Abstract The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops is controversial. Some European countries still ban their cultivation while Australia, China, and India maintain restrictions. Gradually, relaxations to these controls are occurring. This paper examines one such move supporting GM: the lifting of the 16 year moratorium on GM crops in South Australia in 2020. Analysis of interviews with key stakeholders and formal submissions to a State Government review provide insights into the political process underpinning the decision, highlighting limitations of the related review and decision‐making. Findings illustrate two key themes in responses to GM technology. First, governments fear community views will present a “GM phobia” to override any positive business and technological lobby. In this case study, a narrowly focused consultation process exacerbated stakeholder tensions. The government restricted submissions to public consultation by focusing only on market impacts of GM crop commercialisation, explicitly excluding environmental and health considerations, and GM’s potential harm to the “clean and green” image of South Australia—a branding potentially worth millions of dollars to the wine and horticulture sectors. Second, the economics of GM versus non‐GM canola seem narrowly conceived and presented, contrasting with resultant market experience regarding financial gains from growing GM. This study provides inputs to wider debates about the nature of deliberative democracy (or its absence) in Australia and beyond when governments seek to approve controversial new technology. The lifting of the moratorium in South Australia has been followed by relaxations on controls on GM in China, India, and the European Union.
Robinson et al. (2026) studied this question.