Australian farmers and consumers can find the information they need to make informed decisions about GM canola in a new report released today by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran.
Mr McGauran said that GM Canola – an information package, commissioned by the Australian Government,brought together a wide range of current information.
“Covering everything from regulation, supply chain management and market acceptance of GM crops to agronomic, economic and legal liability issues at farm level, this package is intended to make a well-informed contribution to the current debate about the GM crops,” Mr McGauran said.
“With reviews of the moratoriums under way in four states, Australian farmers will potentially start growing GM canola from 2008.”
Mr McGauran said today the report found that Australian farmers stood to gain significantly from the introduction of GM technology.
“The study concludes that Australia’s main competitor, Canada, has been growing GM canola for 10 years without any appreciable loss of market share or prices, while enjoying significant agronomic benefits,” Mr McGauran said.
“It also found that GM canola offers some solutions to the problems facing conventional canola in Australia and is likely to make a valuable contribution to farming systems once farmers are able to access the technology and adopt it to their individual circumstances.”
Key points in the report are:
● Canola is an important crop in Australian winter crop rotations;
● Canola has benefits for farming enterprises beyond the direct returns the crop generates. Other crops in the rotation benefit from the weed control and disease management options canola provides;
● Weed resistance to conventional canola chemicals and disease pressures are threatening canola’s contribution to farming systems in Australia.
The report was produced by the consultancy firm ACIL Tasman.
“This report adds further weight to the argument that State Governments should immediately lift their moratoriums on GM crops so that Australian farmers can have access to the benefits of this technology,” Mr McGauran said.
“Australian farmers are extremely efficient and innovative producers, but to remain internationally competitive, need to be able to compete.”
The report is available at http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology
End media release.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Gotta love this precedent.
Government telling farmers what’s good for them.
Pretty soon, government will tell people what light bulbs they can use.
Makes you wonder what would happen if we didn’t have the greenie-skanks messing things up.
The report focuses mainly on the economic benefits of GM Canola, and shows how the ‘belief’ that conventional Canola commands a premium over GM because of consumer preference for non-GM is false. Unfortunately the report touches little upon the ecological impact of GM crops, such as the evolution of ‘super weeds’ and the long term impacts of feeding animals meal from plants with different proteins – probably because no-one knows.
Throughout history, ‘wonder cures’ inevitably have a dark side that rears up. I support genetic engineering in principle, but based on past experiences I suspect this ‘wonder crop’ will one day fall on its ear. If we don’t trust scientists who think they know how our climate works, why should we trust the researchers at corporations that gloss over detail, seek to own the world’s seeds, and profit from the same?
I’m a greenie, and I object to banning particular types of light bulbs or GM crops (or nuclear power). And I believe economic growth is essential to allow us to provide the care of the environment that it needs. And I think the free market is has the potential to be one of the most effective tools we have to help solve environmental problems.
Does that mean I think most other greenies are idiots? Well…no comment…
I am interested in what other ‘wonder cures’ that inevitably have a dark side that rears up?
Lets not be too focussed on cane toads now.
Well…we have antibiotics leading to superbugs, mongoose in Hawaii to control rats but actually destroying native birds, Asian lady beetle in the U.S. to control aphids but actually mostly threatening native lady beetle species, and disrupting the wine industry etc., and back home, the lantana bug, initial introduction of cats to control rabbits etc. etc.
But offset against these are no doubt many many successful examples of biological control. And as long as GM crops are carefully monitored and
tested thoroughly, there’s no reason to be unduly concerned. What I certainly wouldn’t do is leave it to the companies developing the crops to do the final testing.
rog,
We should never have come down from the trees. There have been problems ever since. Our whole lifestyle is just too risky. The mortality rate is now 100%. That’s entirely unacceptable. Government must do something.
rog,
How about DDT, PCBs, CFCs, and the ongoing failure to find a cure for malaria?
Life expectancy has doubled in developed countries over the last century.
Surely this proves something is wrong.
Yeah, right.
Depends on whether you think we need more Methuselahs or more Mozarts.
Of course, most of that life expectancy doubling as been reduction of infant mortality, not actual life extension. Your life expectancy at age 5 today isn’t all that much greater than it was 100 years ago.
“Life expectancy has doubled in developed countries over the last century.”
Depends on if you are an Indigenous person in one of those developed countries.
Dylan,
If you count anyone younger than 30 years old as an ‘infant,’ you are right.
Data from this http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/pop4_2003.pdf gives you this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Life_expectancy_1950-2005.png
I doubt Victorian England would have had a high life expectancy.
Schiller, mortality rates in the 5-30 range have always been quite low. One big reason they’ve dropped since the first half of the century was the two world wars (and the Great Depression). But even today, your life expectancy at 5 is considerably higher than your life expectancy at 0.
None of this is to deny the wonders of modern medicine (I probably wouldn’t be alive if it weren’t for it), but its impact does tend to get overstated on occasion, especially considering that infant mortality rates were slashed largely due better sanitation and birthing practises.
Once we have a decent cure for most cancers, I expect to see a more dramatic improvement in life expectancy. The other thing that will help enormously is getting more people out of cars and onto bicycles and public transport.
Did anybody notice the GMO forum at Dookie yesterday?
http://www.dookie.unimelb.edu.au/about/gmoforum.html
Andrew Broad, Director of the Future Farmers Network says
“Genetically modified crops aren’t the ‘silver bullet’ for agriculture. Some of the dollar savings in chemicals offered through GM crops will be swallowed up in plant breeder royalties. However, the benefits are very good and if Australia is to remain competitive, the grains industry must have access to this technology”
To put this in another context, Dookie is close to the heart of a region that uses the most water for crop irrigation in this country. Unfortunately dam inflows could be down 80%.
I expect many will be concerned more by milk and dairy products prices as we go on farming this dry land.
Personally, I am in favor of Australia’s moratoria on GM crops. And similar moratoria in NZ, Europe and Africa.
These moratoria help preserve North America’s position as the global leader of agricultural commodities.
Unfortunately, South America is relenting in its opposition to GM crops, with Brazil and Argentina challenging the major exporters.
As a loyal North American, I think I will donate to Friends of the Earth so that my continent can preserve its export markets.
Then again–half of the money Friends of the Earth gets comes from European governments to prop up their anti-GM trade-protection scheme.
Maybe I should give my money to Greenpeace.
No, that won’t work–they’re against US exports, too. I’d give the money to Food First, but that would just go into the coffers of trade unions.
I could give the money to Oxfam, but they’re busy propping up famine profiteers and petty warlords in Africa. No, that won’t work. Besides, bodies on the ground sells television air time, and buys some nice seaside condos for weepy-eyed announcers, but that’s it.
I could give some money to Britain’s Soil Association, but they’re busy shutting down Kenya’s agriculture because of the “food miles” it takes to get “organic” food to Brits–because their farmers don’t want to grow enough organic food, and half of Brit “organic” farmland is ditches and swamps anyhow.
Oh well.