August 27, 2008
GM Becomes Election Issue in Western Australia
The growing of genetically modified (GM) food crops is currently illegal in several Australian states including Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia.
Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter has promised to continue the ban while the opposition Liberal Party says it will allow these crops if it wins the September 6 election.
Read more here: http://gmobelus.com/news.php?viewStory=124
Posted by jennifer at 10:13 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBack
August 16, 2008
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Food Safety
Dear Jennifer,
I have been spending a pleasant Saturday morning doing gardening at the GMO Pundit safety paper list. It's now a bit neater at the start.
I've added a few more papers to bring it over 200.
Most importantly, I've added a button at the right sidebar near the top
"200 plus GM food safety papers"
So to tell people about the safety papers say:
"go to http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/"
or Google GMO Pundit
look at the sidebar on the right, and just click the 200 plus GM food safety papers button
Best regards
David Tribe Ph.D.
Melbourne
--------------------------------
Jennifer has just had a look at:
Exhibit 3.
Citation list of papers that test GM food safety in animal tests or directly and systematically measure safety parameters such as allergenicity or potential toxin fingerprinting:
Aeschbacher, K., L. Meile, R. Messikommer and C. Wenk. (2002) Influence of genetically modified maize on performance and product quality of chickens. Proc. Soc. Nutr. Physiol. 11:196.
Aeschbacher K, Messikommer R, Meile L, Wenk C (2005) Bt176 corn in poultry nutrition: Physiological characteristics and fate of recombinant plant DNA in chickens. Poultry Science 84:385-394
Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B.(2008) Subchronic feeding study of herbicide-tolerant soybean DP-356Ø43-5 in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Jun;46(6):2201-13.
Ash, J., C. Novak, and S.E. Scheideler. (2003) The fate of genetically modified protein from Roundup Ready soybeans in laying hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12:242:245.
Alexander TW, Sharma R, Deng MY, Whetsell AJ, Jennings JC, Wang YX, Okine E, Damgaard D, McAllister TA (2004) Use of quantitative real-time and conventional PCR to assess the stability of the cp4 epsps transgene from Roundup Ready (R) canola in the intestinal, ruminal, and fecal contents of sheep. Journal of Biotechnology 112:255-266
Ash J, Novak C, Scheideler SE (2003) The fate of genetically modified protein from Roundup Ready Soybeans in laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 12:242-245
Atkinson, H.J., Johnston, K.A., Robbins, M.,( 2004). Prima facie evidence that a phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a toxic risk in the human diet. J. Nutr. 134, 431–434.
Aulrich K, Bohme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G (2001) Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 54:183-195
Bakan B, Melcion D, Richard-Molard D and Cahagnier B (2002) Fungal growth and Fusarium mycotoxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in France and Spain. J Agric Food Chem 50(4): 728–731.
Baker, J M, Hawkins, N D, Ward, J L, Lovegrove, A, Napier,J A, Shewry, P R and Beale, M H.(2006) A metabolomic study of substantial equivalence of field-grown genetically modified wheat. Plant Biotechnology Journal Volume 4 Issue 4 Page 381 - July 2006 doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00197.x
Barriere Y, Verite R, Brunschwig P, Surault F, Emile JC (2001) Feeding value of corn silage estimated with sheep and dairy cows is not altered by genetic incorporation of Bt176 resistance to Ostrinia nubilalis. Journal of Dairy Science 84:1863-1871
Batista, R. Nelson Saibo, Tiago Lourenço, and Maria Margarida Oliveira (2008) Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion PNAS | March 4, 2008 | vol. 105 | no. 9 | 3640-3645
Baudo, M M, Lyons, Powers, S R, Pastori,G M, Edwards, K J, Holdsworth, M J, and Shewry, P R. (2006) Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding Plant Biotechnology Journal Volume 4 Issue 4 Page 369 - July 2006 doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00193.x
Barriere, Y., R. Verite, P. Brunschwig, F. Surault, and J.C. Emile. (2001). The feeding value of silage maize estimated with sheep and dairy cows is not affected by genetic incorporation of the Bt 176 resistance to Ostrinia nubilalis. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1863-1871.
Benedict J, Fromme D, Cosper J, Correa C, Odvody G and Parker R (1998) Efficacy of Bt Corn Events MON810, Bt11 and E176 in Controlling Corn Earworm, Fall Armyworm, Sugarcane Borer and Aflatoxin. Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX .
Berberich, SA Ream, J.E., Jackson, T.L., Wood, R., Stipanovic, R., Harvey, P., Patzer, S., and Fuchs, R.L. (1996) The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44, 365–371.
Betz F S, Hammond B G , Fuchs R L (2000) Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32, Issue 2, 156-173
Bohme H, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G (2001) Genetically modified feeds in animal nutrition 2nd communication: Glufosinate tolerant sugar beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 54:197-207
Bondzio, A., Stumpff, F., Schoen, J., Martens, H., Einspanier, R., (2008) Impact of Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin Cry1Ab on rumen epithelial cells (REC) - a new in vitro model for safety assessment of recombinant food compounds, Food and Chemical Toxicology (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2008.01.038
Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP (2004) Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:2097-2102.
Brake, D.G., Evenson, D.P., 2004. A generational study of glyphosatetolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42, 29–36.
Brake J, Faust MA, Stein J (2003) Evaluation of transgenic event Bt11 hybrid corn in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 82:551-559
Brake J, Faust M, Stein J (2005) Evaluation of transgenic hybrid corn (VIP3A) in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84:503-512
Brake J, Vlachos D (1998) Evaluation of transgenic event 176 "Bt" corn in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 77:648-653.
Broll H, Zagon J, Butschke A, Leffke A, Spiegelberg A, Bohme H, Flachowsky G (2005) The fate of DNA of transgenic inulin synthesizing potatoes in pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 14:337-340
Brown PB, Wilson KA, Jonker Y, Nickson TE. (2003) Glyphosate tolerant canola meal is equivalent to the parental line in diets fed to rainbow trout. J Agric Food Chem. 51:4268-72.
Bub A, Möseneder J, Wenzel G, Rechkemmer G, Briviba K. (2008) Zeaxanthin is bioavailable from genetically modified zeaxanthin-rich potatoes.Eur J Nutr. 2008 Mar;47(2):99-103. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
And we are only up to 'B'. Who said there hadn't been a lot of testing of genetically modified foods?
Posted by jennifer at 12:05 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
June 24, 2008
Real Food Shortage Will Require Real Science and Technology?
The British government is preparing to open the way for genetically modified crops on the grounds they could help combat the global food crisis.
At least that's according to Andrew Grice, Policitical Editor with The Independent, reporting on a meeting between Britian's Environment minister, Phil Woolas, and the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, amidst claims that "rocketing food prices and food shortages in the world's poorest countries mean the time is right to relax Britain's policy on use of GM crops."
As Graham Young, Chief Editor of e-journal On Line Opinion, recently emailed me, "With food shortages becoming the new Greenhouse type issue, I think that all is set to change. Governments will be throwing money at scientists who say they can feed the world, and it will become a new glamour industry... it is perhaps ironic that hard science, rather than computer modeling, might come back into vogue now that we have a real, rather than potential, problem."
Posted by jennifer at 02:47 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
June 09, 2008
Changing Attitudes to GM Foods: Craig Cormick on ABC Radio
“We have long known that concerns about a new and unknown technology diminish over time, and in regard to gene technology and biotechnology we're now seeing that played out in the public's minds...
"The second factor was a perception that genetically modified crops could be of benefit in helping to address a range of new concerns in people's minds, which included drought, climate change, rising salinity levels and fuel shortages…
"Now this is going to present a challenge for many environmental groups who will be overjoyed to know that the public are increasingly concerned about the environment, but will be less overjoyed to know that the public strongly support gene technology as a possible solution to environmental problems, when many environmental groups are not particularly supportive of gene technology.
"I suspect that many of these groups might need to reconsider, or update, their positions and at least consider that the mantra of 'all gene technology is bad' should be re-examined carefully and modified to a more realistic statement of 'some gene technology is bad, but some gene technology is good.' ...
Read more here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2259355.htm#transcript
Of course there is already an environmental group that recognises the benefits of technology: The Australian Environment Foundation.
Posted by jennifer at 03:45 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 18, 2008
This Year Critical for Australian Agriculture, So Greenpeace Sponsors Tour by Anti-GM Campaigner
Greenpeace have been running a campaign against the planting of new crop varieties in Australia since about 2001 as part of their global campaign against genetically modified (GM) food. The Australian campaign has been phenomenally successful with bans to prevent the planting of GM canola introduced in 2004 by most state governments.
The bans are due to be lifted this year in NSW and Victoria, though the South Australian government, despite expectations and the recommendations of its own committee, have decided to keep them in place.
As part of its continuing campaign against GM, and noting that 2008 is a critical year because many of the bans are due to expire, Greenpeace has sponsored a visit to Australia by Canadian canola grower Percy Schmeiser.
Mr Schmeiser is famous for taking on Monsanto and losing his 'David versus Goliath' battle through the Canadian court system but in the process becoming a martyr for the cause – the campaign against the growing of new GM crop varieties.
In June 2000 Mr Schmeiser was found guilty by the Federal Court of Canada of growing GM canola without a licence thereby infringing patent law.
According to popular mythology Mr Schmeiser was a victim of both contamination of his conventional canola crop with unwanted GM pollen and then a victim of a 'reign of terror' by Monsanto who sued him for growing the GM canola which was a consequence of the unwanted contamination.
But the court found that none of the contamination sources suggested by Mr Schmeiser could reasonably explain the extent or quality of his GM canola crop. The Judge ruled that Mr Schmeiser saved seed from a 1997 crop and knowingly reproduced the patented plants by using seed from this crop to plant his entire 1998 crop.
Mr Schmeiser lodged and lost two appeals against the decision.
During the period 2002-2004 Professor Rick Roush compiled the following facts concerning Percy Schmeiser's public comments:
1. Schmeiser was the innocent victim of Monsanto
PERCY SCHEMEISER: "I lost it all to a contamination because a judge ruled in my case it doesn't matter how Monsanto's genetically modified canola gets on my land or any farmers land. You violate the pattern and you infringe on the pattern and your seed becomes Monsanto's property." (Source: Australian ABC 7.30 Report TV Transcript, 4 July 2002, from http://abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s599662.htm)
FACTS: The Canadian court's record indicates that the judge found that Schmeiser deliberately selected for and multiplied GM seed. In 1997 (for example), Mr. Schmeiser sprayed Roundup herbicide over "a good three acres" from which approximately 60% of the plants survived and continued to grow. At harvest, Schmeiser saved surviving canola seed from these plants and then used them in planting his 1998 canola crop ( see especially paragraphs 39, 40, 102, 103, 104, 119, and 125 of the judge's decision at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html). Schmeiser could have saved seed from any part of his farm, but he took the unusual steps of spraying just part of the crop with Roundup (which should have killed three acres of crop, so Schmeiser must have suspected it would do otherwise) and then saved seed from the survivors, which any reasonable person would expect to have a high frequency of GM Roundup resistance. No one tried to establish how Schmeiser got the seed in the first place, but the judge said that was not relevant to the facts that he was intentionally growing it. A three judge Canadian court rejected Schmeiser’s appeal unanimously on all counts, but in January 2004, he took his case the Canadian Supreme Court claiming that Monsanto’s patent was invalid, nor longer trying to argue that he was an innocent victim.
2. Canada's export markets have been damaged
PERCY SCHEMEISER, CANADIAN CANOLA FARMER: "That means 30 per cent of our exports have been lost just to Europe alone." (Source: ABC 7.30 Report TV Transcript, 4 July 2002).
--Mr Schmeiser said the fact that Canada could no longer ship canola to the EU had left Canada "sitting on a mountain of GM canola that nobody wants" (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28).
FACTS: Canadian exports increased during the adoption of GM canola over the first 5 years, the time period over which Schmeiser’s claims applied. In 2000-2001, exports were 25% higher than ever before (according to the Canadian canola website, http://www.canola-council.org/seedexports.html), mainly to Japan, Mexico and China. After drought conditions in 2001-03, Canada exported a record amount of canola in 2005-06. Europe was also a net canola exporter anyway prior to at least 2001, and never purchased more than about 14% of Canada's canola throughout the period in which Canada was non-GM from the early 1980’s except for 1993-1995.
3. GM will cause financial losses to conventional growers
Schmeiser warned that conventional growers could be fined for an infestation of GM canola on their property, which could also cost them premiums from export destinations that demanded GM-free produce. (source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)
RESPONSE AND FACTS: Who would issue these fines? On the subject of premiums, neither the Victorian government review of GM free zones nor ABARE has found any significant premiums. "GrainCorp oilseeeds trader Cameron Pratt said that Australia had not been able to identify a consistent premium for GM-free canola, despite it being mandatory for the EU market and desirable for Japan." (4 July 2002 issue of "The Land", page 27). Japan takes our canola and mixes it with GM Canadian canola.
Peter Toole, Parkes was cited in the The Land as noting that prices for non-GM Australian canola are in fact slightly below the Winnipeg quoted Canadian price - the world price yardstick. He was supported by Ian Donges, recently retired National Farmers Federation president and a local grain grower, who said that the EU was largely self-sufficient in canola and only "occasionally" had to import. " I don't know of any other markets that pay a premium for GM-free canola", he said, "Japan certainly doesn't" (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28, from a meeting at Cowra, NSW)
4. 1800 other (Canadian?) farmers are also being sued.
Schmeiser: (When asked about the host about whether he was the only farmer sued): "We estimated that there is (sic) at least 1800 lawsuits". (Source: Australian ABC TV's Landline on 14 July 2002)
FACTS: Landline noted on air in the same program that they could find no support for this claim. I then wrote to 5 Canadian weed and agricultural scientists from across Canada, and they replied that they didn't know of any. I then wrote to Monsanto in August 2002, who said there were 2 in Canada and 14 in the US, and that was all worldwide. In December 2003, Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney/Policy Analyst at the anti-GM International Center for Technology Assessment, claimed that there are 88 cases, and the anti-GM Center for Food Safety claimed in 2005 that there were 90 lawsuits. Where are the other at least 1700 cases that Percy claimed? On February 21 2004 in Davis California, I personally heard Schmeiser claim that it was 550 lawsuits.
5. Schmeiser denied that GM canola crops improved profits.
(source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)
FACTS: In 2002 I wrote: "In summary, the total economic impact of transgenic canola production systems has been estimated to be up to $464.0 million over the period 1997 to 2000, inclusive of direct and indirect impacts." "Transgenic canola yields higher than conventional varieties. Survey results showed that transgenic canola yielded approximately three bushels per acre (>10%) more than conventional canola in 2000. ... The yield advantage for transgenic systems resulted from the varieties and a slight increased use of fertilizer, but less summer fallow. Dockage was significantly lower in the transgenic system, largely attributed to more effective weed control..... Transgenic canola growers reported having made fewer tillage passes over their fields than growers of conventional varieties. The majority of the transgenic sample in both the survey and the case studies indicated they practice minimum or zero till on their operations." (Source in 2002: http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo_toc.html; this website no longer seems functional). A December 2006 report from European Commission, Economic Impact
of Dominant GM Crops Worldwide: a Review (http://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur22547en.pdf pages 26-27) supports estimates that the per hectare increase in profits is at least $12.
6. GM canola had become a "superweed"
Schmeiser said that GM canola had become a "superweed" that was virtually impossible to eradicate. (source: The Stock Journal 11 July 2002, page 3, reporting on a meeting held in Clare, South Australia)
.....canola itself had developed into a "superweed" that no chemical would control and was becoming a menace to farmers and municipal authorities alike (source: The Land, 11 July 2002, p. 28)
FACTS: "Canola volunteers are not generally found to be harder to manage in Canada. For example, a study prepared for the Canola Council of Canada (Winnipeg) surveyed 650 western Canadian canola growers on numerous issues, one of which was management of volunteer canola. Half of the producers surveyed grew transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola and half grew non-GM canola. Of the producers planting transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola in 2000, 61% said that the difficulty of managing volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola was about the same as that of volunteer conventional canola. Interestingly, 16% said that managing volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola was easier than managing conventional canola varieties. The remaining 23% said that it was more difficult to manage volunteer transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola.... for example, spraying with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) controls this problem. This chemical application means an additional cost to the producer of 1.50–2.00 Canadian dollars (C$) per acre" (source: Stuart Smyth, George G. Khachatourians & Peter W.B. Phillips, Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nature Bio/Technology (June) 2002 Volume 20 (Number 6) pp 537 - 541)
7. Monsanto covertly dropped herbicide bombs to test a crop it suspected illegally contained its genetically-modified canola
"Percy Schmeiser made the claim in Perth yesterday during a Greenpeace-sponsored speaking tour"
(source: The West Australian, 11 July 2002, p. 33). This claim was also madeby Schmeiser at the Wagga meeting (S. Sutherland, unsolicited email, 24 July 2002).
RESPONSE: This is so crazy that it doesn't really justify a response, but just what would a Roundup bomb look like, and wouldn't be easier, cheaper (and more stealthy) just to collect some plants from the road to take them back to the lab for a test, or even just spray some with a hand sprayer? In Davis on February 21 2004, Schmeiser claimed that that the details were all at his website, that the CBC in Canada had covered the story. Schmeiser claimed that Monsanto never even denied it. I found http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/ at Schmeiser’s website, and this is what it showed:
"The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene. Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it."
Contrary to Schmeiser’s claims, Monsanto did in fact deny this story. One could find more evidence on the web for alien abductions than that Monsanto is using Roundup bombs.
8. "(Schmeiser) said yesterday that a reign of terror had followed the release of GM canola in Canada" (source: The West Australian, 11 July 2002, p. 33)
RESPONSE: No "terror" is evident in any reports I have seen or replies from Canadian weed scientists. To the contrary, "Social concerns expressed by case study participants centered around the lack of knowledge about transgenic production by those outside industry.... In summary, the transgenic canola systems had a positive economic and agronomic impact when compared to the conventional canola systems in western Canada for the four year period, 1997 to 2000." Concerns yes, but not "terror" (http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo_toc.html)
9. "Schmeiser: I have been breeding canola for 50 years and Monsanto took it all away from me. Claims made in Davis in Feb 2004 and at (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/profile.htm).
RESPONSE: Setting aside the issue of Schmeiser’s own responsibility for whatever legal action Monsanto took against him, the very first canola ever, Tower, was released by the Canadian government in 1974, so Schmeiser could not have been breeding canola for 50 years. According to the court record, Schmeiser bought new seed in 1993 for sowing on his farm, a claim with which he agreed in an email to me on 8 March 2004 (“The next point you state that I purchased seed in 1993 which is correct.”), so he has not always relied on his own breeding for 50 years.
Further, canola is a largely self-pollinating plant and professional breeding efforts for it require specialized pollination practices. Professional breeders in Canada have challenged Schmeiser’s claims on this. I have asked Schmeiser what breeding practices he used, but he did not answer this in his email to me of 8 March 2004. I also asked Schmeiser “In addition, a common practice among savers and breeders of traditional varieties is to share and swap seed with neighbors. Did you ever provide access to your seed to any other farmer?” Schmeiser did not answer this question either.
Posted by jennifer at 02:40 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Australian Agriculture Slipping in Adoption of New Crop Varieties
Over 114 million hectares of land was planted to GM crops in 23 countries in 2007. Poland and Chile were new additions with Chile producing GM for seed export and Poland grew Bt maize for the first time. The USA, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China top the list in order of hectares planted according to a new report from the ISAA by Clive Hamilton.
For the third consecutive year India reported the largest year-on-year proportional increase of GM crop plantings, with an increase of 63 percent. The area of Bt cotton grown in India increased from 50,000 hectares in 2002, to 6.2 million hectares in 2007 and is grown by 3.8 million farmers.
Australian farmers grew just 0.1 million hectares of cotton in 2007 and the 2008 Australian cotton crop is set to be the smallest in 30 years with just 65,000 hectares of cotton planted late last year because of the drought.
Cotton is the only GM crop that can be grown commercially in Australia. There are bans on the growing of all GM crops in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and the South Australian government has just decided to continue its bans beyond April this year. The moratoriums in NSW and Victoria should be lifted this year.
The NSW government has exempted GM cotton from its bans on GM crops which were introduced in 2004 to prevent the planting of new varieties of canola.
Canadian farmers grew 7 million hectares of GM canola, maize and soybean in 2007.
from the 'Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007', by Clive James
Posted by jennifer at 01:23 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
South Australian Government Ignores Recommendation to Lift Ban on GM Crops
On February 8, 2008, South Australian Premier Mike Rann and the Minister for Agriculture Rory McEwen announced a continuation of the ban on genetically modified plants. They can not be grown in South Australia.
In a media release Mr Rann said Cabinet has decided to maintain the current moratorium from growing GM canola in South Australia beyond the end of April this year when the current regulations lapse.
“We made this decision – which we believe is the right one – because we are yet to be convinced allowing GM crops will have a positive impact on the marketing of our food and wine to our important export destinations around the world.”
The State Government will today release the findings of the GM Crops Advisory Committee, which was formed last year to review the current legislation, the Genetically Modified Crops Management Act 2004.
“The committee received more than 230 submissions and 480 letters both for and against growing GM crops from a wide range of industry, farmers, farming groups, companies, individuals and national organisations.
“The Committee recommended the lifting of the current moratorium in SA, except on Kangaroo Island, after April 28 this year when the current regulations lapse.
“However we have also considered a number of significant market signals that have occurred since then that has led us to believe that maintaining the status quo is more responsible.
“For example:
* Foodland issued a statement saying it would be ensuring all of its home brand products were GM-free,
* Japanese meat importers reaffirmed they wanted a guarantee that none of the meat products they purchased had come from cattle that had eaten GM grains, and
* ABARE indicated that in some of this season’s markets there were significant premiums for GM-free canola.
“It makes sense for us to maintain our current position until there’s more certainty regarding the impact of exporting GM grains.”
Agriculture Minister Rory McEwen says South Australia produces the second highest volume of grain crops in Australia with the greatest volume being grown in Western Australia.
“Significantly, Western Australia has decided, with I am told the overwhelming support of its farming community, to stay GM-free. So has Tasmania.
“At this stage, we believe the benefits of maintaining the current moratorium far outweigh any benefits of overturning it.
“I’m particularly concerned about the future impact on our marketing of SA food products.
“I’m well aware there’s a divergence of opinion within the states with New South Wales and Victoria recently deciding to allow GM canola to be grown this year, while Western Australia and Tasmania continue to maintain bans.
“But we must be mindful that there’s simply no turning back once the moratorium has been lifted. Maintaining the moratorium now will enable us to monitor developments elsewhere.”
Minister McEwen says that in South Australia there is no immediate need to give the go-ahead for what would have been only a small number of growers wanting to grow crops from the two GM canola seeds developed by companies, Monsanto and Bayer.
“We will be watching to see how NSW and Victoria address the key issues of segregation and regulation in their States, as well as monitoring the benefits of keeping a moratorium in WA and Tasmania,” Mr McEwen said.
“The GM Crops Advisory committee’s report revealed a wide range of views and while lifting the current moratorium was supported by a majority of farmers who made submissions, the Government has decided it makes more sense to maintain the status quo for the time being.”
Mr McEwen said there would now be a six-week public consultation period where interested parties would have the opportunity for further comment on the changes to the regulations in the Act that will continue the current moratorium in SA.
Posted by jennifer at 12:21 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 12, 2008
Farmers Looking Forward to a Golden Revolution: Media Release from The Producers Forum
Reports in Australian Cotton Outlook that India is on the cusp of a “White Gold Revolution” have prompted renewed calls from for all Australian farmers to be given the right to participate in the biotech revolution.
India has progressed from an importer of cotton to become the world’s second largest exporter, and in just four years production has risen from 17.9 million bales to 31 million bales in 2007-08 with the help of GM cotton.
NSW Convener of the Australian bioadvocacy group Producers Forum Maree McKay is pleased with the easing of NSW and Victorian moratoria, saying Australian growers will now be able to choose to use the technology.
“Canadian GM canola growers have been benefiting at our expense for over a decade. At last we now have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field,” Mrs McKay said.
“Maybe in a few years time the headlines will be: Australian Farmers Experience Yellow Gold Revolution.”
However South Australian Convener, Heather Baldock, is looking forward to the South Australian government announcing the decision of its moratorium review and enabling South Australian growers to take advantage of the economic gains.
“It is farcical that in an attempt to coerce the state government into keeping the GM moratorium, the anti-GM groups are still publicly stating that GM cotton has been a disaster for Indian farmers. If that’s a disaster, I’ll have it any day,” Ms Baldock.
“In fact the reports from India support the Australian experience where cotton growers have reduced pesticide usage by 85 percent, and increased production of food and fibre with less water, less acreage, and a lower greenhouse footprint.”
A recent report in the New Scientist magazine stated that a new generation of GM crops could reduce greenhouse emissions by more than grounding all the aircraft in the world.
National Convener Jeff Bidstrup, himself a GM cotton grower, said the debate from the opponents of GM canola is at odds with the reality. “We have all been eating GM foods for over a decade with nothing but positive benefits for human health,” Mr Bidstrup said.
Posted by jennifer at 04:55 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
November 27, 2007
Bans Lifted on GM Food Crops
Jen,
NSW and Victoria have just lifted the ban on genetically modified (GM) crops!
It wont take them long to see the benifits either... won't take long before South Australia and Western Australia freak out because the yeilds back in the eastern states blow them away!
It's about time Aussies embraced farming of the future.
Regards,
Mick
Information on the review of the moratorium on GM canola in Victoria can be found at the Victorian Department of Primary Industries website including the Review Panel report.
The Indepedent Review GM Crop Moratorium Final Report can be found at the NSW Department of Primary Industries website.
Posted by jennifer at 04:25 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
October 30, 2007
The Japanese and the Democrats want Australia GM Free
A delegation of Japanese anti-GM activists recently visited Australia demanding our farmers not grow genetically modified canola and then the Australian Democrats declared "keeping Australia GMO free" a federal election issue.
Today the Australian Oilseeds Federation has responded with a media release:
"The Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) urges recognition of the Australian grains industry’s capacity to deliver choice across the supply chain spectrum with the commercialisation of approved GM canola.
The capacity to deliver choice is built on the comprehensive and world-class protocols and processes that already operate in the Australian grains industry to enable grains and grain products to meet regulatory and customer specifications, and provide confidence to consumers.
Commenting on some recent claims from lobbyists that the Japanese market didn’t want GM canola, President of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, Robert Green, said the opposite is true.
“Japan has purchased GM canola from Canada for many years. Indeed, more than 80% of Japan’s canola imports are from Canada, and this is generally mixed with canola from Australia and from other countries,” he said.
“However, the AOF and the grains industry supply chain do recognise that within some markets there may be customers who prefer non-GM products.”
Mr Green said this is precisely what the Australian grains industry supply chain has considered, addressed and endorsed.
“If customers wish to purchase non-GM grain they can do so with confidence, knowing that the supply chain can be managed to meet their needs.
In August, the industry released a report signed-off by 29 key industry organisations.
Mr Green said this report demonstrates the industry’s capacity to manage canola in the supply chain and move ahead with the commercialisation of the approved GM canola varieties, whilst still ensuring the supply of non-GM canola.
“In endorsing this report, the AOF supports the lifting of the market-based moratoria so that farmers who want access to the approved GM varieties can choose to benefit from the technology, just as their competitors in Canada have been choosing to do for the past decade.”
Mr Green notes that the moratoria are concerned with market and trade considerations, the crux of which is the ability to deliver choice.
“Australia has a global reputation for delivering quality grain and oilseed products that meet customer specifications and requirements, and as such, has the capacity and flexibility within its supply chain to deliver choice and meet market requirements,” he said.
The ‘Delivering market choice with GM canola’ report is available via: www.afaa.com.au or www.australianoilseeds.com
Posted by jennifer at 10:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 23, 2007
Monsanto Files Suit Against GM Activists
The French unit of US Biotech giant Monsanto has filed a lawsuit following the latest destruction of some of its test fields for genetically-modified maize. In a statement issued on Friday, Monsanto said that unidentified activists had ransacked three test fields in Valdivienne in central France after dark on Thursday.
Read more here: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44924/story.htm
Posted by jennifer at 10:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
September 16, 2007
Australia Not GM Free: A Note from David Tribe
Surely the bans on genetically modified (GM) food crops in most Australian states will be lifted soon?
But the mainstream media keep printing these letter from people like Gill Rosier perpetuating misinformation - in particular the myth that Australia is GM free. David Tribe busted a few myths in his letter to The Age on September 13, 2007, reprinted here with permission:
Horse has already bolted on GM foods
GILL Rosier (Letters, 11/9) points out the decision to lift or extend Victoria's moratorium on genetically manipulated crops rests with Premier John Brumby. Rosier also offers the judgement that Mr Brumby is likely to drop the ban, given his vision for Victoria to be a world leader in biotechnology. But Rosier also raises the issue of whether in making such a decision, Mr Brumby will throw away Victoria's "GM-free status".
The answer to this is simple. There is no way our "GM-free status" will be affected because in Victoria we already import large quantities of GM foods and stock feeds — maize, soy and canola — particularly in times of drought. For many years now we have been feeding them to farm animals in stock feed. So, without even mentioning GM vaccines, GM carnations or Australian GM cottonseed, the truthful answer to Rosier's rhetorical question is this: in Victoria's case, the "GM-free status" tag is just tricky double-speak for our present active use of GM feeds and foods in farming systems. The equally misleading question of whether there is any real price advantage from this dubious distinction can be left for another day.
David Tribe
Senior Lecturer, Institute of Land and Food, University of Melbourne
Posted by jennifer at 02:14 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack
September 03, 2007
Mossman Sugar Trials
It has been my observation that the little-known prehensile-tailed rat (Pogonomys mollipilosus) loves the sweet gel around the seeds of cocoa beans and I have wondered how cocoa can be protected from their adverse economic enthusiasms.
The notion may well come to a head, with Mossman Agricultural Services helping to develop a cocoa industry with a $199,000 Sugar Industry Innovation Fund grant. In partnership with Cocoa Australia and Mossman Central Mill, the project seeks to diversify the income stream for the mill, by manufacturing sugar-based products needed for cocoa and chocolate production. Part of the grant will be used to help establish a cocoa processing factory.
Plummeting world sugar prices have encouraged the development of value-adding in Mossman Mill, through organic chocolate production and also the world's first batch of low glycemic-index (GI) sugar, which could help people with diabetes.
Damage Mitigation Permits are processed by Queensland's Environmental Protection Agency, after non-lethal strategies have shown to be unsuccessful, but the little-known prehensile-tailed rat has not been previously identified as a pest and neither has it been listed for its vulnerabilities.
Posted by neil at 08:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 02, 2007
Gene Technology in Australia - Fact not Fiction
Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited (AFAA) has recently released an updated version of its very popular booklet, Gene Technology in Australia - Fact not Fiction.
The new edition of the booklet contains a wide range of information from basic detail on the science of gene technology, to the laws and guidelines surrounding research, and opinions on the technology from government, science and farming industries.
Also included in the booklet is information on:
1. Gene technology around the world;
2. Impacts and uses of the technology;
3. Gene technology in Australia;
4. The research process of gene technology; and
5. Labelling of genetically modified foods
In addition to the new booklet, AFAA has completely updated and redesigned its fact sheets. Copies of the booklet and fact sheets can be downloaded or requested from AFAA's website: www.afaa.com.au.
Posted by jennifer at 04:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 25, 2007
Food Safety Western Australia Style: A Note from Ian Edwards
Australia has one of the most rigorous and transparent gene technology regulation Acts in the world, and is achieving its objective in protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. This was one of the key findings of the Independent Panel Review of the Gene Technology Act 2000, published in 2006. To those involved in the life sciences industry the act is considered almost draconian in its level of rigor, but most accept the fact that if we are to build public confidence in agricultural biotechnology it is both necessary and should be respected. However, this is clearly not the viewpoint of certain NGO’s ideologically opposed to biotech crops, and certainly not the viewpoint of Kim Chance, Western Australia’s Minister for Agriculture.
Under Australia’s Act the areas of human health and safety are a Federal mandate, while the states do have certain marketing rights. However Minister Chance, not content with imposing a state moratorium in April 2004 on the growing of all biotech or GM crops in Western Australia, took it upon himself to openly criticize Food Standards Australia – New Zealand (FSANZ) for not adequately safeguarding human health. In late 2005 he made public his intent to commission an independent feeding trial on genetically modified (GM) crops so that supposedly unbiased data would be obtained. He openly expressed a concern shared by Greenpeace that, because the companies submit data to the Gene Technology Regulator it is somehow automatically subject to bias. Lost in all this was the fact that Australia subscribes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX), which mandates world’s best practice in food standards, and FSANZ not only uses the information supplied by companies and independent laboratories commissioned to do the specialized animal feeding trials, but also takes account of peer reviewed university studies and the findings of other regulatory systems such as the US, Canada, and the European Union.
The group he selected to conduct the feeding studies was the Institute for Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, comprising three individuals (led by Dr Judy Carman), none of whom have scientific records in conducting or analyzing long term feeding studies. Dr Carman toured around with UK activist Dr Mae Wan Ho to speak against GM crops and food safety. Ho has a relentlessly anti-science agenda against GM crops (and modern Darwinian theory), while Carman has constantly attacked FSANZ for alleged food regulatory inadequacies, and had two articles (“Health Concerns” and “Threats to our Health”) published in Greenpeace’s True Food Guide 2003. To most rational individuals this would have raised a flag about Dr Carman’s competency to conduct independent trials, but not to Minister Chance.
In December 2005 Professors Stephen Powles (University of Western Australia) Graeme Robertson (Muresk Institute – Curtin University) and Mike Jones (Director – State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre – Murdoch University) pointed out to Chance that the IHER is in fact only a website and post office box, without employees, laboratories and infrastructure that one would reasonably expect to be associated with an organization purporting to undertake research/analytical work on health and environmental matters. They called into question the degree to which Judy Carman’s research could be construed as being independent. They also drew attention to the national framework for gene technology regulation. This advice was ignored.
This was followed up by thirteen international scientists writing to then Premier Geoff Gallop expressing concern over the approach of Minister Chance in who he selected to do the research, and also the manner in which the research was funded. The study was not submitted to the normal tender process and Chance has since claimed that this was not necessary because it was approved by Cabinet. In response to a question in the WA State Parliament (May 2006: Hansard 179) by Anthony Fels to the Minister regarding his attack on the regulatory system and the letter from distinguished scientists, Chance responded by saying (under Parliamentary privilege) that he had looked into these people an found that they were all in the pay of multinational companies. Perhaps two paragraphs from the response to this allegation that was provided by one of the signatories, Professor Bruce Chassy of the University of Illinois might be appropriate:
“I do not consult for ag biotech companies, I have never had a grant or contract from ag biotech companies, I have never worked for them, with them, or collaborated with them. I do not own and have never owned stock in a biotech company”.
“…………It might be wise to point out that it isn’t just a handful of scientists which Chance asserts are in the pockets of the biotech companies. It is the overwhelming preponderance of the scientific community, including some of its leading members. It is also the UN, OECD, FAO, WHO, The US Academy of Sciences (along with the academies of many other nations), The Royal Society London, a great many medical societies, and a host of the leading scientific societies around the world who have unanimously concluded that GMO’s are as safe or safer than conventionally bred crops and pose no threat to consumers or the environment”.
Minister Chance went ahead with the study by the IHER, with funding of $92,000. When questioned by the press on GM matters Chance has often stated that he has an expert “Ministerial GMO Reference Group” whose function it is to advise the government. As a member of this group I can state that the animal feeding study by Judy Carman was never referred to the reference group, but the Agriculture Department has since been directed to fund the project in Adelaide, South Australia. In a letter to an industry representative in February 2007 it was stated that the draft protocol was sent to 15 scientific experts in eight countries for comment before it was given to the Steering Committee to consider. The 10 person Steering Committee is reputedly made up of experts in a range of disciplines. However, the Minister has refused to disclose the protocol, the 15 international reviewers or the names of the Steering Committee to his own Ministerial Reference Group. He invited Judy Carman to address the group on May 25th, 2007 and, apart from her usual litany of complaints against FSANZ, she also refused to answer these questions. The Minister supported her position, totally ignoring the fact that public funds are involved. The study will apparently be published in peer-reviewed journals and “the protocol will be revealed at this time”.
So what answers on food safety does the Chance expect from a $92,000 study? During our June 20th Ministerial Reference Group Meeting he conceded that the funding was very small and is unlikely provide the answers being sought, but may raise questions for future studies. He also stated that “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”. This is the new way of examining Food Safety Western Australia style!
Health concerns are a Federal Mandate, we have an inter-governmental agreement that is possibly being violated, and by both his statements and his actions the Minister is undermining public confidence in the national regulatory system. He has sided with a very narrow constituency, he has chosen to ignore the preponderance of scientific opinion and regulatory determinations worldwide that have guided GM crops through 11 years of commercial practice, and he has funded a secret study by a known anti-GM activist under the preposterous claim that it is “independent”.
As a footnote, a Freedom of Information claim was filed under Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1992 by John Cudmore of Perth-based Crabtree Consulting Company. In his decision of June 20th, 2007 the Minister claimed that the Information Commissioner believes that the information should not be disclosed, and that “the information does not appear to be from a bona fide public interest inquiry, but rather it is being sought to pursue a narrow private interest. There remains a right of appeal to this ruling.
Who are the real losers in all this? It is the farmers of Western Australia who are being denied a choice of technology to use on their farms while the Minister seeks excuses to continue the moratorium on GM crops. The leading farm organizations in Western Australia have all asked that the moratorium be dropped, and Victoria is reviewing their state moratorium at this time. Again, the question must be asked: “Who is Minister Chance serving?”
Ian B. Edwards, PhD; D.Sc; FCSSA
Chairman – AgBio Advisory Group – AusBiotech
Posted by jennifer at 05:18 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
June 20, 2007
Minister and Cabinet Fund Secret GM Feeding Study: A Note from Ian Edwards
Hello Jennifer,
We had a very lively GMO [genetically modified organism] Reference Group Meeting [in Perth, Western Australia,] this morning and I had the opportunity to lay a few concerns on the line with the Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, particularly with respect to the Animal Feeding Study by Judy Carman and colleagues in Adelaide. Among the key points to emerge from the exchange were the following:-
1. The Minister refused to disclose the protocol for the feeding study; the list of scientists (local and international) who allegedly approved the protocol; and the members of the review committee who will address milestones.
He was reminded that this is his own Ministerial Reference Group; Western Australian taxpayers money is involved; the study never went out to tender; and is not a state mandate anyway given that WA is a signatory to the Inter-governmental Agreement on Gene Technology Regulation wherein Human Health and the Environment are a Federal jurisdiction.
2. He was also informed that his action could easily be construed as undermining public confidence in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and FSANZ, when the independent review of the Gene Technology Act of 2000 has already published its findings (2006) showing that Australia already has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world.
3. He was also reminded that going back to December 2005 Professors Graeme Robertson (Muresk/Curtin Univ.); Stephen Powles (UWA); and Mike Jones (Murdoch/SABC) had written to him informing him that Judy Carman could not be seen as independent and she and her group have no track record in conducting animal feeding studies.
He was also reminded of international concerns for the study (expressed in writing, and responded to in Parliament); and two letters from AusBiotech (Anna Lavelle / Ian Edwards) expressing concerns, and also (in the case of Ian Edwards’ letter) calling for the studies to be halted.
4. The Minister made it clear that only when the results of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals will he release the protocols. He contended that Bayer and Monsanto do not release details of the protocols for studies that they are currently undertaking so why should he? He said that if there is indeed a flaw in the studies then this will also be revealed upon completion! He also explained that since the commissioning of the studies was by approval of Cabinet he was not obliged to go to the tender process. He assured the Group that the studies were taking place in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide.
5. When asked whether he really believes that the study will answer the outstanding questions that he thinks the “public” still has in their minds he acknowledged that the study is unlikely to provide these answers and it may in fact raise more questions for future work. He also acknowledged that the amount of funding was very small, but “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”.
6. He further maintained that ‘consumers’ are confused about the anomalies that have occurred in feeding studies; that our health regulators have a duty of care; and that they have not explained differences in feeding studies to consumers. He further claimed that “only 2 or 3 out of 137 feeding studies presented any details of the protocol involved” and posed the question “Why is there so much unanswered un-answered public information?”
7. He was challenged on this, and attention drawn to the “Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plans” prepared by the OGTR in 2003/04 in response to the Bayer and Monsanto canola submissions that received regulatory approval. These documents were then attacked by the NGO members (Network of Concerned Farmers and Organics). A summary of the key findings of the Bayer Risk Assessment was then given to the Group and I explained that Judy Carman’s claims of there being “little or no feeding studies and no allergenicity studies” did not square with the facts.
Julie Newman will be seeing Judy Carman tomorrow and will notify her that these “preposterous allegations had been made against her”. Julie also informed the meeting that Judy Carman “has a room full of files on Monsanto at her home”.
Best regards,
Ian Edwards
-------------
I have previously blogged on this issue here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html
Posted by jennifer at 07:50 PM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
Mothers rally against "GM" milk
"Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain," according to a story in Farmonline.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk."
But they are already drinking it.
At least Victorian dairy farmers have been feeding their cows various amounts of GM soy -- a product that has been imported into Australia from the US -- for years.
This was a finding in an independent report by Professor Peter Lloyd commissioned by the Victorian government some years ago.
According to the spokeswoman for the mothers, Glenda Lindsay, “There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products.”
But there is no difference in milk from cows feed GM soy and non-GM soy.
I was wondering how some Australian mothers -- presumably educated women -- could be so ignorant. Then I remembered comment from a colleague some months ago, made in the context of all the global warming hysteria, he said, "Most people are too busy to think, so they 'buy' opinion."
There is a campaign to maintain the current moratorium banning the planting of GM food crops in Victoria. The ban was introduced some years ago, following Greenpeace campaigning, and is set to expire in February 2008.
Ms Lindsay also said, “It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don’t want GM foods."
-------------
Comments from Glenda Lindsay are from a story in this week's Stock & Land. Also available through FarmOnline http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Posted by jennifer at 09:32 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
May 20, 2007
Talking GM with Pollies in Melbourne
"THREE years ago Labor backbencher Luke Donnellan voted for a four-year ban on genetically modified crops in Victoria. Last week Mr Donnellan invited his Labor colleagues to attend a pro-GM meeting at Parliament House sponsored by the Institute of Public Affairs ...
ALP insiders say that senior ministers, especially Treasurer John Brumby and Premier Steve Bracks, regard the ban as running counter to the aim of making Victoria an international hub for biotechnology.
Read the complete article from The Age newspaper here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/now-for-the-hard-sell-on-modified-foods/2007/05/19/1179497342307.html
I will be speaking along with Rick Roush, the dean of land and food resources at Melbourne University, and Chris Kelly, a Mallee grain grower.
I will probably reiterate what I said in my The Land column of a couple of weeks ago, the text is here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/articles127.html
Posted by jennifer at 06:23 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
March 30, 2007
Should Rats Eat Corn?
"In the past 2 weeks there has been considerable press about a forthcoming article in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. This article 'New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity' by Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier and Joël Spiroux de Vendomois, purports to show that a genetically-modified corn causes damaged to the livers and kidneys of rats and hence is likely to be dangerous to humans...
Read the full blog post entitled 'Lies, damn lies and statistics' over at GMO Pundit: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html
And there is more information in an earlier blog post entitled 'WA Ag Minister Kim Chance wrong on GM food safety concerns' also at GMO Pundit including comment that:
"Quite aside from the statistical procedure used it was found that the adverse toxicology results that they reported occurred only when 11% GM maize was fed – they did not occur when 33% maize was fed. This lack of a dose response alone should have alerted them to the fact that their procedure might be wrong, but it did not stop them publishing without explaining the anomalies! Their publication also contained four totally incorrect statements that have since been addressed by several groups. What is quite extraordinary is that these anomalies were not picked up by the reviewers of their paper."
So much for peer review and eating corn.
Posted by jennifer at 10:01 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
March 12, 2007
Romanian Farmers Get Premium for GM Canola?
The campaign to lift the current ban on GM food crops, in place in most Australian states, appears to be gathering momentum with various pro-GM articles in the rural press over recent weeks.
One reason for the ban was a claim that Australian farmers woud get a premium for GM-free product, in particular GM-free canola.
I was interested to read University of Melbourne's Dean of Land and Food Resources, Professor Rick Roush, quoted in the Border Mail (Aussie Farmers Need GM Crop Advantage, 24 February 2007) disputing the claim that Australian farmers get a premium for GM-free canola and stating:
"Ironically, there are some places where GM-crops are getting premiums, for example, in Romania farmers are being paid extra because their canola is weed-free."
The article also included the following information under the heading 'Fast Facts':
"Since 1996, the global use of pesticides In GM crops was reduced by 224 million kilograms. In 2005 the C02 savings from reduced fuel use in GM crops was close to one billion kilograms. The increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil due to reduction in tillage was more than eight billion kilograms. This combined reduction of C02 emissions in 2005 equates to removing almost four million cars from the road. Farmers earn higher incomes in every country where GM crops are grown.
Source: Global Impact of Biotech Crops which can be found at www.agbioforum.org"
And Professor Roush was reported saying he didn't believe the bans would be lifted any time soon.
Posted by jennifer at 11:02 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack
March 07, 2007
Conservative Australian Senator Calls for Rethink on GM Crops
A couple of years ago I spoke at a breakfast in Queanbeyan, near Canberra, on GM food crops. I explained the benefits of the technology from an environmental perspective.
At the time, bans on the commercial production of GM food crops had just been introduced in most Australian states following campaigning by Greenpeace against GM canola.
Yes, it's now illegal to grow GM crops in most parts of Australia, with GM cotton exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre - not food.
Senator Bill Heffernan was in the audience when I spoke at that breakfast and he continually interjected, in particular, he claimed that GM technology was unproven and that GM canola would become a weed.
So, I was a little surprised to see the headline in today's The Age newspaper: 'Heffernan calls for a rethink on GM crops'.
It seems the Senator, himself, has had a rethink as part of his push for agricultural development in northern Australia and is now enthusiastic about GM food crops.
In the article, The Senator suggests some southern farmers would be prepared to move north and that our attitude to GM needs to change if "the water-drenched Top End" is to be developed as the nation's "food bowl".
But, agricultural development in the north doesn't need southern farmers or the Senator and his federal government committees.
It needs less, not more, government interference and in particular:
1. A lifting of the bans on GM food crops in Western Australia,
2. A lifting of the ban on cotton growing in the Northern Territory (yes, it is illegal to grow any sort of cotton in the Northern Territory), and
3. Queensland legislation, in particular the Wild Rivers Act and Vegetation Management Act, needs to be changed so there is potential for some land development and some water infrastructure development in north Queensland.
There is always more information on breaking GM news at David Tribe's blog at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/.
Posted by jennifer at 04:13 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack
February 24, 2007
GM Chickens for Therapeutic Drugs: A Note from Paul Williams
Hi Jennifer,
There has been quite a lot of discussion about Genetically Modified (GM) organisms related to vegetable products, but I wonder if readers are aware that GM, or transgenic animals are also a subject of study.
Here is a link to an article that describes the production of transgenic hens which can produce eggs containing therapeutic protein based drugs:
"We describe the generation of transgenic chickens that synthesize functional recombinant therapeutic protein specifically in the oviduct of laying hens as a component of egg white."
Translation: How we bred GM chickens that produce eggs containing therapeutic drugs.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1783527
I wonder if people who oppose GM crops also oppose this type of research?
Regards,
Paul Williams
Mt Baker, South Australia
Posted by jennifer at 06:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 17, 2007
Europeans Don't Regulate 'Filth' in Food, Just GM - A Note and Paper by Andrew Apel
The European Union does not regulate food ingredients which, in the US, would be considered "filth." This seems at first to be an impossible conclusion, as it claims proof of a negative. Yet, that is the conclusion, and it's not because these regulations have not yet been found. Rather, it's because the European Union has specifically exempted such ingredients from regulation.
Even after reading the European legislation which exempts "extraneous matter, such as, for example, insect fragments, animal hair, etc." from regulation, it remains difficult to believe. It becomes more understandable, though hardly more palatable, when placed in the context of the trade issues involved. In short, Europe has lowered its food standards in order to lower trade barriers between member nations. Scarcely anything could make this more explicit than the Commission's declaration that trade disturbances based on the Precautionary Principle are problems which Europe must enact laws to prevent. Even so, there is something more explicit: the food regulation designed to address the 'problem of precaution' declares these contaminants are "not food," and therefore, not subject to restrictions on food.
Much of the rhetoric which surrounds the use of engineered crops for food production makes use of the notion of 'contamination,' a theme avidly promoted by activists. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the European Union passed legislation which declared ingredients from engineered crops to be 'contaminants' on a par with insect fragments and animal hair. The result: they would either not be contaminants, and present a mere "quality" issue, or they would be 'not food,' and not subject to food law.
An obvious paradox arises when trade in safe food would flourish in Europe if it were legally defined as 'contaminated.' Likewise, another paradox when trade in food actually 'contaminated' is expressly exempted by food safety legislation. There is yet a third paradox--when the first two paradoxes coexist within the same legal system.
All this can easily be explained in a European system which gives priority to free trade among its member states over food safety and the precautionary principle, and inverts these interests to defend trade interests against outsiders...
Read 'The Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe' by Andrew Apel here: http://www.cropgen.org/european_food.pdf
Posted by jennifer at 08:20 PM | Comments (42) | TrackBack
January 16, 2007
A Report on 10 Years of Genetically Modified Agriculture in Argentina
Dear All,
Please find below a link to a report entitled '10 years of GM Crops in Argentina' by Eduardo J. Trigo and Eugenio J. Cap, published by the Argentine Council for Information and Development of Biotechnology, released this week regarding the Argentine experience with GM soybean, maize and cotton.
The website is not in English but scroll down and you will find the report and media release in English.
The authors evaluated the economic and social impacts of the ten years of adoption of GM crops in Argentine agriculture, and concluded that this process of incorporation of new technologies has had a deep impact on the transformation of the Argentine agriculture, and beyond this, in the country's economy as a whole.
The link is http://www.argenbio.com/h/nuevo_estudio/10anos.php
Happy reading,
Larissa
Posted by jennifer at 09:11 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBack
December 05, 2006
GM Canola Arrives in Australia by Ship
It is a pity that GM canola has arrived in Australia, not as a crop for farmers to grow, but as a shipment of seed grown in Canada ready for crushing in Australia.
Indeed yesterday a shipment of genetic engineered canola came into the Port of Newcastle.
Robert Green, from Cargill was interview by ABC radio Newcastle* and he said:
It is a matter of supply and demand. If we had not imported the grain there would have been companies shutting down and more oils being imported into the company. We consulted widely with the various government offices to make sure we were not breaching anything. Australian exports do not get preferential treatment for the GM free status. If you look at yields in export markets and trades our exports are falling behind. The canola will be used for oil and a protein meal. The customers who use the products will be within the food standard guidelines and labelling will be where it needs to be.
Greenpeace responded with comment that:
Australian crops could be at risk with now the first ever imported shipment of genetically engineered canola arrived in Newcastle.
I am not sure what Australia could be at risk from except more misinformation from Greenpeace. The bottomline is that Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola for about 10 years and much of the world eating the oil from this canalo for about as long.
The reality is that Greenpeace ran a campaign beginning in about 2001 to block the planting of GM canola varieties in Australia on the false premise that food from genetically modified (GM) crops is inherently dangerous. The NSW, Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian governments gave in to the Greenpeace campaigning and there is now a moratorium preventing the planting of GM food crops in those states. Cotton is exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre, nevermind that locally grown cotton seed is crushed and turned into vegetable oil for Australian consumption.
As I recently explained in a piece for ABC Counterpoint, Australian agriculture is becoming increasingly uncompetitive as farmers give in to luddites: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1782111.htm
-----------
* ABC Newcastle (Newcastle)
Mornings, 05/12/2006 09:49AM Compere: Garth Russell
Posted by jennifer at 07:40 PM | Comments (32)
November 28, 2006
Farming in Nigeria: A Note from Russell
In the following note from Russell, which was originally posted as a comment on a thread about how biotechnology benefits American farmers, he tells us something about farming in Nigeria and how white farmers from Zimbabwe are being invited to settle in Nigeria:
"Several comments refer to the link between agricultural subsidies and the impoverishment of African farmers.Here in Nigeria (which has 20 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s population) the two biggest causes of most farmers impoverishment in my opinion are a lack of access to capital, and a reluctance to embrace new technologies. These are two sides of the same coin as farmers have to be risk averse if they have no capital to risk on new approaches.
The cost of a bad yield here is starvation.
Much of the area farmed lies in the Guinea savannah and Sahel zones and rainfall varies in onset, duration and yield from year to year. Each year many farming communities go through a very lean period at the end of the dry season when last years stored crops run out. Off farm income is critical during this period.
Examination of farming practices demonstrates a risk minimisation strategy based upon a long history of subsistence farming within an unpredictable environment. A nice summary is given in Kathleen Bakers book "Indigenous Land Management in West Africa".
Here in Nigeria the Banks are typically not interested in farmers as a market for loans as they perceive them (rightly) as high risk, and so it is virtually impossible for a farmer to get credit from a bank, and would farmers want credit, with interest rates ranging from 23-28 percednt?
A recent program instigated by the Kwara Sate governor which has invited Zimbabwean farmers to take up land in Kwara State has seen a small cohort of technologically saavy, capital rich white farmers take up the option of farming here.
Even these guys have not been able to get credit locally, but the most interesting aspect of their arrival has been the comments from local farmers over the high cropping densities and the monoculture plantings.
Local farmers consider the approach to be crazy, and from their capital poor perspective it is. However, it is also clear that many of the local farming practices are so deeply inculculated in the local culture that many potential forms of innovation are frowned upon. This may actually be a worthwhile risk minimisation strategy because if a farmer fails it is the other members of the family/clan/village who will have to help.
While there are wealthy landowners here who have the means to farm intensively on a much larger scale, the opportunity from cessation of EU and other subsidies might not have an immediate, or large impact on the greater mass of subsistence farmers without access to the capital required for them to enter the cotton market for example.
In fact the immediate effect of a rise in the price of cotton in this country where the wealthy have the power and influence and the poor have access to land which is not adequately protected by the land tenure system might be to push many subsistence farmers off the land and to lower the amount of land used for local food production.
Of course the economists would say this will create new opportunities, but a look at where the wealthy and powerful Nigerians invest their mostly stolen wealth (oil) reveals it goes overseas.Against this background, which I suggest is a common feature of subsistence farmers everywhere in the savannah zones of the developing world, I am not sure I can agree with the sentiment that it is EU and US subsidies which keep the African farmer impoverished. Similarly, while I consider that GM foods can (and should) have a useful role in an African context, I am not sure that global acceptance of GM foods would also necessarily lead to a better world for African farmers."
Posted by jennifer at 07:35 AM | Comments (62)
November 27, 2006
GM Crops Benefit US Farmers: New Report by Sujatha Sankula
A new report entitled 'Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-
Derived Crops Planted in 2005' by the US National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy begins with the key findings that:
"American growers continued to choose biotechnology-derived crops in 2005, the tenth year of their commercial planting, because they realized significant benefits from planting these crops. This report evaluated the reasons behind the adoption of biotechnology-derived crops on 123 million acres in the United States in their tenth year of commercial planting (2005) and analyzed the producer and crop production impacts that resulted from this widespread adoption.
American growers planted eight biotechnology-derived crops (alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean, squash, and sweet corn) in 2005. Planted acreage was mainly concentrated in 13 different applications (herbicide-resistant alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, and soybean; virus-resistant squash and papaya; three applications of insect-resistant corn, two applications of insect-resistant cotton, and insect-resistant sweet corn). Though
the number of planted traits remained the same at three in 2005, similar to 2004, expanded acreage of 4 percent has led to overall increase in crop yield and farm income and further reduction in pesticide use."
To read the executive summary (12 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechExecSummary.pdf
To read the full report (110 pages) click here: http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechimpacts-finalversion.pdf
Posted by jennifer at 05:04 PM | Comments (49) | TrackBack
November 14, 2006
Golden Rice is Cost Effective: A Note from David Tribe
Hi Jennifer,
Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) afflicts many people around the world, especially in developing countries. Some of the adverse health outcomes of VAD include increased mortality, night blindness, corneal scars, blindness and measles among children, as well as night blindness among pregnant and lactating women. In a bid to reduce VAD-related diseases, rice plants were engineered to produce higher levels of beta-carotene in the endosperms or grains, and the result of this effort is Golden Rice 2. In an article in Nature Biotechnology, Alexander Stein and colleagues from the University of Hohenheim, Germany and Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research, India, presented a new methodology for assessing the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice 2 in India.
Read the complete blog post at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/assessing-benefits-of-golden-rice-2.html
Cheers, David Tribe
Posted by jennifer at 08:19 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
October 15, 2006
Importing A Banned Product & Denying Drought Tolerance
There is much concern in Australia about the current drought. The forecast for this year’s wheat crop has been cut by 8.5 million tons to just 11million. This is less than half last year’s production of 24 million tons.
The forecast for the canola crop is also down and there is talk about local crushers importing oil seed from Canada.
The imported canola would presumably be crushed to make vegetable oil and margarine.
If the imports go ahead, we will be importing seed from GM varieties of canola because that is what farmers grow in Canada. Farmers are banned from growing these GM varieties in Australia.
Indeed the current bans on genetically modified (GM) food crops in place in Australia, were forced by Greenpeace in particular to block the commercial planting of GM varieties of canola.
How hypocritical will that be, importing a product that Australian farmers are banned from growing.
And with all the focus on the drought, and predicted low wheat crop, it is interesting that there has been no public comment about the research effort in South Australia to develop GM drought tolerant wheat varieties; despite the bans.
Rather than rational discussion, a rural newspaper has published a letter denying the potential benefits of biotechnology for breeding drought tolerance. David Tribe explains, and explains the science:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/hyperbole-and-misinformation-versus.html
David also has an interesting blog post on how much natural ‘genetic modification’ occurs within plant species:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/natural-gmos-part-26-nature-inserts.html
Posted by jennifer at 10:46 PM | Comments (63) | TrackBack
October 02, 2006
Pharming in Denmark: A Note from Roger Kalla
Jennifer,
During my trawls of the www I came across the following blog which purports to describe a future where Denmark has transformed its agriculture and land use in through large scale adaptation of molecular pharming .
The blog is at
http://pruned.blogspot.com/2006/09/pharmland.html
and if you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see
"For more on this wondrously pragmatic utopia, view the presentation
slideshow" and the slideshow link,
http://www.nord-web.dk/pharmland_2.htm
Takes you to a new website where you can view a "documentary" movie
online presented by a fictitious Minister of Health and Agriculture at
http://www.nord-web.dk/pharmland_movie.htm
This future scenario is not that outlandish since Denmark has got a large biotech industry (Novo Nordisk is the major producer of recombinant insulin) and the Danish Government has recently adopted coexistence laws which will allow for growing GM and non-GM side by side.
Interesting view of a possible future for Denmark and possibly Tasmania which is growing pharmaceutical crops already (poppies) and are exempting poppies from its GM Crops ban.
Roger
Roger Kalla, PhD
Director Korn Technologies
www.korntechnologies.com
Posted by jennifer at 10:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
September 28, 2006
GM Cotton More Water Efficient: A Note from David Tribe
Preliminary results from CSIRO research in Narrabri have shown that genetically modified insect-resistant cotton may also be more water efficient.*
Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry's Mr Dirk Richards and Mr Stephen Yeates, show that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard® II cotton used ten per cent less water than an equivalent conventional variety and had higher yields.
Bollgard® II makes up most of the Australian cotton crop and has reduced pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.
Research is now optimising agronomic management of Bollgard® II as it tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect damage does not delay early crop growth.
Bollgard® II and conventional cotton extract soil water at a similar rate, but Bollgard® II has a more compact growing season so uses less water overall for the same or higher yields.
To read more click here: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/gm-technology-improves-water-use.html
------------------------
* This text was provided by David Tribe.
Posted by jennifer at 08:48 AM | Comments (27)
September 10, 2006
Can't Keep the Lid on Chinese GM Rice
Dear Jennifer,
Did you see this recent article from Nature entitled 'Escaped Chinese GM Rice Reaches Europe' ?
The Chinese do their trialing on a grand scale. According to an industry source one million acres of insect resisitant GM rice was planted last year in China. Anywhere else this would have been described as a general commercial release of the GM rice.
If you tested Chinese rice noodles in an Asian grocery store in Australia you would find that products derived from insect resistant GM rice is a reality here too.
But more importantly, and as is pointed out in the article, the risks to the consumer of GM Chinese rice noodles are minimal. Any allergenic reaction to the rice would have been drastically reduced in the processing of the food as the food allergy expert states.
The real question is: Can GM rice coexist with non-GM rice and is there the political will to keep them separate in China?
Exports of Chinese rice noodles is not a big issue for the Chinese government.
There has been a consensus growing among scientists that when China decides to openly (or covertly) give GM rice the all clear it will have an immediate impact on the 'GM free' status of rice products sold everywhere on this planet.
It will undoubtedly trigger a new round of food scares and anti-GM campaigns.
But they will all be futile. Ultimately we will have to face the reality of living with a technology, which in the case of insect resistant GM rice, has clear public and environmental benefits.
Regards,
Roger Kalla.
Posted by jennifer at 07:23 AM | Comments (49) | TrackBack
September 07, 2006
GM Canola to Power New Biofuels Plant?
Yesterday I received a copy of a Nufarm media release* announcing that the company had paid Monsanto $10 million for their Roundup Ready® canola germ plasm and a licence to the Roundup Ready® canola trait.
The media release explained that "Roundup Ready® is a genetic trait that allows farmers to use Roundup herbicide over the top of their crops, offering broad spectrum and efficient weed control and simplifying production of those crops". Further, "the Roundup Ready® canola trait was approved by the Australian Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) in December 2003, but has not yet been