The campaign to lift the current ban on GM food crops, in place in most Australian states, appears to be gathering momentum with various pro-GM articles in the rural press over recent weeks.
One reason for the ban was a claim that Australian farmers woud get a premium for GM-free product, in particular GM-free canola.
I was interested to read University of Melbourne’s Dean of Land and Food Resources, Professor Rick Roush, quoted in the Border Mail (Aussie Farmers Need GM Crop Advantage, 24 February 2007) disputing the claim that Australian farmers get a premium for GM-free canola and stating:
“Ironically, there are some places where GM-crops are getting premiums, for example, in Romania farmers are being paid extra because their canola is weed-free.”
The article also included the following information under the heading ‘Fast Facts’:
“Since 1996, the global use of pesticides In GM crops was reduced by 224 million kilograms. In 2005 the C02 savings from reduced fuel use in GM crops was close to one billion kilograms. The increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil due to reduction in tillage was more than eight billion kilograms. This combined reduction of C02 emissions in 2005 equates to removing almost four million cars from the road. Farmers earn higher incomes in every country where GM crops are grown.
Source: Global Impact of Biotech Crops which can be found at www.agbioforum.org”
And Professor Roush was reported saying he didn’t believe the bans would be lifted any time soon.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
One problem with GM crops is the use of “termiator genes” within the seeds which stop farmers from using seeds in the present crop to sow the next crop and thereby save a lot of money.
The farmer has to buy new seeds each year and,of course will pass these costs onto the consumer.
By contrast in the Canberra Times today is an article by Megan Doherty, “Duo offers real food for thought’. It’s about Barbara Damrosch and Eliot Coleman from the US and their Maine four seasons “authentic” farm produce.
“Everybody wants to eat real food” Damrosch said prior to their lecture at our National Museam this Friday.
The Canberra Times picks up some promo material from some sort of restaurant owner or green grocer who says, “Everybody wants to eat real food”, blah blah. In Maine, no less. Yeah right, but are they even open on Tuesday nights? Is Maine even open on Tuesday nights?
Thats news. Not to me, but it is news.
Perry which crops currently have terminator genes? Yes, they were developed but not implemented.
Gavin if push comes to shove, everybody would be happy just to eat.
Perry, rojo,
There are no crops with “terminator” genes anywhere. No crops with “terminator” genes have been developed. The technology remains in the experimental stage.
Most farmers buy fresh seed every year anyhow–and only so long as they can afford to. Even so, farmers are unable to pass their costs to consumers. Farmers sell at whatever price is being offered, and that’s it.
GM crops in Western Canada are common, I have difficulty with some of the statements in the article:
“Since 1996, the global use of pesticides In GM crops was reduced by 224 million kilograms.”
I agree that there is a herbicide reduction.
“In 2005 the C02 savings from reduced fuel use in GM crops was close to one billion kilograms.”
Ridiculous. Low till and zero till farming methods would reduce fuel consumption. GM crops are mostly irrelevant to those methods.
“The increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil due to reduction in tillage was more than eight billion kilograms.”
Is this supposed to mean carbon evaporates when you cultivate? Reduced tillage would reduce fossil fuel consumption, but high nitrogen fertilizer inputs of continuous cropping offset some of this. Bio-degrading organic matter would produce methane. Animals would produce CO2. GM and tillage reduction have nothing to do with CO2 release as far as I understand. Does someone have and explanation for this statement?
“This combined reduction of C02 emissions in 2005 equates to removing almost four million cars from the road.”
Catapulting all of the domestic cats into orbit would have the same CO2 reduction, maybe we should start there. I don’t understand the relation of CO2 and GM crops at all. (except for GW hype)
“Farmers earn higher incomes in every country where GM crops are grown.”
This is probably true, but the difference with GM canola in Canada is slight. There is a saving on herbicide, but the much higher GM seed cost offsets much of that.
Low-till and no-till cropping relies on herbicide-tolerant crops for effective weed control. It doesn’t work as will with non-HT crops.
Tilling the soil actually *does* cause the release of stored carbon. No-till/low-till helps keep it in the ground.
And these crops *do* increase farm income, otherwise farmers wouldn’t buy the seed.
Farmers always get a premium (i.e., they don’t get docked) for not having “foreign matter” in their grain/oilseeds.
Well not always. Europe has a special exemption that even covers rat droppings. But for the rest of us, yes, there’s a better price for farm products that aren’t full of odd bits.
Jen,
I should point out that Romania doesn’t grow GM canola. There is a sizeable area (over 100,000 ha) of Roundup Ready soy grown in Romania.
As Romania has now joined the EU, their farmers are no longer be permitted to grow RR soy.
Chris, very valuable information! presumably either rick or the journalists confused canola with soy? thanks.
Jen,
I was at Rick’s talk – we were both presenting on the same Farmer Update Program in Corowa. It was the journalist who confused the point. Somewhat easy to do because of the focus in southern Australia on GM canola.
I probably should have used the past tense about the area of RR soy in Romania. However, there is a strong suspicion that some farmers will continue to grow it despite the ban.