘using stem cells to conduct
medical research and treat disease’, was considered
useful by 92% and 91% respectively, ‘using genetic
modification to grow human tissue or organs…’ (75%), and ‘using genetic modification in the
manufacture of medicines’ (70%). Overall, there was a clear trend of decreasing perceived
usefulness with decreasing personal involvement and/or benefit, from medical and health
applications, to food crops, to environmental issues such as pest control and non-food crops.
Since 2007, there has been a significant decrease in the proportion who perceive genetic
modification and biotechnology in food production as useful (77% versus 70%, and 76% versus
69%). Conversely, in 2010 a significantly larger proportion of participants consider genetic
modification of non-food crops useful (68% versus 60% in 2007).
Risk Perception
For each application of biotechnology suggested, a sizeable proportion of participants perceived
an element of risk to society. The application most frequently considered risky was ‘using
genetic modification in the control of introduced pest animals’ (52% considered it risky),
followed by ‘using genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines’ (51%), and ‘using
genetic modification to grow human tissue or organs…’ (50%).
Of the food and agriculture applications,
‘modifying the genes of plants to produce food’
was considered risky by more participants than
‘using biotechnology in the production of food
from plants’ (48% versus 43%), followed by
‘modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops’ (39%). The two applications
considered risky by the fewest people were ‘using genetic information in medical research
(29%), and ‘using stem cells to conduct medical research and treat disease’ (24%).
Since 2007, the proportion that perceive risk has increased for both the use of biotechnology in
the production of food (43% from 34% in 2007), and the genetic modification of non-food crops
(39% from 31%).
Acceptability of the various applications of biotechnology presented was generally high, with
each application receiving approval from at least three in five. The use of stem cells and genetic
information in medical research were acceptable to the greatest majority (88% each). The
remaining applications were acceptable to between 61% and 65% of participants, including:
• ‘using biotechnology in the production of food from plants’ (65%);
• ‘modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops’ (63%);
• ‘modifying the genes of plants to produce food’ (63%);
• ‘using genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines’ (62%);
• using genetic modification to grow human tissue or organs…’ (62%); and
• ‘using genetic modification in the control of introduced pest animals’ (61%).
‘using stem cells to conduct
medical research and treat
disease’, was considered
useful by 91%.
The application most frequently
considered risky was ‘using
genetic modification in the control
of introduced pest animals’.

4. 4
There has been a decline in the proportion that consider ‘modifying the genes of plants to
produce food’ acceptable, from 69% in 2007 to 63% in 2010 (although still higher than 2005 at
47%. The overall acceptability of the other applications has not changed significantly since the
previous wave.
Figure 3: GM food crops: acceptability
Food and agriculture applications
As described above, overall support for applications of biotechnology to food and agriculture
was lower than support for applications in health and medicine. In addition, overall support for
genetic modification and other biotechnologies in food and agriculture was significantly lower in
2010 than in 20071
(5.2 out of 10 versus 5.7 out of 10 in 2007). Support was significantly
greater among males, and among those who are more excited than concerned by new
technologies (technophiles).
As we would anticipate, overall support among
those who agreed that we should use more
natural ways of farming was significantly
lower, as it was for those who agreed that
‘technological change happens too fast for me
to keep up with it’.
Attitudes to biotechnology in food and agriculture
Attitudinal statements relating to the use of biotechnology in food and agriculture revealed that
Australians hold very mixed feelings on the issue. While the majority of participants (66%)
expressed agreement that we should use more natural ways of farming, the majority (53%)
disagreed with the statement ‘research and development into the genetic modification of crops
should be stopped’, with more than a quarter (30%) disagreeing strongly.
In addition, despite widespread cynicism about the objectives of genetic modification in
agriculture (49% agreed that it is mostly for the benefit of commercial companies), more people
1
This difference may be due in part to a change in the question wording from ‘gene technology’ to ‘genetic modification and
other biotechnologies’.
11 10 12 11 14 15
20 19 17 17
20
27
14
21
28
35
44 49
57 56
69
63
74
67
58
50
36 32
26 28
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010
Modifying the genes of
plants to produce food
...by introducing the genes
of a plant of the same
species
...by introducing the genes
of a plant of a different
species
...by introducing the genes
of a bacterium
...by introducing the genes
of an animal
Yes
No
Don't know
Base: Rotated questions (2007: n=568; 2010: n=454)
Support was significantly greater
among males, and among those who
are more excited than concerned by
new technologies.

5. 5
disagreed (42%) than agreed (26%) that commercial use of genetic modification should be
stopped.
Opinion was also divided over whether we should accept or reject genetic modification based on
perceived risks to our economic competitiveness – while 46% agreed that we should reject it if it
reduced our economic competitiveness, 36% agreed that we should accept some degree of risk
from genetic modification, if it enhances our economic competitiveness.
Acceptability of genetically modified food crops under certain conditions
Those survey participants who indicated that genetically modified food crops were
‘unacceptable’ were asked whether or not they would find genetically modified food crops
acceptable under certain conditions.
Based on the findings of the preliminary qualitative research, two new conditions were added to
the questionnaire in 2010: ‘If long-term tests had shown no risks to human health or the
environment’, and ‘If the labelling on the food described what component had been genetically
modified, and why’. These two conditions together ranked the highest of the list of possible
litigators; long-term evidence would convert half the non-acceptors (50%) to acceptance, and
descriptive labelling would change the minds of 45%.
Among the conditions that were also posed to non-
acceptors in 2007, there were no significant differences
in the strength of conversion.
Attitudes towards objectives of genetically modifying food crops
Survey participants were presented with a series of objectives of genetically modifying food
crops and were asked to rate each objective on a four (4) point value scale: very valuable,
somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not at all valuable.
Figure 4: Perceived value of objectives of GM food crops: five most valuable
Of the list of ten objectives, the objectives with the highest perceived value were using genetic
modification ‘to make plants drought resistant’ (87% regarded this objective as somewhat
valuable or very valuable) and ‘to make plants that can grow in salty soils’ (82% considered
somewhat valuable or very valuable). The objectives that were perceived as the least valuable
97 36 43 4%
88 36 42 5%
87 31 50 4%
69 28 51 6%
79 26 54 4%
59 26 55 6%
76 31 50 5%
45 25 63 4%
46 20 65 5%
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
2007
2010
2010
2007
2010
2007
2010
2007
2010
Not at all
valuable
Very
valuable
Don't
know
Base: 2007: n=1,118; 2010: n=1,024
to make plants drought
resistant
to make plants that can
grow in salty soils
to make the food
healthier
to make the plants pest
resistant
to make the plants
frost resistant
Not very
valuable
Somewhat
valuable
long-term evidence would
convert half the non-
acceptors

6. 6
were making plants herbicide tolerant (64%), making plants mature more quickly (62%), and
making food taste better (59%). Since 2007, there has been a shift towards considering ‘making
food cheaper’ and ‘making plants herbicide tolerant’ as more valuable objectives of genetic
modification.
Knowledge of genetically modified cropping in own state
Survey participants were also asked whether or not they thought that commercial genetically
modified crops were allowed to be grown in their state of residence, and if so, which crops were
grown. A notable proportion (43%) of participants were unable to answer this question, an
indication of the low levels of awareness of genetically modified crop growth across Australia.
Those who did respond to this question were more likely to believe that genetically modified
crops were grown in their own state than not (46% indicated yes and 12% indicated no). Both
Western Australians and Victorians were more likely to indicate that genetically modified crops
were grown in their state in 2010 than they were in 2007 – a reflection of the recent lifting of
moratoria on genetically modified canola in these states.
Across all the large states but Queensland, the most frequently mentioned crop was genetically
modified canola (identified by 17% in NSW, 24% VIC, 33% WA, 19% SA). Awareness of
genetically modified cotton was highest in NSW and QLD, where it is grown (9% and 14%
respectively). Genetically modified wheat was also commonly cited across most states (7% of
the total sample cited wheat). Numerous suggestions of corn, soya and other fruits and
vegetables suggest there is considerable confusion between the genetically modified food crops
available worldwide, and those grown in Australia.
Support for genetically modified cropping in own state
Just less than one in two participants (49%) indicated that they would be in favour of growing
genetically modified crops in their own state, 33% were not in favour, and the remainder (18%)
said that they were unsure.
Support for the growth of genetically modified crops was
fairly similar across states, ranging from 55% in NSW to
44% in Victoria. There has been no significant change in
levels of support since 2007, including those states which
have been subject to considerable media coverage of the
issue, such as Western Australia and Victoria.
Genetically modified food products
Participants were asked to rate their willingness to eat a variety of different types of food on a
scale from 0 to 10, where 10 indicated the greatest level of willingness and 0 indicated the
greatest level of hesitation. As anticipated, participants indicated being much more willing to eat
organic food than all other types of foods (mean rating 8.2 out of 10).
Of all the food products related to genetic modification, participants were most willing to eat
food with a small amount of genetically modified ingredients (mean rating 5.0), followed by
food made from genetically modified food crops (4.7), then genetically modified fruit and
vegetables (4.6) and meat and other animal products fed with genetically modified stock feed
(4.4). Participants were least willing to consume meat and other products from genetically
modified animals (mean rating 3.9), cloned animals (3.5) and from the offspring of cloned
animals (3.6).
Willingness to eat a number of foods has
fallen since 2007. There has been a small but
significant decrease in consumer willingness
Just less than one in two
participants (49%)
indicated that they would
be in favour of growing
genetically modified crops
in their own state
Of all the food products related to
genetic modification, participants
were most willing to eat food with a
small amount of genetically modified
ingredients

7. 7
to eat organic food from 8.3 to 8.2, and larger decreases in consumer willingness to eat
genetically modified fruit and vegetables (down from 5.0 to 4.6), meat from genetically modified
animals (down from 4.3 to 3.9) and meat from cloned animals (down from 3.8 to 3.5). The
greatest decreases observed in consumer willingness to eat foods related not to genetically
modified food but to food containing preservatives (down from 5.2 to 4.6), and food grown with
the use of pesticides (down from 4.7 to 4.0).
Awareness and perceptions of genetically modified non-food crops
Participants were asked their views on modifying the genes of plants to produce non-food crops -
first in general, and then specifically to produce fuels, to produce clothing and other textiles, and
to produce plastics. More than half the research participants (54%) were aware of genetic
modification of non-food crops; when prompted with the objective of producing fuels, awareness
rose to 57%. Awareness of the use of genetically modified non-food crops in the production of
both fuels and plastics has risen significantly – from 48% to 57% for fuels, and from 18% to
29% for plastics.
The use of genetically modified crops to produce fuels has seen some significant changes since
last wave. Perceived usefulness of this application has decreased significantly since 2007 (from
80% to 74%). While there has been no significant change in perceived risk, the proportion that
view genetic modification of non-food crops to produce fuels as acceptable has decreased
significantly (from 78% to 68%).
Figure 5: Consumer willingness to eat GM foods relative to willingness to eat other types of foods
Environmental applications
Perceptions of environmental objectives of biotechnology
As one would anticipate, the perceived value of all environmental objectives of biotechnology
was very high; more than eight in ten participants indicated that each objective (with the
exception of lowering the cost of plastic products) was somewhat or very valuable. Objectives
that were seen to be particularly valuable were cleaning up pollution and recycling water more
effectively, perceived as somewhat or very valuable by 97% and 96% of participants
respectively.
8.2
5.0
4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4
4.0 3.9
3.6 3.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
O
rganic
food
Foods
w
ith
sm
allam
ountG
M
ingredients
Processed
foods
such
as
bread
orsoy
m
ilk…
G
M
fruitand
vegetables
Food
containing
preservatives
M
eatfrom
anim
als
fed
w
ith
G
M
stock
feed
Food
grow
n
w
ith
use
ofpesticides
M
eatfrom
G
M
anim
als
M
eatfrom
offspring
ofcloned
anim
als
M
eatfrom
cloned
anim
als
Meanwillingness(outof10)
Base: 2010: n=1,024

8. 8
The objectives perceived as least valuable were lowering the cost of petrol (87% consider it
somewhat or very valuable), and lowering the cost of plastic products (75% considered it
somewhat or very valuable).
For four of the ten objectives, there has been a
significant shift towards the less valuable end of
the scale: ‘to recycle water more efficiently’, ‘to
encourage the development of more
environmentally friendly fuels for vehicles’, ‘to
reduce fossil fuel consumption’, and ‘to help
address climate change’. Firstly, the need to
recycle water is likely to have decreased in the
public consciousness since the drought eased
across much of the country. The remaining objectives have clear links to biofuels and to climate
change. There appears to be rising scepticism about the value of biofuels - preliminary
qualitative research suggested that much of this uncertainty is due to concerns about food crop
displacement. This may or not also be linked to rising levels of scepticism about climate change.
Figure 6: Perceived value of environmental objectives of biotechnology
Medical applications
As noted for food and agricultural applications, there was also a significant decrease since last
wave in the mean rating of overall support for the use of genetic modification and other
biotechnologies in human health and medicine. The average rating given by participants in the
current wave was 6.2 out of 10, while the average rating given in 2007 was 6.9. As for the
agricultural applications, overall support for the use of biotechnology in health and medical
applications was significantly greater among university graduates, and among those who are
more excited than concerned by new technologies.
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 22 3 2 2 1
3 2 3
5 6
12
15
13 16
14
17
15
19
21 20
81
78
80
78
80
75
77
71 64 66
5 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 7 6
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010
to recycle water more
effectively
to clean up pollution to encourage the
development of more
environmentally friendly
fuels for vehicles
to reduce fossil fuel
consumption
to address declining
biodiversity or the gradual
extinction of plants and
animals
Don’t know
Very
valuable
Some-what
valuable
Not very
valuable
Not at all
valuable
Base: 2007: n=1,118; 2010: n=1,024
There appears to be rising
scepticism about the value of
biofuels - preliminary qualitative
research suggested that much of
this uncertainty is due to
concerns about food crop
displacement

9. 9
In previous waves of this research, participants were asked about ‘using gene technology to
produce medicines’. In 2010, this question was split into two key components; participants were
asked their opinions about the use of genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines, and
about the use of genetic information in medical research.
Awareness and perceptions of using genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines
Awareness of the use of genetic modification in the manufacture of medicines was fairly low at
48%. Awareness levels dropped further when details of the genetically organisms were
provided: 34% had heard of manufacturing medicines by inserting genes into animals, 29% had
heard of using bacteria, and only 20% had heard of using plants. A similar pattern was observed
for perceived usefulness of the applications, although genetically modified bacteria were
considered more useful than genetically modified animals (43% considered bacteria useful,
34% considered animals useful).
Perceived risk was moderate for the general concept (42%) but increased markedly for the
specific applications (61% for introducing human genes into animals, 50% for introducing
human genes into plants, and 56% for introducing human genes into bacteria). Acceptability
followed the reverse trend, with the general concept being acceptable to 73%, while specific
applications were acceptable to only 43% (plants and bacteria) and 36% (animals).
Figure 7: Stem cells: acceptability trends over time
Awareness and perceptions of using genetic information in medical research
Like stem cells, the use of genetic information in medical research is well-known and widely
accepted. Of particular interest in this survey wave was the inclusion of the sub-part ‘using
genetic information in medical research to tailor a person’s healthcare based on their genetic
make-up’. While awareness of this application was lower than the general concept (66%
compared to 81%), perceived usefulness was high at 77%. Despite being perceived as risky by
36%, tailored healthcare was considered acceptable by a large majority (70%).
8 6 7 8 11 12 11 14
6
5
7 4
10 9
18
17
86 88 86 88
80 79
71 70
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010 2007 2010
Using stem cells to conduct
medical research and treat
disease
...using stem cells generated
from the patients own cells
...using non-embryonic, cord or
adult stem cells
...using embryonic stem cells
Yes
No
Don't know
Base: Rotated questions (2007: n=551; 2010: n=441)

10. 10
Information
As found in 2007, unprompted awareness of organisations responsible for providing balanced
and factual information about biotechnology was very low; while 5% mentioned the Federal
Government, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research was mentioned by
less than 1% of participants. When prompted, 38% of participants had heard of DIISR, a
significant increase since 2007, when 32% had heard of Biotechnology Australia.
Regulation
When asked to name the organisation/s responsible for regulating biotechnology in Australia,
nearly half the respondents (49%) were unable to provide an answer. The CSIRO was most
frequently mentioned (22%), followed by ‘federal government’ (13%). When prompted,
awareness of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) far exceeded awareness
of other regulatory organisations, at 85%. Awareness of Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand (FSANZ) was also fairly high, at 60%. Awareness of Biosecurity Australia has
increased significantly from 23% to 34%. Less than a quarter of participants (22%) had heard of
the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, and only 8% had heard of the
Office the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).
Survey participants who had heard of each organisation were also asked if they would trust the
organisation to regulate genetic modification and other biotechnologies. Compared to last wave,
trust in the AVPMA, Biosecurity Australia and AQIS all increased significantly (72% from 56%
for APVMA, 67% from 49% for Biosecurity Australia, and 64% from 50% for AQIS).
Figure 8: Attitudes towards regulation
1012 9 15 29% 25%
610 11 17 30% 25%
78 15 20 25% 25%
49 14 24 24% 25%
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
The rules that regulate the
use of genetic modification in
medical research are
complied with
The rules that regulate the
use of genetic modification in
medical research are
sufficiently rigorous
The rules that regulate the
use of genetic modification in
agriculture and food
production are complied with
The rules that regulate the
use of genetic modification in
agriculture and food
production are sufficiently
rigorous
Disagreement
strong mild
Agreement
mild strong Neutral
Don't
know
Base: combined data, n=1,024

11. 11
Key conclusions
Food and agricultural applications
Despite some shift in opinion about genetically modified food crops, there remains widespread
acknowledgement of the potential benefits they may provide. Many recognised the value of a
number of objectives of genetically modifying crops, particularly the need to adapt to the
Australian climate by producing plants that are drought or salinity resistant. In addition, the
majority of those who do not accept genetically modified food crops would be swayed by long-
term tests (50% would change their minds), and labelling describing what component had been
genetically modified, and why (45% would be influenced).
As found in previous research, there is
widespread overestimation of the number of
genetically modified crops grown in
Australia, and also of the pervasiveness of
genetically modified food products and
ingredients throughout the food supply.
Environmental applications
Overall, the idea of using biotechnology to achieve environmental objectives was considered
very valuable. Aside from cleaning up pollution, which remains the most valuable objective,
several high-ranking environmental objectives have dropped in perceived value since 2007.
Each of these changes is likely to be the result of topical issues: the need to recycle water is
likely to be less pressing in 2010 than in 2007, following severe rainfall deficiencies in 20062
.
In addition, items related to fuel use and alternative fuels are likely to be less pertinent than they
were in 2007, when fuel prices were particularly high. Participants in the preliminary qualitative
research also expressed concerns about the possibility of fuel-producing crops displacing
valuable food crops.
Finally, there was a drop in the perceived value of using biotechnology to address climate
change, which led to it being ranked as one of the least valuable environmental objectives of
biotechnology. This may be due in part to rising scepticism about anthropogenic climate change
per se, rather than doubt in the ability of biotechnology to address the problem.
Medical applications
Of all the applications of biotechnology to medicine, the use of stem cells remains the most
accepted application, with the highest levels of awareness, and lowest perceived risk. In general,
there was a pattern among the medical applications of high levels of awareness and perceived
usefulness, a low to moderate level of perceived risk, and majority acceptance.
Information and regulation
While awareness of the organisations responsible for providing information about biotechnology
and for its regulation within Australia remains low, there is a high level of trust in the regulatory
system, which for a number of organisations has risen since the last wave of this survey.
2
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Drought Statement Archive: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/
Despite some shift in opinion about
genetically modified food crops, there
remains widespread acknowledgement
of the potential benefits they may
provide.