This is the 10th year that GM cotton has been grown in Australia. Interestingly I have seen no mention of this milestone in the popular press or online.
GM canola was to be the next GM crop approved for commercial production in Australia but Greenpeace ran a campaign against it. We now have moratoriums banning new GM food crops – cotton exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre – in all states except Queensland where it is too hot to grow canola.
The state government regulations banning this new technology are dumb*, click here for an example.
The general public has no real understanding of the issues, and neither do most bloggers judging from comment earlier in the week at John Quiggin’s site. In this post on global warming he suggests there has been sensible discussion in the Australian media on GM issues – but not on global warming.
I would suggest Greenpeace has just done a good snow job on most Australians – in part because the media and most bloggers haven’t researched the issue, encouraged intelligent debate and discussion.
Most of the rest of the world is planting more GM – even Europe.
On Monday (23rd January) e-news journal farmonline provided an update on GM cotton globally:
Biotech cotton varieties were planted on an estimated 9.7 million hectares in seven countries in 2005-06, accounting for 28pc of world cotton area this season.
Biotech varieties appear to confer advantages in efforts to raise yields, hence their growing popularity.
The average yield with biotech (GM) varieties is estimated at 967 kilograms of lint per hectare, compared with a world yield estimated at 725 kg/ha.
Biotech cotton will account for approximately 37pc of world cotton production and trade in 2005-06.
The US was the first country in which biotech cotton varieties were approved for commercial production in 1996.
Area planted to biotech varieties in the US increased to 82pc of 5.5 million hectares in 2005-06.
Herbicide-resistant and stacked gene varieties having both herbicide and insecticide resistant characters accounted for 90pc of the US biotech cotton area in 2005.
Pure insect resistant varieties were planted on less than 10pc of the US biotech cotton area.
Dr David Tribe has lots of information on GM everything at his blog, click here.
……………
* I’m sure there is a better word than ‘dumb’? Suggestions?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, the article from WA includes a quote from Margaret Fulton, from my brief contacts with the food industry everyone is scrabbling like mad for a market position and branding is one way to do it, “slow food” “long lunch” “fresh” “preservative free” “pasture raised” are clever hooks for marketers to use.
One of the big opportunities presented is motherhood, stories of toxins contaminating the unborn child and contributing to any number of future ailments are strong motivators to invoke the precautionary principle.
Jennifer, interesting to see that Germany which until recently had the most pro organic ( and conversely anti GM ) agricultural policy now under the direction of its new Minister for Agriculture is moving to address the legislative imbalance which is stacked against German GM growers.
See http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22867
Interesting interview with the co-author of “The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution” Henry Conko, odd bedfellows are science and politics;
“..There was a report in 2000, looking at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates recombinant DNA-engineered plants, and another in 2002 looking at the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates such plants.
In both cases the panel concluded that theres no scientific reason to believe that theres special risk from genetic engineering.
And yet in both cases, the panel concluded that, the science notwithstanding, it was OK to impose special regulations on genetically engineered plants because the public expected it, and having a special regulatory apparatus was likely to promote public acceptance of the technology.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/09/wo_jonietz091504.asp?trk=top
Australian cotton is a success story of both conventional plant breeding and GM engineering. High yield, high quality, natural insect resistance factors with the BT toxin. Also very good how they’ve thought through refugia trap crops to minimise resistance development. Good example of industry working with researchers.
Pity AGW doesn’t work the same way.
What’s been the resulting change in insecticide use? Any study/evidence of flow-on foodchain effects from Bt?
Jen had been quoting significant reductions.
This link might help:
http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps8a,,.html
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin is supposed to only affect Lepidoptera. e.g. Heliothis, Helicoverpa spp
Evidence does exist of flow on food chain effects from Bt, and it is good news; it is that levels of other pesticides in river water drop so there is less chance of pesticide appearance in other foods.
Data are at GMO Pundit, accessible via search tool