Clearly wheat farmers are feeling left behind with the statement including the comment:  Lack of private and public investment in wheat research has left wheat development behind the advances in competing commodity crops, and has also led to a shortage of scientific expertise in wheat research generally.

I’ve been aware for some time of important research being conducted in South Australia, at the Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG), focused on developing new drought and frost tolerant varieties of wheat and barley.

Frost tolerance has become an issue because plant breeders have been selecting for early maturing varieties in order to escape potential summer drought. But, this has now exposed crops to frost during flowering.  There is apparently variation for traits for frost and salt tolerance in the “crossable” gene pool for wheat and barley, but there are far better genes in other plants and these would need to be transferred through genetic modification. 

Of course organisations like Greenpeace oppose this research and have claimed consumers do not want GM in their “daily bread”.   In a media release last year a spokesperson for Greenpeace said that GM wheat is not grown commercially anywhere in the world nor accepted by any market which is why major GM crop producers such as the US and Canada have rejected it. 

No doubt the growers in the US, Canada and Australia hoped that by putting out a joint statement the opportunity for activists to play them off against each other would be reduced. 

Already the Canadian Wheat Board has reacted negatively to the statement with a spokesperson explaining they won’t support genetically modified wheat until key conditions are in place, including assurances that overseas markets will accept the crop.

Of course if organisations like Greenpeace stopped their scare mongering there would be near universal acceptance of the product tomorrow.    The fear of “GM bread” is a creation of modern environmentalism.

********************

Notes and Links

Canadian Wheat Board cautious about GM wheat
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54E59X20090515

Genetically Engineered Wheat Not the Solution to Drought
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/media/releases/genetic-engineering/genetically-engineered-wheat-n

Importing A Banned Product & Denying Drought Tolerance
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2006/10/importing-a-banned-product-denying-drought-tolerance/ 

Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics
http://www.acpfg.com.au/

Picture of the loaf of bread republished from http://cdn-write.demandstudios.com/upload//6000/400/90/1/66491.jpg 

Wheat Biotechnology Commercialization
Statement of Canadian, American and Australian Wheat Organizations

In the interest of expressing support for more efficient, sustainable and profitable production of wheat around the world, the undersigned organizations have approved the following joint statement concerning commercialization of biotechnology in wheat:

1. Wheat is a vital food to all peoples of the world and we believe that by developing higher yielding better quality wheat varieties we can better supply the world with wheat food products.

2. One important tool to help feed the world into the future is biotechnology. Basic agronomic
improvements to wheat like strengthening disease and insect resistance, enhancing wheat’s use of soil nutrients and water, increasing its tolerance to weather extremes like drought and frost, are all possible with biotechnology. Another critical area for biotechnology is to improve the nutritional aspects of wheat to facilitate healthier living for people all over the world. Biotechnology is not the only answer to these questions, but it will be a significant component in solutions.

3. In many of our production areas, wheat production is under pressure from competing crops which, through the application of biotechnology, have achieved higher productivity, reduced input use, and other benefits not available in wheat. As a result, the historic area of wheat production has declined in many areas and economics are driving producers away from wheat and into other crops if they have alternatives. If wheat continues on a non-biotech course, then farmers will continue to devote a greater share of their acreage to biotech crops, where profitability is relatively greater, resulting in lower world wheat production than would otherwise be the case.

4. In general, wheat yields are on a very slow growth trend in comparison with competing crops, and the longer it takes to increase the growth rate the bigger will be the hole from which the industry must climb.
5. Biotechnology is a proven technique to deploy traits of interest with a high degree of precision in agricultural crops. Crops derived through biotechnology are subjected to strict regulatory scrutiny before commercialization. Over 10 years of global experience with biotechnology has demonstrated a convincing record of safety and environmental benefits as well as quality and productivity gains.

6. Lack of private and public investment in wheat research has left wheat development behind the advances in competing commodity crops, and has also led to a shortage of scientific expertise in wheat research generally. By providing an opportunity for private companies, the level of activity in wheat research will expand and attract a new generation of scientists into the field.

In light of these resolutions, we will work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops. While none of us hold a veto over the actions of others, we believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruptions and shorten the period of adjustment. We are also committed to working with other stakeholders to address their needs and concerns as we travel the road to commercialization.

US National Association of Wheat Growers, U.S. Wheat Associates, North American Millers’
Association, Grain Growers of Canada, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Grains Council of Australia, Grain Growers Association, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia (Inc.),  May 14, 2009.

When I first took out my subscription to the magazine it was edited by a fellow called Paddy McGuinness – a Veteran Sydney journalist who apparently once worked for a Russian bank in London and for many years was editor of the Australian Financial Review.  In an interview before his death last year, Paddy said that he had been able “to ‘re-establish’ Quadrant as a ’sceptical and non-ideological’ journal in the conservative spirit of Samuel Johnson, the literary colossus of 18th century England.”

In 2004, Mr McGuiness published a piece I wrote about The Australian newspapers’ Save the Murray campaign (Quadrant Magazine, December 2004 – Volume XLVIII Number 12).  I sent it to Quadrant on the basis he was probably the only editor in Australia brave enough to defy that newspaper.  Indeed at least one Australian think tank feared that if it published my piece this important national newspaper may never again publish articles by its staff.

The new editor of Quadrant is a fellow called Keith Windschuttle.   He is also controversial and disliked by many for the disparaging comments on the recorded history of aboriginal- European relationships in his book ‘The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One: Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847’ (2002).  

Mr Windschuttle has a reputation for complaining about the sloppiness of research in his area of expertise, Australian history, and in particular his criticism of authors not carefully checking the authenticity of sources of information.   

Now Mr Windschuttle, as the new editor of Quadrant, is accused of not checking the authenticity of information published in the January- February issue of Quadrant as journalist and anti-GM activist Katherine Wilson has duped him into publishing an article on GM which is claimed to be a hoax.   The article is a hoax in so much as Ms Wilson falsely claimed to be a Dr Sharon Gould, with a PhD in biotechnology, fabricated some of her sources of information and apparently deliberately misquoted the work of CSIRO scientists.   

Ms Wilson’s aim was to expose Mr Windschuttle as gullible and those who support biotechnology as naive.    Perhaps Mr Windschuttle was gullible, but it needs to be remembered that Quadrant is not an academic journal and he was clearly publishing opinion.   Indeed if an editor was expected to make sure every footnote and claim in opinion pieces was carefully checked for accuracy and authenticity then the business of publishing would probably grind to a near-halt.   

Editors reasonably assume that writers making submissions to their publications have good intentions and that the contributor is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of citations and footnotes.   Indeed this is explicitly stated in the note to would-be contributors of some peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The late author Michael Crichton wrote, “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

Dr Crichton was referring to the barrage of misinformation on a range of scientific issues.   It is everywhere in the popular press, and when I routinely do footnote checks on the writing of Australian academics in the environmental area I am often dismayed by the mismatch between claims in journals, books and reports and evidence presented in the listed citations.   When I discussed this issue  a few years ago with a member of the much acclaimed and influential Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, the Professor suggested that I not concern myself too much with detail because the document of most concern to me at that time was, in his opinion, about policy and “progressing an agenda” despite its scientific appearance.   I left the meeting more concerned than ever about the problem of misinformation – the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda as Dr Crichton described it.

Dr Crichton’s article on this issue continued, “We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.”

I would suggest that this job is not made any easier by activist-journalists who deliberately set out to deceive like Ms Wilson and her recent attack on Quadrant and Mr Windschuttle.  It is remarkable that this hoax has made it onto the front page of The Australian and The Age newspapers without explicit condemnation and incredible that online news service Crikey has actually promoted the hoax as of public service. 

This hoax is by a known activist peddling misinformation against a new technology under the guise of science to discredit a reputable magazine and in particular its new editor.     The hoax is really just more misinformation from those who distrust science and is illustrative of the increasing blurring of the line between advocacy and science journalism.

I suggest revenge by way of support for Quadrant.  Do your bit, follow this link and subscribe to the magazine: https://www.quadrant.org.au/subscribe

Thought you might be interested to see this release from a recent survey of Asian consumers on their perception of biotechnology derived foods.   The results are quite positive and provide evidence that Asian consumers in five countries are ready to accept the benefits of these foods. The study was commissioned by the Asian Food Information Council, (AFIC) a non-profit organisation that communicates science based information on food safety, nutrition and health information to media, regulators and consumers in Asia. 

This information is available on the AFIC website – http://afic.org/2008/IdealsEngine/_filesmgr/File/Food%20Biotechnology%20Executive%20Summary.pdf.  You can view the press release at http://www.afic.org/2008/pressrelease.php?news_id=818&start=0&category_id=3&parent_id=3&arcyear=&arcmonth= or below.

Note that AFIC is currently analysing the individual data from each country and will be releasing summaries for each country in the near future.  I will circulate these to you when available. 

Thanks & regards,

Keryn

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

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?

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.”

“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.

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.

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

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.