Has anyone heard a pollie mention anything about GM here in Australia?
As Europe and Africa are making up their minds we need to challenge our pollies to do the same.Most people don't want it after they read this: http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/TakeAction/index.cfm

Seeds of Deception? The author's relevant qualifications are what?

Oh, I know he can levitate: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/kim-chances-yogic-flying-farce-in-wa.html

Even a picture of him in action: http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/jeffrey-smith%20article

If I want to know about yogic flying and how it can reduce crime, increase IQ and increase social harmony, I will ask Smith. If I want to know about GM foods, I think I will ask someone who has some expertise of the topic.

As for the European position, they grew 110,000 hectares of GM crops last year http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/191.eu_growing_area.html more than Australia did. Looks like Europe has made up its mind and Australia is being left behind.

The world is slowly starting to adopt GM crops as extensive testing over the last decade has failed to indicate any danger in the technology.

The latest debate is whether to certify GM cannola for production in Australia. The indications are that it has a yield premium of upto 35% over present strains.

A very conservative estimate is that the GM moritorium is costing WA farmers $185m p.a.

If anyone can show me evidence (not speculative reports) why the farmers and taxpayers should continue to be penalised I would be interested.

Another furphy ciculating about GM canola is that its more costly and less profitable than conventional canola , and that Canadian growers only grow it because of subsidies. Besides the fact that even if was subsidised, why would farmers waste their money year after year on the most costly alternative even if the did get a subsidy? Canadian farmers arn't that stupid. They chose year after year to grow more and more of the GM varieties because they are more profitable.

In any case, canola growers in Canada get no subsidies. This is documented in a recent OECD report on international trade in agricultural commodities.

Thus the existence subsidies for Canadian canola is plain misinformation, on top of the faulty economic argument that they'd waste subsidies on the less profitable crop.

Again, all sites you present here are backed up by monsanto and the likes, who have only their sales as interest. All sites only talk and blabber on about what mighty growth and markets it can provide for countries,farmers and seed suppliers. NO MENTION at all about the consumers' and their offspring's WISHES for a secured health in the future! Governments are chosen by people like you and me, so I would suggest to keep your singleGMmindedness to yourself because you don't represent the majority of consumers. On the other hand where is the proof that it doesn't hurt the eco system and microbial life beneath the soil and DNA in all living critters above the earth? Why do you think a moratorium is in place? Because the science hasn't been proven and people don't trust scientists. Just look at the cancer research.(all research for that matter) they have been milking the public purse for decades WITHOUT RESULTS to show for.Need I say more? Challenge me on that one.

Looks like your Australian politicians have decided to lift the ban on GM canola. http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/NSW-Victoria-to-lift-ban-on-GM-canola/2007/11/27/1196036862567.html Bad news for Canada as there will now be some serious competition.

Oh, by-the-way eftfnc, I don't see anywhere where David Tribe is supported by Monsanto. Perhaps you can publish the evidence or make a retraction?

eftfnc,

With the removal of the moritorium it would appear that you don't represent the majority of the consumers either.

GM cannola has been grown along side other cannola for more than a decade with no indications of negative side effects on the environment.

If you wish to inflict financial hardship on Australia's farming families you should have a strong technical reason for doing so, and there appears not to be one.

The anti GM movement is based on hypothetical scenarios, none of which have any empirical foundation, and a very effective scare campaign.

eftfnc, there is nothing wrong with being cautious about the introduction of new technologies and science. But fact is now GM crops have been grown (including in Oz) for sometime, with no records of harm. The gene's involved are from resistant types of plants - its not like we are trying to completely pervert the natural order, just speed up evolution. There are plenty of weeds that have become resistant even to glyphosate by the process of natural selection (farmers not rotating spray types), so doing the same to crops simply speeds up a process that would have been able to occur naturally over a much longer time period.

I am making a bit of a leap here, but it would also seem that the transplanted gene's might have to come from plants that of a reasonably similar genetic make-up. Take RR cotton for example. Monsanto could make a killing if it were able to come up with an ester-ready cotton variety (less general resistance to ester in other plants). But perhaps its just too far from the base nature of the cotton plant to be do-able (cotton will turn up its heels at the faintest whiff of ester, so most spray contractors refuse to put it out in cotton-growing areas, despite its effectiveness on broad-leaf weeds).

Err, does anyone smell globalisation? Climate change?

Roundup Ready crops encourage excessive use of broad-spectrum herbicides that not only destroy biodiversity in plants around the crops but also reduce soil biodiversity. We should be moving towards Integrated Pest Management and organics, not remote-control monocultures.

I dont want herbicides or pesticides on my food, do you? Cause thats what your asking for.

Herbicides are fossil-fuel intensive products (as are artificial fertilizers). What energy source do you think Monsanto, Bayer, Wesfarmers and the like are using to produce their fertilizers and herbicides? Wind power? no, dirty coal.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

GM crops seek to maximise returns at whatever cost to the environment. They may produce more in the short term but at what long-term cost? Have we learnt anything about our planet and its sacred biodiversity yet?

Hi Mule, You are aware of course that there are 6.6 million people in the world that all need feeding. If we don't seek to maximize production from agricultural land, we will need more land to feed these people. Hence the environment will be damaged to a greater extent.

GM actually helps IPM. Have a look at cotton production in China or canola production in Canada.

There is really only one way to achieve effective weed control in organic systems, it is called intensive tillage. What is going to power that in the future? Horses?

What we should be trying to achieve is a marriage of all useful technologies to maximize food production on as little land as possible, so the rest of the earth can be used for other things, such as ecosystem conservation. Equally, we should be aiming to minimize tillage, because it leads to erosion, increased greenhouse gases and increased energy use.

The mule,

Actually, GM crops allow the use of less pesticide per hectare of crop.

The point of growing a single crop in one area is not biodiversity for that area.

Bio diversity as a whole is not affected as long as only cultivated areas are sprayed.

Hi agronomist

" If we don't seek to maximize production from agricultural land, we will need more land to feed these people. Hence the environment will be damaged to a greater extent. "

Do you know about permaculture? You can actually get a huge amount of food and other products out of a small piece of land if you seek to mimic complex ecosystems, not reduce to a single species. if the goal is truly alleviating world hunger, why are the billions spent on GM not also being spent empowering poor countries to manage their land better?

" GM actually helps IPM. - cotton production in China or canola production in Canada. " I admit i dont know the specifics of a lot of GM. I think GM is morally wrong but I can't condemn all aspects. Roundup Ready crops on the other hand are corporations profiting from the environment to the highest order.

"There is really only one way to achieve effective weed control in organic systems, it is called intensive tillage. What is going to power that in the future? Horses?" im anti-climate change but didnt say we should stop automation right now.

Tillage can lead to erosion without proper farm design and green manures but the use of herbicides and pesticides and massive monocultures destroys life both in and on top of the soil and also causes erosion, pest plagues, water pollution and contamination, dust storms, .

Hi democritus

"Actually, GM crops allow the use of less pesticide per hectare of crop. "- I dont know about pesticides but roundup ready crops encourage more herbicide use.

"The point of growing a single crop in one area is not biodiversity for that area." "Bio diversity as a whole is not affected as long as only cultivated areas are sprayed." - On a micro level it may not seem bad but think about the devastation we have inflicted upon australia's landscape to grow our monocultures. Often cultivated areas stretch as far as the eye can see... how much biodiversity are you willing to compromise?

thanks for comments

Hi Mule, yes I know about permaculture. I can walk down the road and see one (a long walk I have to admit). Permaculture cannot deliver the same yield every year as more intensive agricultural systems. This means if the world shifted to permaculture, the whole world would have to be put under permaculture to produce enough food. The local permaculture has a wide array of plants and animals, but excepting a few trees and migratory birds, the species are all imported. We would be replacing natural ecosystems with complex introduced ecosystems.

Frankly, the rationale for GM crops (as indeed for any other agricultural advance) is not feeding the world. Feeding the world is a useful byproduct. Farmers everywhere adopt practices that make farmers more money, that make farming easier and that protect the farming resource.

So you think GM is morally wrong without knowing any specifics? To me this is an odd way of proceeding. Do you commonly make moral decisions without knowing the specifics? Economic studies of GM crops world wide have demonstrated that the biggest winners have been farmers, followed by consumers and the technology developers come in third.

In fact, Roundup Ready crops in Canada, US, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Romania and elsewhere have benefited the environment by facilitating the adoption of no-till agriculture. No-till reduces soil erosion, improves soil health, increases soil carbon and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. No bad environmental benefits if you ask me. Tillage is the second largest cause of soil degradation after over grazing.

As to Roundup Ready encouraging more pesticide use, what it does is encourage a change in pesticide use. This might be for example, away from atrazine to Roundup. Whether there is more or less depends on the relative use rates of the various pesticides. In Australian canola production at the moment up to 2 kg of triazine herbicides is typically used, along with up to 1 kg of trifluralin plus some clethodim. This might all be replaced by up to 1 kg of glyphosate. Glyphosate has a much better environmental profile than the herbicides it replaces.

Hi agronomist, firstly, thanks for comments. Good debate :)
" Permaculture cannot deliver the same yield every year as more intensive agricultural systems. " - is that just opinion or scientifically evaluated? By its nature, permaculture is far more intensive than monocultures due to a range of species habits and forms which allows more biomass per square metre.

" We would be replacing natural ecosystems with complex introduced ecosystems. " - !! What is happening right now all over the developing world with monocultures? Exactly that (except not complex at all).

"Frankly, the rationale for GM crops (as indeed for any other agricultural advance) is not feeding the world. " - thats not what you said before, or what is being rammed by the lobby groups.

" So you think GM is morally wrong without knowing any specifics? " I do know some specifics , enough to know i dont want some scientists polutting the world's gene pool out of the failures of monoculture farming.

" No-till reduces soil erosion, improves soil health, increases soil carbon and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. " yes, over-tillage does cause the above. But roundup does not improve soil health, it makes it worse. Soil microrganisms rely on sugars exuded from plants' roots. Roundup directly affects soil microbiology too

http://environmentalcommons.org/glyphosate.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/ecology_of_western_forests/publications/publications/2001_sdarticle.pdf

That was a very quick google.

Instead of Roundup killing everthing green except the mutant crop, how about education on soil erosion and crop rotation, soil microbiology, organic matter and water management?

You may be correct about less use of nastier chemicals, and this would be a good thing... except for the thought of all that glyphosate on my food!

Hi Mule, permaculture may produce more biomass, but we don’t eat biomass. Even the advocates of permaculture agree that its production is much lower than more intensive agriculture. They maintain that the ecological benefits and low inputs are worth the reduced yields.

I don’t think I said that GM was about feeding the world. It is a piece of the puzzle yes, because it can allow more food to be produced from less land, but other technology needs to be used as well.

Do you also have a moral objection to the introduction of plant species from other places in the world’s polluting the plant gene pool? Should you Australians give up all European, Asian and American crop species and just stick to Australian natives? What about moving natives from one locality to another?

Did you read that second link you gave? Let me quote:

“…toxicity was not expressed when glyphosate was added directly to soil, however. Microbial respiration was unchanged at expected field concentrations (5-50 microg/g), regardless of soil, and was stimulated by concentrations up to 100-fold.”

And:

“Long-term, repeated applications of glyphosate had minimal effect on seasonal microbial characteristics despite substantial changes in vegetation and growth.”

Doesn’t support your claim of glyphosate affecting soil microbiology. Your first link misquoted a paper. What the paper actually said was there were no differences in microbial composition in the first few weeks after application and a difference was only apparent at longer time periods. If glyphosate was having a direct effect on soil microbiology you would expect that to happen before 6 weeks had passed.

Too late to halt now with labor in the states giving the go ahead for crops.

Greening yelling and thus supporting labor.

No change now so you have dealt your cards so thats what you get.

Since most people have no care of standing up for themselves but parties, what you get is dictatorship so enjoy.

Hi agronomist

From your first response to my post " Hi Mule, You are aware of course that there are 6.6 million people in the world that all need feeding. If we don't seek to maximize production from agricultural land, we will need more land to feed these people. "

Yes i did look at the second link , did you?

(page 4)
3. Results
... Addition of glyphosate to culture media resulted in a reduction in culturable bacteria and fungi. Fungi were particularly sensitive. (Table 2)
Pls read on from there.

Which permaculture advocates claim large-scale monocultures are more productive per hectare? It might be easy to make food with tractors, harvesters, trucks, pest/herbicides and artificial ferts but it i dont think more efficient per hectare given similar inputs. I think the comparison is irrelevant though. The difference is that you cant really harvest permaculture with machines. It's intention is self-sustainability without constant automation, therefore permaculture only really works with intensive manual labour which could be provided by people living on or near site. I just dont think using the 'feed the world' excuse for GM is reasonable - why not provide them with social stability, farming education and good seed stock?

The Mule, it might be worth noting that not everyone aspires to intensive manual labour. If we look at the millions of people moving from rural areas to urban centres in China for a "better" life I can only surmise they haven't been particularly happy with their lot.

Recently agriculture lost its position as worlds largest employer of people, now overtaken by the service industry.
Essentially even if permaculture was the answer, there wouldn't be enough willing participants listening to the question.

The mule is advocating the return to subsistence faruming.

The single thing that enabled civilisation and the release of the majority of humanity from being shackled to the land was the intensifying of agriculture.

200 years ago most people were involved in producing food. Lives were short and miserable. Science, art and democracy were the domain of the privileged few.

Freeing man from serfdom allowed more to concentrate on education, science etc which has lead to the rapid acceleration of science, medicine and other forms of learning.

Permaculture is an indulgence by the rich who know that they won't starve if their crop fails.

Hi rojo

Do you realise developed countries (particularly the largest CO2 polluters, Aust. and US) are in the midst of an obesity epidemic? So, how to solve that... let me think... maybe how about growing your own food? Or ride a bike? Going to the gym is ok, but has no functional purpose outside of fitness.

Those Asian folk moving to the city might be more inclined not to if their lives were a little more culturally and socially enriched. Being a farmer can be very unrewarding and lonely i would imagine, particularly when food is so undervalued in our society. People in cities certainly dont appreciate how much effort (let alone fossil fuel and environmental degradation) it took to get food on their table. Maybe instead of accepting the urbanisation of our planet (only possible through fossil fuel use) we should look to changing social values around food production.

hi democritus
good to see you know exactly what im thinking - i havent mentioned anything about subsistence. I am not advocating turning back time at all. Convenience and luxury are great - i enjoy them every day, they just have their drawbacks. We need to become more balanced, less reliant on coal and oil to provide everyday basics that we could provide ourselves with a little applied effort. Let me clarify the way i see permaculture - in some ways its like practicing a martial art, it has many health benefits for the body, mind and soul, its makes you less reliant on other people, more confident and maybe one day it might get you out of a spot of bother. What are your plans for when the oil runs out?

hi mule, how about eat less, particularly processed foods. Maybe walk to work, school, shops or like you say cycle. Of course those growing their own food are capable of obesity too.
My point is fewer and fewer people wish to spend their time hoeing or hand harvesting, to have fresh produce for only a few months of the year. While a back yard vegie patch is great, it's a different thing to get people to work as the manual labour required for permaculture. It's hard enough to get them to sit in an air-conditioned tractor cab as it is.

I don't know about other farmers, but I find farming very rewarding, though maybe not in a financial sense during this drought. There is something about the profession that seems real, using the sun, soil, water and air to produce something tangible. Knowing that your product is of great importance to society, even if society doesn't. Making a living without ripping people off -though having to fend off those with fewer scruples along the way.

It doesn't have to be lonely, you just have to travel further to catch up with others, and have some spare beds when you have people round.

I suspect fossil fuels have eroded the living conditions of the farming community. Once upon a time, not that long ago, farmers would have been the primary energy source for mankind, that mantle has been transfered to those fortunate enough to control fossil fuel reserves. They've tapped into millions of years worth of energy basically for the cost of extraction. No thoughts of long term sustainability, just go for it.
Perhaps we'll see a major rebalance as oil depletes. Maybe then it will be more profitable to employ people than run tractors and headers.

Hi rojo

Nice thoughts... although im not a farmer, i have worked with plants most of my life and i enjoy those aspects of realness too. Im glad you enjoy your work, even when apparently underappreciated. You are right that society will have to have a rethink about food and other essentials when oil is more scarce. For me permaculture is a way of life to practice now so that in the future we are better equipped to sustain ourselves if we have to. I am certainly not weaned off fossil fuels now and probably wont be for the rest of my life but it is my goal to reduce that reliance over time (particularly when i get some dirt of my own).

Well now, I've noticed some great points from both sides, but where is the argument about FOOD quality! That comes directly from the farmers' "looking after the soils", that means when you take so much out, you've got to put so much back and more! That is the bases of permaculture and to get the highest brix reading of you produce.
If one wants to talk about food, what is meant is what quantity of nutrients exist in a given food.If the quality of the food is what people are meant to eat, for survival or being healthy, is at it's peak then there would be no need to look at chemical reliance as in the past. People with a long history of farming (generations long) will tell you when the switch from natural farming to chem,fertilizers came to be the soils became depleted and this is worldwide I might add.So my argument about non/GM stands, until the present day farmer knows about his soils and what grows and lives below the surface, because that is what only counts for creating real food.