Biotechnology

The politics of biotechnology (e.g. GM food crops) in Africa is as thorny as the savannah acacias according to Roger Kalla who has contributed the following:

Kenyan officials have put off approving the field testing of a genetically modified virus resistant cassava.

Cassava is a staple crop for 600 million people in Africa and Latin America.

A hardy plant, cassava withstands droughts, while providing protein, minerals (iron and calcium) and vitamins (A and C). Cassava originated in tropical America and is now grown in some of the poorest parts of Africa and Asia.

Cassava is a staple food for 70 percent of the population of some poor sub-saharan countries, so deterioration of this crop has had a serious impact on food security in the region.

Famine has already been reported. The major constraint reported seems to be severe cassava mosaic disease. Yield loss of cassava due to virus is valued at $US 2 billion each year in Africa. Currently, various stains of the viruses have sprung up causing a severe form of the disease (Uganda, Western Kenya, Western Tanzania, D R. Congo).

Reduced cassava harvests have dramatically increased the market price of leaves and roots, so that many people can no longer afford what was their main calorie source. This has been further exacerbated by problems with inter-regional food movement because of civil unrest.

Genetically modified (GM) virus resistant cassava plants were being evaluated for yield improvement in Kenya, Nigeria and Malawi. But misgivings in these countries about the political and economical fallout in the European Union (EU) markets has stalled their evaluation.

One of the multi-national organizations that is coordinating global resistance against GM crops is Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is an organization that is usually seen as the caring and protective living embodiment of mother earth but on the issue of the use of biotechnology for increased food safety it is a black thorn in
the side of the African nations and their poverty.

The latest outrageous comment from Doreen Stabinsky, the Greenpeace part time geneticist and part time science advisor on GM crops, reveals Greenpeace’s preoccupation with delivering the message people want to hear.

When asked for a comment on the ethics of denying starving people more food produced with the aid of biotechnology, she reportedly responded “Hunger is not solved by producing more food. We’re the breadbasket of the world, and we have hungry people in the U.S.”

Hunger may not be solved by using modern technologies to produce more food in the US, nor in the European Union, nor Australia, but home grown solutions designed to benefit African subsistence farmers should be given a fair go.

Marie Claire is a popular magazine read by many educated and socially conscious young women in Australia. My daughter Caroline has just drawn my attention to page 170 of the November 2005 issue where readers are told to ‘Say No to Genetically Modified Food’. There is a link to the Greenpeace true food site.

Interestingly the paragraph in the magazine begins “Genetically engineered (GE) foods might mean your vegetables last a bit longer, but there is growing concern about the long-term environmental and health effects of this technology.”

But hang on, there are no GM/GE vegetables for sale in Australia!

Perhaps the most available GM derived product in Australia is vegetable oil from GM cotton seed. Australian cotton farmers that grew GM varieties last season, used on average 88 percent less pesticide than farmers who grew conventional varities.

Exactly how and why is GM bad for the environment? I can only see benefits in the technology?

Those who oppose GM technology, including on the basis that corporate farms are bad, may like this site … http://www.themeatrix.com/ .

The video is compelling and check out the expression on the pig’s face when he decides to join the crusade.

Dear all,

The latest biennial Biotechnology Australia consumer survey results have been released this morning. This is the fourth such survey undertaken in Australia.

I have attached a summary of the results which compares them with the results of 2003. There are no obvious developments, with most people seeing all applications as risky. Three interesting and contradictory points to note:
– 51 per cent agreed that “Australian farms and foods need to be free of GMOs to remain internationally competitive”
– 56 per cent agreed “Australian farmers need access to gene technology to stay internationally competitive”
– 55 per cent agreed “We have to accept some degree of risk from gene technology if it enhances Australia’s economic competitiveness”

The full reports for 1999, 2003 and 2005 are available from www.biotechnology.gov.au/reports.

Kind regards,
Larissa Mullot
Public Affairs
Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited

The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE)has just issued a media release:

Australia’s GM-free stance on planting transgenic canola could result in significant losses for Australian farmers, according to the September issue of Australian Commodities released today by Dr Brian Fisher, Executive Director of ABARE.

Although Australia’s gene technology regulator has approved transgenic canola for commercial planting, state and territory legislators have established moratoriums prohibiting the growing of transgenic canola. Moratoriums on commercialising transgenic canola currently exist in all states and territories except Queensland and
the Northern Territory.

“ABARE modeling has found that failure to commercialise transgenic crops now and in the near future could, by 2015, cost Australians $3 billion,” Dr Fisher said.

Continued growth in the adoption of transgenic crops and continued development of new varieties of transgenic crops in Asia and in north and south America will potentially result in Australian grain and oilseed producers competing with increasing volumes of transgenic grains and oilseeds in export markets. This is likely to result in
lower profitability and lower market share for conventional grain crops, which are more expensive to produce than transgenic varieties.

“The current moratoriums are having a negative impact on Australia’s research and development effort, and Australia risks being left behind as other nations embrace innovations in transgenic crop development,” warned Dr Fisher.

Australian canola producers are already competing with transgenic canola seed in their major export markets. Australian producers of other conventional grains also face a future in which they potentially are forced to compete with lower cost transgenic crops grown in Asia and in north and south America.

For media interviews and comment, contact report author Stephen Apted on 02 6272 2059.

For copies of the article Transgenic crops: welfare implications for Australia, please visit the ABARE web site www.abareconomics.com or phone 02 6272 2010. This article is contained in the September 2005 issue of Australian Commodities.

My first post on GM foods at this web-log was on 8th June and the first comment was from Stephen Dawson, he wrote:

In 1903 the first heavier-than-air machine achieved flight. A decade later aircraft were still custom-built, dangerous and had hardly any load-carrying capability. Now for five per cent of the average Australian income one can fly to London and back, being fed hot food and watching in-flight movies.

It would be a very brave, or silly, person who insists that GM techniques should be stopped because of some inchoate fear. GM will happen. It will yield unimagined new products and possibilities. If preserving land or other resources are signalled through the market to be high priorities, GM will help hugely. Not this year, maybe not in the next decade, but eventually for certain.

And, yes, GM food will happen. It may even become widespread. Other GM techniques and products will be developed. Because there is no way to stop it. Pandora’s box has been opened and its contents cannot be stuffed back inside. GM techniques will just get cheaper. And if one country, or a dozen, bans it, then it will just happen elsewhere.

While the European Union has imported tonnes of GM soy as animal feed for years, they have otherwise professed to being anti-GM and have banned the technology. Indeed a reason for not growing GM in Australia has been fear that we will be shut out of European markets.

Low and behold, French Farmers are now about to plant GM maize! Read the Reuter’s story here:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-09-06T165944Z_01_MOL661056_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-FOOD-FRANCE-GMOS-DC.XML

Published yesterday it is titled ‘French farmers head for gene maize harvest’ and begins:

French farmers are days away from starting work on a maize harvest that includes the first documented evidence of genetically modified (GMO) grain, the country’s AGPM maize growers’ association said on Tuesday.

The AGPM said 500 hectares of authorised GMO maize had been planted, more than half of which was destined for commercial outlets and would be sold to the animal feed industry in Spain.

After I wrote about the anti-GM lobby group the ‘Network of Concerned Farmers’ and their misinformation campaign in my column in The Land newspaper (11th August edition, pg. 24), I received letters and emails accusing me of not understanding basic marketing principles. I was told that Australian canola growers are better off because they have more market opportunities, including a potential price premium, because GM canola has been banned in Australia.

(Canada and Argentina, both big Canola producers, grow and export product from mostly GM canola varieties – varieties banned in all canola growing states in Australia.)

I was surprised that no-one contested, or seemed concerned by, my allegation in that column that the Network of Concerned Farmers is neither honest nor consistent in its rhetoric. All the correspondence was focused on perceived ‘market advantage’.

(And why is it that ‘left leaning greenies’ become so focused on ‘market advantage’ when it comes to GM issues?)

I note that Farm Online has a piece today explaining that canola prices appear likely to remain at their current depressed levels or lower, with a large Canadian crop impacting on the market.

It continues:

Currently, canola is trading at around $330/tonne port, but industry analysts are predicting a further drop, saying the Australian market is already trading above international levels.

Many farmers consider $350/t the lowest price at which canola is viable.

In Canada, weather conditions are said to be unlikely to have a negative impact from now on, with most canola already windrowed.

On top of this, industry sources suggested Canada will be looking to get rid of a large amount of last season’s carryover stock, leading to further discounts in prices.

This is bad news for Australian growers, who at the same stage last year were presented with a golden opportunity to lock in prices over $400/t on the back of weather uncertainty in the northern hemisphere.

With Canada set to be able to fill core canola markets, such as Japan and Mexico, canola marketers will be forced to make sure their product becomes cheaper in relation to rival commodities, such as soybeans.

Where is the market concern with GM? Where is the market advantage in not growing GM? Why do Australian state governments continue with their bans on the growing of GM food crops?

It is not only a question of choice, but the environmental advantages of growing GM canola are compelling, see for example, http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_263.html.