A couple of years ago I spoke at a breakfast in Queanbeyan, near Canberra, on GM food crops. I explained the benefits of the technology from an environmental perspective.
At the time, bans on the commercial production of GM food crops had just been introduced in most Australian states following campaigning by Greenpeace against GM canola.
Yes, it’s now illegal to grow GM crops in most parts of Australia, with GM cotton exempt on the basis it is grown primarily for fibre – not food.
Senator Bill Heffernan was in the audience when I spoke at that breakfast and he continually interjected, in particular, he claimed that GM technology was unproven and that GM canola would become a weed.
So, I was a little surprised to see the headline in today’s The Age newspaper: ‘Heffernan calls for a rethink on GM crops’.
It seems the Senator, himself, has had a rethink as part of his push for agricultural development in northern Australia and is now enthusiastic about GM food crops.
In the article, The Senator suggests some southern farmers would be prepared to move north and that our attitude to GM needs to change if “the water-drenched Top End” is to be developed as the nation’s “food bowl”.
But, agricultural development in the north doesn’t need southern farmers or the Senator and his federal government committees.
It needs less, not more, government interference and in particular:
1. A lifting of the bans on GM food crops in Western Australia,
2. A lifting of the ban on cotton growing in the Northern Territory (yes, it is illegal to grow any sort of cotton in the Northern Territory), and
3. Queensland legislation, in particular the Wild Rivers Act and Vegetation Management Act, needs to be changed so there is potential for some land development and some water infrastructure development in north Queensland.
There is always more information on breaking GM news at David Tribe’s blog at http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This doesn’t get to a point, it’s just some Canadian info.
I own a portion of a Western Canadian grain farm and a high clearance spraying business, which my brother now operates. The high clearance field sprayers were designed for applying glyphosate (Roundup) pre-harvest for crop dessication and control of annual weeds like quack grass and Canada Thistle.
The area where our farm is was the original home of low erucic acid rapeseed development which occured through my childhood and Canola became a major cash crop in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada.
Through the mid 1970’s until the mid 1990’s grassy weed control in Canola was either soil incorporated trifluralin or a post emergent and both were relatively expensive. There wasn’t a broadleaf weed herbicide available and generally summerfallow and careful control of wild mustard in previous years was the weed and disease control practise.
I think around 75% of the Canola grown in Western Canada now is GM herbicide tolerant. When the glyphosate tolerant GM breeds were being introduced, there was a general concern from farmers regarding it turning into an uncontrollable weed. It wasn’t an issue, although the original GM breeds were glyphosate tolerant, MCPA, 2-4-D or dicamba products killed them without an issue. I’m a little out of touch over the past few years, but I understand the Liberty tolerant varieties are popular.
My brother would know more about farmer’s current opinions on GM Canola, but I would guess that the GM seed cost offsets the herbicide cost and in the end it’s structured so the farmer can just manage to break even while Monsanto and Bayer do quite well.
Google Maps location of our farm
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=calder,+sk&layer=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=12&ll=51.158031,-101.748161&spn=0.147496,0.409584&t=h
High Clearance Sprayer we own
http://www.caseih.com/products/series.aspx?&navid=105&RL=ENNA&seriesid=2833&lineid=16&featuresid=8076
Robert,
Do you think a widespread adoption of herbicide tolerant crops will have an effect on your high clearance spraying business?
I’m a little out of touch, I work in I.T. and haven’t been directly involved for several years.
The “high clearance” portion of the equipment was designed to spray Roundup (glyphosate) in-crop just prior to harvest. At the time when I started (1993) pre-harvest Roundup was new here. It was allowed on all crops except malt barley, and that was more due to the brewery making it a P.R. issue. GM herbicide tolerant breeds would change that business slightly, because if the plant can tolerate glyphosate mid-season, there wouldn’t be a point in pre-harvest application.
They high clearane pre-harvest Roundup business and equipment started due to Roundup never being certified by aerial application. The sprayers have high narrow wheels, but they still damage a percentage of the crop.
In the very specific area where our farm is, their is a high organic content and soil erosion isn’t a problem. My great-grandfather, grandfather and father ran mixed farming operations, summer-fallowed 33-50% and used little fertilizer and chemical.
There has been a gradual move to low and zero-till agriculture and that is the major business change and why you can buy a $300K field sprayer and have enough custom work to make it a viable business.
Larger farms all have their own large spraying equipment, but in general there are a lot of herbicides applied in narrow windows and that is what makes the custom business. There also has been many more acres of specialty crops. The area was predominantly wheat and barley through the last century and specialty crops have become much more prevalent. There are large acres of canola, flax, peas, lentils that require more herbicides generally than wheat. When I ran the business in the mid-90’s, I did a lot of work for seed growers that were planting coriander, carroway, lentils, dill, etc.
I would think that GM crops have less of an effect on custom spraying as a business than the increase in specialty crops and lower tillage.
One other thing, last year there was a major outbreak of Bertha Army worms, which love to eat canola, GM or not.
My brother sprayed around 12,000 acres of pesticide on Bertha Army worms last year. They go in cycles and aren’t a problem every year, but they love canola.
The original traditional plant breeding GM to lower the erucic acid in rapeseed to make it edible by humans also made it “tasty” to army worms. The GM to make it herbicide resistant improved weed control options, but didn’t deal with other pests.
That’s the problem with growing food, you are never the only one that wants to eat it.
I’m afraid it will take a lot more than repealing the Wild Rivers Act to get a meaningfull shift of population to the north because the real problem is political dominance by an out of touch (southern) urban electoral majority.
Real decentralisation will not take place until the Northern Territory has full statehood (due for referendum in 2008) and north Queensland has its own State. Without these key reforms any southern farmers will merely be trading the existing urban oriented bovine faeces for a new clone of the same old same old.
A new State means a new Constitution and that means provisions like the “Just Compensation” provisions (Sec.51, xxxi) of the Federal Constitution can, in fact must, be incorporated. It would also allow Legislative Standards and rights in Judicial Review, like proper exercise of power, to be shifted from mere legislation that can be altered at will to the New State Constitution.
The existing Queensland Constitution was drawn up during a piss-up on a boat cruise in the 1850’s and does not have these sort of protections. And this has enabled Beattie et al to govern in a manner that is totally outside the westminster conventions on sound governance.
At the time of federation it was generally assumed that by joining the Commonwealth, each state became bound by the principles of the Federal constitution in the way all subordinate entities are bound by the principles binding on the Dominant entity. So no effort was made to bring State constitutions into line with community standards.
But more recently, the Spivocracy have availed themselves of hair splitting legal argument that allows the existing states to take property without compensation and enact laws that breach legislative standards and avoid their obligations in respect of individual rights and liberties.
So let there be no doubt that the moment a new state comes into being with these core community standards in place there will be an investment boom that will be greater than that experianced when Joh abolished Death Duties.
And if it means excluding Townsville to get the political momentum for change then so be it.
GM is a joke when it si used to lock farmers into a brand of seed.
Good to see real science coming to the fore at last with GM crops!
Ian , do we need a significant geographical population change to utilise the better watered land to the north?
The Ord River Irrigation scheme has been pretty successful in WA without much of a population shift?
A farmer should have the right to decides which crops to grow without the added worry of his fields being cross pollenated from GM produce. Little consideration has been given to these farmers like in the US when a GM crop cross pollenated a non GM farm,the company decided to charge the farmer.People should have the choice, in WA they chose to be a GM free state,who knows what the side effects will be a few years down the track?
Good question, Jim. I don’t think one can really achieve sustainable agriculture without building sustainable communities around that agriculture. And while mega-scale agriculture can produce low cost product it is done with some serious diseconomies factored in.
The option of running northern agriculture on a fly-in, fly-out basis may well work for a time but that is only possible when the state is funding the social obligations of those farms.
The existing farming operations in the rest of Australia are already working at world best practice productivity levels. And at these levels it is clear that the farms in an area the size of the Tamworth region, for example, need a town the size of Tamworth to service them.
Any other form of development that does not include healthy and vibrant communities is just another variation on colonial exploitation. And one must ask, if we take half the farmers away from Tamworth without any provision for half the people of Tamworth to follow them, then where do they go? More crowding on the Coast? Another suburb on the edge of Sydney? I think we can do better than that.
Of course, the easiest way to ensure that a particular region remains open to new technology like GM crops is to seperate the governance of that region from the whims of illinformed urban swing voters. Are any of the US Farm States closed to GM crops? I doubt it. These sort of bans are only possible where urban whims are forced on rural solutions.
Here here Motty!
Anne, what about my choice as a farmer wanting to actually use this technology so I don’t have to drench my fields in some pretty horrible chemicals? Percy Schmeisser is a crook and the law took him to account for stealing and illegally planting GM Roundup Ready canola.
The side effects of not adopting GM? Howabout food prices continueing to hyperinflate because one production hiccup this year in any major food producing region and it is record territory for grains, meat and dairy prices. Are you sure you really want to not test if GM crops may perhaps allow production increases even though farmers everyday in most continents around the world prove it IS possible? Maybe not yet but if your weekly shoping bill tripled I’d be guessing you’d be far more open to the potential.
Spoilt with cheap food and then took it for granted!
In Canada, where GM crops have been available for many years (including roundup and liberty canola), it hasn’t made agriculture much more feasible.
My great-grandfather settled in 1896 and the generations since were able to sustainably farm in the area, until now.
We decided to stop actively farming in 1992 and the 2 sections of land have been leased out. This decision was based strictly on economics and both my brother and I would love to be farming, but we decided that it was no longer feasible.
The renters of the land have basically proved the ecomonics over the last 13 years and have had a major difficulty keeping their operations feasible.
GM breeds, low-tillage, continuous cropping, specialty crops, subsidies and ethanol plants haven’t done much for making Canadian agriculture feasible. They have done a lot for equipment manufacturers, chemical and fertilizer companies, oil companies and grain companies, but not a lot for the family farm and the local grain elevator, store, hotel and railway spur were all closed in the last 15 years.
The agriculture section in this document explains more of my thoughts on sustainable agriculture and why I work for the phone company.
http://www.energytower.org/background.html
The Ord has significant potential, but so far has been constrained through lack of land. Not because there isn’t enough, but due to native title issues and the lack of political will.
I don’t understand why Cotton is banned in the NT. What has it done wrong? Not that anyone was rushing up there to grow it anyway.
GM cotton has cut down the number of insect sprays from around 10/year to 2. New generation chemicals are highly specific in order to minimise impact on beneficial organisms, so even the 2 sprays have a minimal non-target environmental effect.
Jen,
Any idea why cotton is banned in NT? I never knew that.
As I see it, no GM is only a small part of the problem. Lack of infrastructure makes it economically unviable to produce many intensive agricultural commodities and get them to market, be it SE Asia or Australian population centres.
Also, with GM, the transgene/s need to be transformed in to a suitably adapted genetic background. If your talking of introducing new crops to the region, that background isn’t available. Lots of long-term plant breeding work needs to be done first.
This is not to say that couldn’t happen, or the laws shouldn’t be rescinded, but effective GM crops in Northern Australia are not a short-term fix.
Nexus 6, cotton has been grown in the Ord within current breeding programs. The ord offers the opportunity to grow cotton through the winter effectively giving 2 seed increase harvests in the one year.
The reversal of fortunes with sugarcane seems to have stifled any real commercial cotton crops, that and memories of the 70’s where cotton was overrun by pests.
Ann,
Your claim that “when a GM crop cross pollenated a non GM farm,the company decided to charge the farmer” is completely and utterly false.
“Your claim that ‘when a GM crop cross pollenated a non GM farm,the company decided to charge the farmer’ is completely and utterly false.”
Are you refering to this?
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2000/06/05/monsanto_court000605
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Robert,
Ann might be referring to the Schmeiser case–although her account differs in many respects. If she is referring to that case, what happened is that Schmeiser got a hold of some GM seed and planted it. When it grew, he sprayed it with Roundup–ensuring that it was nearly pure GM seed. He then used that seed to plant his crop.
Here’s part of the court’s decision in his case:
The Supreme Court noted that Schmeiser’s “involvement with the disputed canola was […] clearly commercial in nature,” and Schmeiser’s “saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes” constituted “use” of the patented product. Schmeiser “actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of […] business operations [and Schmeiser] used the patented genes and cells [–thus] infringement is established.”
From http://www.genelaw.info/pages/casedetail.asp?record=69
Schiller,
I remember the Schmeiser saga as it went through the local news. In the end the Supreme Court ruled that Schmeiser didn’t have to pay the $15/acre to Monsanto, but their patent was valid.
This was never about cross pollenation, it was about intentionally growing GM seed for seed and refusing to pay Monsanto the royalty. The premise was that the original seed blew into Schmeiser’s property on it’s own.
My personal opinion is close to the court decision. If a GM seed grows on a farmers land due to natural relocation, he cannot be held liable. On the other hand, if you take patented seed and reproduce with the intent of growing it commercially, you are infringing the patent. If the naturally relocated GM seed causes a problem with the farmers crop, grade or revenue (i.e. a weed) then I would hold the GM patent owner responsible to either manually or with a herbicide to get their patented plants off of his farm and to ensure they stay off.
Hi,
Cotton was banned in the NT following campaigning that falsely suggested it had ‘ruin’the Murray Darling system. The campaigners knew if they had cotton banned the proposed developments would be economically unviable.
Jennifer,
You would be surprised at the extent of the ulterior motives behind opposition to GM crops. In Europe, for instance, blocking GM canola imports for domestic use raises the price of domestic soy by ~20 cents per bushel.
Domestic seed companies who don’t have the technology don’t want to lose market share to those who do. And the use of insect-resistant and herbicide tolerant crops has driven some manufacturers of older crop protection into financial straits and beyond.
Africans don’t want GM food relief because it interferes with the annual profits made by famine profiteers during the traditional “famine season.” The US doesn’t segregate GM crops, so that’s an ideal way to block the profit-busting food aid.
And of course the rich Africans–the only ones in a position to *export food* from starving nations–are afraid they’ll lose the lucrative European market.
Activist groups are right behind them, saying people should donate money, not food. And the money goes to the famine profiteers and activists. Or do I repeat myself.
States poised to join the European Union are anxious to see the welfare payments which will be pumped into their farm economies in hard Euros, so of course they want to block GM technology. Especially since they’ve heard of the vast premiums available for “organic” crops. Nobody tells them that the premiums don’t cover the cost of production, and that’s why so few farmers are going organic. Most of Europe’s organic food has to be imported as a result.
Which leads us to the organic contingent. Their primary marketing angle is to scare consumers into buying what they sell. The angle isn’t what’s *in* the food, but what’s *not* in the food. Genetic technology has been a marketing miracle for these people. Who are, increasingly, corporations.
Amid all of this, the farmer’s voices are generally lost or ignored. They’re a minority voting group and tend not to be strident or radical. And, since they make their living selling what they grow into a fickle market, they live in fear of that market–and what fear-peddlers can do to that market.
Our children will look back on this age and wonder at how culture and technology can be trashed by fear and mendacity.
It will be interesting to see the long term consequences of organic production and bio-fuel production on stockpiles . Throw in climate uncertainty and produce prices may be in for a upward run. Not before time.
For this reason I’ve decided organic production is a good thing for farming and should be supported.
Rojo,
Interesting that you say organic production “should be supported.” Organic certification groups in Europe have been clamoring for that for years. They say that without more subsidies, they can’t compete on the market.
What “support” do you envision? If you mean the standard approach of slandering conventional farmers, some will become upset. I will be among them.
If you mean subsidies, well, that just means organic can only get around on crutches.
So, what do you mean?
No not subsidy but moral support. Too much derision exists from mainstream farming, which points out the fragility of the organic market place and tend to be critical of it. Yet in reality organic production cannot support all requirements, and lack of productivity will lessen supply, boosting conventional returns.
I don’t see too many Organic farmers “slandering” , it’s mainly the fringe groups who wish the “natural” life for all. If organic farmers can squeeze more money out of these consumers good on them. In the long run conventional farmers will benefit. We might even learn few tricks along the way.
Rojo,
I wouldn’t disagree with anyone making an honest living. Accent on ‘honest.’
Check out http://www.organicconsumers.org/ and tell me if it isn’t slander-based marketing.
Schiller , yes exactly. It is a fringe group doing the slander. Not the organic farmers, who are merely cashing in on the marketing appeal of “organic”.
I have no problem with these groups being sucked out of a little cash. I do feel sorry for those not as well off who think they have to buy organic produce for their families because of such slander.
As biofuels boom, will more go hungry? By Ruth Gidley
Wed Mar 7, 10:11 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) – Using plants to feed our fuel needs may be a great idea, and the biofuel goldrush could be a moneyspinner for several poor countries, but some experts warn people may go hungry as food prices rise.
ADVERTISEMENT
Fans of biofuels give the impression we could soon be running cars on maize, producing electricity with sugar, and getting power from palm oil.
Even though the biofuel boom is only just beginning, it has already pushed up the cost of staples in places like Mexico where rocketing tortilla prices have sparked angry protests.
Some experts foresee a permanent change in food economics if farmers scent higher profit in fuel crops than in growing plants to feed people.
“We’re into a new structure of markets,” said British food aid expert Edward Clay. “It could have profound implications on poor people.”
World leaders promised in 2000 to halve by 2015 the proportion of people, estimated at 1.2 billion or a fifth of humanity in 1990, who live on less than a dollar a day and who suffer from hunger.
According to the 2006 review of progress toward the goal, an estimated 824 million people in the developing world were affected by chronic hunger in 2003, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia.
Oil prices have roughly tripled since the start of 2002 to above $60 a barrel and as oil resources held by Western firms dwindle, biofuels have seemed viable and the message about climate change has gone mainstream.
Governments and oil companies are seeking alternative fuel sources and President Bush has made it clear he supports a major shift toward biofuels.
Farmers in the United States are raising production of maize, now a lucrative material for biofuel production. Soaring U.S. demand for ethanol — produced from crops like maize and sugar cane — has sent maize prices to their highest level in a decade.
Mexicans are feeling the impact. Tens of thousands took to the streets in January when the price of tortillas tripled to 15 pesos ($1.36) a kg. There are about 35 of the flat maize patties that are Mexico’s staple food in a kg.
Since half of Mexico lives on $5 a day or less, that’s no small jump, and President Felipe Calderon — a conservative who is a firm believer in free markets — intervened to cap prices.
NEW ECONOMIC ERA?
Food costs as a proportion of incomes have been on a downward slide since World War Two, at least in the West. Clay says one of the big questions now is whether biofuels could reverse that process and take us into a new economic era which might be yet harder on the poor.
Although he says the current spike in prices will be temporary, he is not convinced food prices will fall back to pre-biofuel boom levels.
“By next year, (food) prices will begin to fall away,” he predicts. “But that doesn’t mean they’ll ever fall to what they were before.”
The United States and Brazil, the world’s top biofuels producers, are not the only countries jumping on the biofuels bandwagon. China has joined them and now ranks in the global top four for biofuels output.
The incentive to switch land use from food crops to fuel crops mounts with rising biofuel demand, potentially underpinning prices.
Also maintaining upward pressure on food prices are the twin needs of economic boomers China and India to be self-sufficient in fuel, but also in food. China’s expanding middle classes want to eat more meat, which requires grain production for feed, in turn keeping food prices high.
While food prices are likely to be dampened by farmers increasing food crop production in the short term, the scope for switching is limited.
Numerous scientists and economists say China and India do not have enough water to increase grain production, whether for animals or fuel.
LESS FOOD AID?
The biofuel boom may also change policies on food aid.
Now U.S. farmers can make good money selling grain to make ethanol, there could be a shift in its policy of giving 99 percent of food aid contributions in goods, rather than cash.
It might now actually be more convenient for the United States to buy its food aid allotment elsewhere, food aid expert Clay says.
The United States is the world’s largest food aid donor but has come under heavy criticism, especially from Europeans, who say aid in kind distorts local markets, often takes a long time to arrive and is more expensive to ship than buy locally.
Bush has been trying to persuade Congress to change the law to allow up to 25 percent of the country’s food aid in cash, but the bill has been rejected under pressure from farmers who did not want to lose what was more or less a subsidy for their grains.
Bush’s bill is up before Congress again this year. For the last few years, the world’s annual food aid donations have been around 10 million tons, in line with an international agreement in place since the 1960s for wealthy countries to give at least 5 million tons of food annually.
Donations fluctuate depending on prices, and relief organizations are already bracing themselves for a likely cut in volumes donated.
Clay says when food prices last rose in 1995, parts of the world where food aid was used in development projects — like school feeding programs — were the most vulnerable to cutbacks in the following year.
The same places — Bangladesh, Central America, Eritrea, Ethiopia and North Korea, for example — will probably be first to feel the pinch now.
(Additional reporting by Nigel Hunt in London and Alister Doyle in Oslo)
Well it sure is a good thing that Greenpeace and others are saving Africans from GM crops. The Africans can keep on posing for the cameras of National Geographic magazine. The Lefties just love preserving those quaint, all-natural nature-balancing starvation folkways.
Yes, Schiller, starvation chic is the only look that makes junkies look healthy. It is all about surrounding themselves with self affirmation messages (aka delusion).
Funny how greens are at the forefront of chemical free food and chain of custody certification for just about everything but the pills taken by teenagers at rave parties.
Where is their campaigning for clearly identified vendors and manufacturers, list of ingredients, date, time and place of manufacture and appropriate warnings on side effects and risks? Nowhere to be seen.
We have an opposition spokeman on environment who flogged a lot of records by matching the poor quality of his singing voice with the impaired judgement of his audience. He got his start in music by providing the mood music to the “stock exchange” of the Sydney drug scene.
And with all that exposure to the drug scene he appears to have written very little about its consequences. I guess it wasn’t green/left cool enough. One could say that he not only slept while those beds were still burning, he made a bucket of money with trite platitudes to boot.