It is a pity that GM canola has arrived in Australia, not as a crop for farmers to grow, but as a shipment of seed grown in Canada ready for crushing in Australia.
Indeed yesterday a shipment of genetic engineered canola came into the Port of Newcastle.
Robert Green, from Cargill was interview by ABC radio Newcastle* and he said:
It is a matter of supply and demand. If we had not imported the grain there would have been companies shutting down and more oils being imported into the company. We consulted widely with the various government offices to make sure we were not breaching anything. Australian exports do not get preferential treatment for the GM free status. If you look at yields in export markets and trades our exports are falling behind. The canola will be used for oil and a protein meal. The customers who use the products will be within the food standard guidelines and labelling will be where it needs to be.
Greenpeace responded with comment that:
Australian crops could be at risk with now the first ever imported shipment of genetically engineered canola arrived in Newcastle.
I am not sure what Australia could be at risk from except more misinformation from Greenpeace. The bottomline is that Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola for about 10 years and much of the world eating the oil from this canalo for about as long.
The reality is that Greenpeace ran a campaign beginning in about 2001 to block the planting of GM canola varieties in Australia on the false premise that food from genetically modified (GM) crops is inherently dangerous. The NSW, Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian governments gave in to the Greenpeace campaigning and there is now a moratorium preventing the planting of GM food crops in those states. Cotton is exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre, nevermind that locally grown cotton seed is crushed and turned into vegetable oil for Australian consumption.
As I recently explained in a piece for ABC Counterpoint, Australian agriculture is becoming increasingly uncompetitive as farmers give in to luddites: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1782111.htm
———–
* ABC Newcastle (Newcastle)
Mornings, 05/12/2006 09:49AM Compere: Garth Russell
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
My only question is why Cargill didn’t bring in GM free canola to Australia? Is it no longer readily available on the world trade market? They must have known it would cause a stir as we cannot grow GM crops other than cotton here.
Australian farmers cannot afford to fall behind on yield and/or margins if the technology to improve both exists. Particularly if the opposition is based on ideology without substance.
Rojo, there is little GM free canola seed available on the world market. The largest producers of canola (rapeseed) include the EU, China, India, Canada and Australia.
The EU, China and India consume almost all their canola internally. China and India are also net importers of seed. This year the only available canola seed available for import is from Canada.
rojo,
Cargill could have brought in GM-free canola from Germany, but at a steep price. Germany has blocked the import of Canadian canola (which is mostly GM) in order to prop up canola prices for German farmers. Who, as a result, are paid roughly 30 percent more than prevailing world prices. Australian crushers will not want to pay a 30 percent premium and sell the result to a market that doesn’t want to pay extra for it.
Even so, Germany essentially meets all of its own canola needs (not counting biodiesel), so it doesn’t have a surplus to export anyhow.
Among the many remarkable things about this situation is the fact that the flap over GM crops that Greenpeace et. al. have created actually distort world markets and reduce farmers’ ability to compete far more than government subsidies.
Jen said: “I am not sure what Australia could be at risk from except more misinformation from Greenpeace. The bottomline is that Canadian farmers have been growing GM canola for about 10 years and much of the world eating the oil from this canalo for about as long. ”
10 years is not a long time in terms of assessing the health impact of a new food. I wouldn’t touch the stuff – I think canola oil tastes disgusting anyway.
Robert,
Oil is oil. The final GM derived product is physically identical to the final non-GM derived product!
Of course from a taste and cooking perspective, in my opinion, oil from GM/non-GM cotton seed is superior to oil from canola.
Also, if you have ever bought and consumed fish and chips from a takeaway in Australia, chances are you have already eaten GM-derived cotton seed oil. … and there is a lot of oil in every chip! Yum.
In its natrural state cottonseed oil is fine but when used for frying it is usually in a partial or fully hydrogenated state which is reported as being low in cholestrol but high in trans fattty acids – which can increase the risk of heart disease.
Rog, So cotton seed oil makes for a tasty but unhealthy meal? For those concerned about trans fats biotechnology also offers new opportunities including for fast food giant McDonalds as I have written here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1782111.htm .
A healthier option is to drink warm candle wax beforehand as it reduces the absorption of TFAs.
rog I think you said earlier that you eat organic produce?
It beats me why everyone so loves to flog the dead horse of Malthus
Jennifer are you aware that Malthus was already wrong before his views even became popular? He overlooked the increases in agricultural output that proceeded his essay. He was prompted to write his essay in rebellion against his father. The Malthus essay (as well as the distortion of Darwinian survival of the fittest) was used as an excuse to justify the continued wealth of the powerful and the owners of capital, ie its deep pessimism was used to justify social restrictions that kept the masses in squalor below the breadline. You’re aware, I hope, of the connection between Malthus and the corn laws which entrenched poverty. How does the (in)famous Malthus essay justify GM? Technology to increase food production is no use without adequate measures to ensure all people have protected rights to their minimum entitlement to food. At the present point in time, as has happened in many famines past, is this lack of access and entitlement that causes the problems of malnourishment and starvation, not a lack of available food. Assuming or arguing that technology is the key is missing much of the story. Genuine concern for health and wellbeing would prevent you from fighting for one part of the issue that is by itself insufficient.
Pinx,
Every second day I receive an email from some earnest person telling me we are about to run out of oil or food or something else. Malthus was wrong, but his message still resonates.
And yes its sad that with all the technology there are still so many hungry people in the world. But its not the fault of technology.
And it is great there are so many well fed people and that this percentage of the world population is growing. What did that Depak Lal article say about percentage of people living in Asia that are now well fed?
Without continual technological improvement a much greater percentage of the world’s population would be hungry.
As a farmer’s daughter I would no doubt be spending my days hoeing fields… if it wasn’t for all the technology that has liberated us. Not the whole world, but at least my sister and I.
Pixee has this thing about warm wax, think I will stick to the beers.
You’re right Jennifer, it’s not the fault of technology & neither does a biased focus on technology hold the answer. Note my recent comment about percentage changes – given rapid population growth in 3rd world a change in % of malnourished / adequately nourished people doesn’t mean the total number of malnourished people hasn’t still increased.
As for pessimism a la Malthus, we see of plenty of pessimism among the ‘right’ as well eg if we address GW we’ll be economically ruined; China will take over the world and we’ll be out of jobs; if everyone rides bicycles there’ll be no room on the roads left for cars, etc etc.
Malthus’ message was originally snapped up by a conservative minority in fortunate positions and used to reinforce the status quo and maintain severe inequalities. Sadly, nothing much has changed in the way that Malthus’ essay is used!
It was used as a basis to defend laws that repressed the impoverished masses because given adequate resources they’d reproduce themselves silly – increase exponentially and exceed any increases in food capacity and more rabble rousers might undermine the social fabric. It was argued the lowly masses would all end up starving tomorrow anyway so you may as well keep them starving today (it was thought that woudl keep their numbers down but we know better these days).
Nothing much has changed if Malthus’ predictions are still being used as a conceptual basis to argue for self-interests.
It’s impossible to isolate technology from instituations (rules, norms, formal & informal organisations, etc). They change in parallel and influence each other. It’s also impossible to isolate technology from people so trying to argue that people can stop technology misrepresents evolution.
Your fortunes aren’t only due to technology as you’d realise Jennifer. Without parallel developments in socioeconomic structures GM technology will do little to alleviate hunger & poverty. What causes and what conditions contribute to famine and undernourishment is the question.
Pinxii if you dont know “What causes and what conditions contribute to famine and undernourishment” then you are hardly in a position to make further judgements.
yes rog you’d be sure to quote from pauline hanson on that issue no doubt. Just keep the diseased away from the pure. I was wondering what was rattling yr cage – now I know, it’s excitement over her planned political comeback.
btw, i have addressed that question a couple of times before. If you’re truly interested in knowing, simply let me know & I’ll direct you towards some reading. I know you won’t though, you just post empty ill-considered 1 liners.
Most of the ‘pessimism’ of the ‘right’ is the well founded suspicion of the motives of the ‘left’, when you read what these Dem dopes said in a letter to Exxon you will understand just how desperate they are to gain control of the debate;
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337
rog when you’ve stopped gazing at your autographed photo of Pauline Hanson and when you’ve finished reading the World Bank report and Daly’s work (NB: ex-World Bank, not eco-greenies-united) so you can form yr own independent opinions and learn of the pitfalls of yr ‘free markets fix everything’ blinkered outlook, then I urge you to read Amartya Sen on the aspects and conditions of famine. Read of the concept of entitlememts that I often mention; of livelihoods; and read of the development notion that every citizen be provided with minimum basic necessities. See also work for aid programmes as a means to arrest famines (eg in India) which often have sociopolitical roots.
Pinxi,
I reckon GM has already helped farmers in South Africa. So it hasn’t solved all of the continents problems … but it has made a difference to a few families. That’s progress.
Also, i’ve observed that if you want to ‘help’ you are best off ‘helping’ the top 20 percent in a village/farming community rather than the bottom 20 percent…
The top 20 percent are more likely to take advantage of what’s on offer … and they will often drag the bottom along/up with them.
Sth Africa has undergone huge social and institutional change Jennifer, with the close involvement of human social development researchers to plan and create smooth progress (refer Don Beck). Supports the point I made to you above of social changes not just technology.
Your personal observations would undoubedtly make very interesting tea party chats but would you bet other people’s wellbeing on them? I woudln’t like to see them in development approaches on the ground that affect real peoples’ lives, especially considering that there’s a wealth of development research findings to the contrary. In fact, that’s a whole hornett’s nest and such biases for the priviledged in most situations reinforce conditions of inequity.
Pinxii, are you saying that Sen is anti market? I would like to see your evidence, not your opinion.
Sen attributes famine to govt failure not market failure and notes that centrally controlled govts (eg China, Cambodia, and North Korea) have often had greater food supplies.
Famines are almost never a product of food shortage, but of centrally controlled regimes with no incentive to adaquetly solve the problems.
“Reducing corruption in developing countries by opening markets would be reason enough to liberalize, even if no other economic benefits materialized”
rog try to read deeply and connect the issues. Don’t just cherry pick the 1st convenient line you read in isolation. The factors are complex and so is the policy history. To give it proper consideration will take an investment of your time.
You’ve got lots of sources to engage with rog. Don’t just reject them or regurgitate shock-jock 1 liners and pre-canned neo-lib opinions. Show some regard for past experiences and learnings because these have come at a very high price for the unfortunate people. Do it! I’ll give you moral support with a vow of blog silence until yr done. Can you do it?
I dont know if you can get your head around the fact that Sen has changed his views over the years and now snaps at those who say he is anti market.
You do like the sound of your own voice pinxii, you would make someone a good mother-in-law.
Rog, I’ve been told by a ‘googling reader’ that cotton seed is not high in trans fats: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmtca/is_200309/ai_kepm266318 .
Perhaps Luke could check this out for us?
Pinxi, For the record, when I made reference to “farming communities” above, I was thinking of Queensland. Most would consider those same communities ‘priveledged’. When I wrote “village” I was thinking Kenya and Tanzania.
rog you can’t cope with anything more than a short stand alone sentence. Stick to your shock jocks and tired neo-lib me-1st rhetoric. Just pls stop asking questions when you’re not interested in the answers.
Still waiting for evidence, not your opinion
‘rog you can’t cope with anything more than a short stand alone sentence. Stick to your shock jocks and tired neo-lib me-1st rhetoric. ‘
Perhaps he could post ‘aaaaarrrghhhh’ a lot…
“Technology to increase food production is no use without adequate measures to ensure all people have protected rights to their minimum entitlement to food. ”
And how does limiting access to modern crop technology protect these rights?
Seems to me you have a strawman. One that doesnt make sense in the context of the GM issue.
Pinxxii likes her straw men
http://www.pretanicworld.com/sitebuilder/images/Wicker_Man_9-618×915.jpg
Just filing this here: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=39201
Greenpeace attempts to stop unloading of ship with GM canola. You would think there might be more important things to save in the world …
Paul kindly note that I do support access and free choice to modern technologies. I’m not anti-GM. My arguments are more complex than that no matter how rog tries to reduce them because he can’t hold more than 7 words in his head.
I want us to consider the factors contributing in the bigger picture not just simplistic generalisations. In the case of addressing hunger in the 3rd world, unfortunately there is no shortage of experience we can learn from. The classic reductionist error of blinkered beliefs (eg rog & unfettered free markets) and specialisms is that each can assume his area of expertise holds the one true answer when commonsense tells us to look at the whole system. IMHO where profits are involved, if spokespeople are pushing the narrow view then we all have a responsibility to ask probing questions.
Pinxi
I am indeed looking at the whole picture and a huge part of that picture is that GM foods have a role to play in addressing world hunger.
Particularly in arid zones where crop failure, despite some weird assertions in this thread, do have an enormous impact.
“10 years is not a long time in terms of assessing the health impact of a new food. I wouldn’t touch the stuff – I think canola oil tastes disgusting anyway.”
Robert
I know what you mean. It took my daughter 13 years to actually try steak. She now loves it.
How long do you think we should wait?
What is it you think happens here? Do you think they paint arsenic orange and pretend its a carrot?
Greenpeace extremists chain themselves to gate in Newcastle, in attempt to stop movement of GM Canola, one injured. This fanaticism seems similar to that of the fundamentalists who ‘do it’ for good old Osama.