The main reasons that the states have ditched the moratorium on GM Canola is for 2 reasons:

1 The farmers wanted it, as the yields for GM canola so far exceeded the yields of normal canola that in spite of the premium on non GM canola, the crops were far more profitable.

2 There has been nothing to indicate, that there is any possible harm to humans in using GM canola oil.

Considering the number of new high yield GM products coming on the market, the requirement that there is zero contamination is unrealistic. In reality, if one tested milk at low enough levels, you would find microscopic quantities of arsenic, lead, even plutonium. This is because everywhere has minuscule trace quantities, and zero tolerance would ban every food stuff.

The organic farmer does not have the right to dictate what his neighbour does or does not grow. If knowing his neighbour is legally growing GM crops, the decision of which crops to grow is his, as are the risks.

Bob, there is no doubt that you raise important and justifiable arguments concerning GM crops, but I know there will be a lot of independent, public-funded scientists who will disagree with you about the nature of the science that apparently fails to “strictly conform to scientific principles” as they will likely also disagree with you about specific aspects of the safety assessments and research papers you mentioned.

As for the comments about the failure of GM crops to deliver on their false promises, I don’t know of any scientist working in plant breeding that suggests GM foods will deliver plentiful food and fibre in the sense you seem to imply that they are key to feeding the world. All scientists I speak to see the transgenics(GM) as one of many tools at their disposal to solve problems in plant breeding. Transgenics is often the inappropriate tool and when you consider the thousands of plant species we eat, we are conducting research into genetically modifying only a relative few – though I grant you, those few are commodity crops that are staples for a majority of people.

But how can you justify that the technology has failed because it hasn’t led to development of promised drought, salt, tolerant crops, or crops with greater nitrogen-use efficiency? They haven’t eventuated because they are still in the research phase. Even to develop a crop with a novel trait via conventional breeding can take 10-20 years. Such GM versions as mentioned have only been in the pipeline for 5-12 years. Some may not make it to the commercial stage, the same as many conventionally-bred attempts. But some will.

On 10 August, in Melbourne, TechNyou is holding a public forum on the acceptability of GM crops in the context of food security in the coming decades - what role should they play, under what circumstances, if any, etc? Such crops might include nitrogen-use efficient cereals, iron-fortified rice, salt/drought-tolerant, or virus-resistant crops. You may wish to attend and contribute your two-Bob’s worth. Contact TechNyou, or register at www.genetechmenu.com

Jason Major
Manager, TechNyou
www.technyou.edu.au

Bob Phelps seems to have conveniently ignored the introduction of genetic manipulation into cotton. Perhaps this because this species is a fibre, and not principally a food plant (except for the cotton seed oil)

Over the last fifteen or so years we have seen the successful introduction world wide, of GM cottons, first varieties with the Bt gene, to successfully combat the scourge of the rough boll worm (commonly called Heliothis), and later varieties with the ‘Roundup ready’ gene, to simplify weed control in cotton fields.

As a result insecticide usage in cotton has decreased by an estimated 80% with resulting vast improvements in the environmental record of the industry. This, combined with the weed control systems now being used, have seen an exponential increase in both the yields and water use efficiency of cotton in Australia.

In my opinion this has been a ‘win-win’ result for agriculture and the environment, as well as the financial well being of the cotton industry.

I beg to differ with the sweeping comment ‘In a 30 year long tease GM has failed to deliver on its promises. Don't expect it to deliver now.’

Steve Marsh lost certification for his property because his certifying agency chose to revoke the certification based on the presence of GM canola seed on the land. Marsh grew cereals, but no canola. There was no risk of any GM material occurring in his final product, no risk to markets, and Marsh had not deliberately planted the GM material. Yet his certifier chose to decertify his property.

The whole exercise is baffling. A certifying agency removing certification for an event that presented no risk to the crops and over which the farmer had no control. Perhaps Marsh should be suing his certifier rather than his neighbour.

What is equally baffling is that Marsh seems to have taken no active steps to protect his business from the actions of his certifier. He could after all have removed the canola branches from his crop.

The rest of Phelps’ piece is the usual stuff we are used to hearing from Phelps. Phelps was making the same predictions of the demise of GM crops 15 years ago. Clearly he has learnt little in the intervening years.

@Agronomist,

Thanks for putting the article into perspective.

Shadow Minister, and all the other diligent Monsanto employees who jumped on here.....STOP LYING! gm canola has shown no higher yields. Whats your game? Tell a lie often enough and it gets some veracity? Gm crops overall have less yield, use more (15 times more) Round up, have created superweeds ( 130 weed species resistant to glyphosate and another 3 added to the list daily in the US), have a range of documented health damaging effects in animals, especially in generational studies.There is a 400% increase in birth defects in RR soy growing areas in South America. Sits unsold in WA silos, yes. So what sort of Agronomist are you Agronomist? Hardly up with the facts on gm . Glad you're not advising me. Cotton farmers are disillusioned with GM cotton, the target pest the boll weavil has become resistant to BT as of course it would with 24 x 7 exposure. Bob Phelps is entirely accurate with every prediction he has made and the facts he states here. I cant be bothered to argue any more with paid liars on forums other than to say shame on all 5 of you. Shame Shame Shame.