Victorian premier John Brumby extolled the virtues of drought-tolerant GM wheat under development in Australia at an international biotechnology conference in the U.S., explicitly linking the new varieties and their potential to help combat climate change.
“Drought-tolerant wheat developed in Victoria is returning yields up to 20 per cent higher than non-GM control crops, Premier of Victoria John Brumby announced today at BIO 2008 in San Diego, California:”
VICTORIAN DROUGHT-TOLERANT WHEAT YIELDS UP 20 PER CENT
A few climate-change chickens may be coming home to roost. As people become concerned about global warming, a concern promoted by activist groups themselves, it seems to be having the unintended consequence of allowing policy makers and the public to see GM crops as being more acceptable if they might “help”.
Drought tolerance, salt tolerance and yield-increasing GM traits may start to be seen less unfavourably, even though they are a producer benefit not a consumer benefit, since they’ll at least be better for the environment and this climate change issue that people keep hearing about.
Greenpeace for example, seem to have less credibility now when they call a drought-tolerant, higher-yielding wheat variety “unsustainable” as they did on ABC radio on Friday (although not repeated in their press release, below).
Greenpeace: Genetically engineered wheat not the solution to drought
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Comments on wheat variety rights (breeder’s royalties). We buy certified seed and pay a very small royalty /tonne. Plant to increase seed base, say x 20. No royalties if kept for seed. Sow it all again, multplying wheat by 400.
Keep some for seed and pay no royalties. Sell some over fence to heighbour and may or may not pay royalties, depending on variety. Sell some to grain trader and pay royalty: beteen $1-$2/t. Depending on variety. Plant Breeding rights only last a few years, and have already expired for a number of varieties. So they can be freely traded.
Royalties pay for the cost of developing new, improved varieties. When it comes to laying out money, farmers are no fools. If the expected yeild increase is only marginal, say 2%, it still pays to upgrade seed. (I have paid up to $1,000/t)
A 20% boost in yield is phenominal. Most farmers would be very intereste in that, breeders rights being only a minor cost.
Implying that wheat farmers have, or would have, to buy (expensive) new seed every year from a breeder is an ignorant furphy.
Further, regarding genes and genetic engineering: I have always understood that genes are strings of amino acids called proteins. There are only a limited number of these, and they are are the building blocks of all life on earth, and found throughout the biosphere. Proteins are created by plants, which are broken down during animal digestion into individual amino acids, to be used by the body. As I understand it, GM technology is a method of rearraging existing genes (strings of amino acids) It does not create alien amino acids, so cannot possibly be of any threat to human health.
Now here is a turkey mentality if I ever heard one “they are a producer benefit not a consumer benefit”. Well I would say if wheat producers can produce more wheat for less inputs that ism more than just a producer benefit. In case you haven’t noticed food prices are hyperinflating because supplies are dropping like a stone. More wheat is in fact a CONSUMER benefit because it helps keep supplies up and that helps keep prices down.
Any postulation as to farmer resistance to adopting GM crop varieties is just that on your behalf Darren and apparently you are ill informed. You need only look to the most honest commentator on the facts in this case and that is the stock market. Monsanto’s stock price has surged and will continue to surge as farmers adopt and willingly pay royalties for superior crop varieties.
In a world struggling to produce cheap food I’d say it is fair to assume that the problems of producers are now the problems of consumers. And now meat prices are surging (I might add generating significant wealth for me through my long futures positions) you are about to experience the full ravages of food price hyperinflation. It will leave you gobsmacked as the percentage of your weekly wage going to food surges from 15-20% to up to 40%. Darren that is a problem for you and I’ll spell out why:
1. Bad for the stockmarket
2. Bad for house values.
3. Bad for the environment as tree clearing moves up to unprecedented rates to increase production of food.
4. Bad for your wealth, bad for your health?
Get off your high horse and look at the hyperinflationary wave heading for a supermarket near you …
DISCLOSURE: My opinions are backed up with futures positions and stockmarket holdings that reflect the future I see arriving. The market is a far better judge of who is right and who is wrong in this world.
“The market is a far better judge of who is right and who is wrong in this world.”
Yup, and sorts out the wrong ones from the right ones every few years!
The only problem is, we are all paying for it, one way or the other.
I take it speculating in oil futures right now, is helping the economy and people too?
” It does not create alien amino acids, so cannot possibly be of any threat to human health.” – Helen
Hi Helen,
Don’t know if you suggest that all amino acids are harmless?
Take for example , the poisonous mushroom , Amanita phalloides , which is called the death cup or the destroying angel. ONE OF THE TOXINS IN THIS MUSHROOM , IS ALPHA – AMANTIN , THAT CONTAINS SEVERAL UNUSUAL AMINO ACIDS.
alpha – Amantin blocks the elongation step in the synthesis of RNA.
What’s wrong with producer benefit? Without benefit from trading surpluses, no farmer would grow anything other than his own family’s food. Goodbye cities. Self interest drives enormous community benefits.
Hi Anne
Interesting info. Thanks. My biology / genetics knowledge is undergrad level from some years ago. However, our civlisation has checks and balances that discourage development of toxic food. Like regulations. If they fail, then ambulance-chasing lawyers will certainly do the trick.
With breeding for drought and salt tolerant genes (and I would love to grow wheat with both) some wild relatives of wheat have been identified with these genes. Traditional breeders have to cross to get the genes into wheat, then start bringing the progeny back up to market standards. Can take decades. GM tecnology can transfer desirable genes straight into market ready lines. Faster and cheaper.
There are only two ways to increase food production. Grow more on the same land or clear new land. Adoption of GM technology promises to accellerate our capacity to do the first.
Adoption of GM technology for food production eventually will come down to how rapidly we need to increase food production vs what value people really put on biodiversity.
Thanks for your opinion and comment Helen!
I have personally not a certain opion about GMOs , still listening to the debate and various inputs. But what could be criticized is the small number of companies on the market , that is dominated by giants as Monsanto.
Helen,
Do not confuse selective breeding, or improving plant varieties, with genetically modifying.
The first is what we always have done, selective breeding, or improving plant varieties.
The second is when we introduce genes into animals or plants, where in nature, this would be impossible.
Anne, breeding new plant varieties is very expensive, and usually only undertaken by Government agencies or larger companies. Smaller outfits have less resources for meeting health, safety and environmental regulatory concerns. So by necessity, only a few big Companies dominate the market. Same with pharmaceuticals. Its a fact of life. The question is, do we want the benefits of developing new plant varieties (and new pharmaceuticals)? Who has the resources needed to jump all the hurdles to bring them to market? And should they be compensated for the costs involved. At present, the beneficiary, initial customer, compensates through royalties or their equivalent.
I also personally do not care one way or another about GMO’s. But I do care about biodiversity -my property is 80% native vegetation. To save as much biodiversity as possible, we need to rapidly increase food production. GMO’s are promising, but they are not the only tool in the kit.
Hi Aaron,
I suggested the post to Paul (thanks for sharing it Paul), because I thought it was an interesting bind that Greenpeace et al. have put themselves in by promoting scare tactics on global warming, but also opposing a technology which, if successful, would be good for addressing the effects of global warming, if it exists. They now have about zero credibility on any issue since they are clearly just anti-globalisation activitists and the issues of global warming / GM / “insert-alarmist-factoid” are just tools to promote that agenda.
I personally have the view that genetic modification will provide great benefits to all, and yes provide some well-earned value to the farmers and maybe even revenues to the developers and allow consumers lower costs and be good for the environment as well. Most of that view you seem to share, so it’s a shame it wasn’t clear from the text above that we agree.
The reason for the consumer/producer benefit comment was because it’s a matter of pretty commonly-held opinion that unfortrunately one of the reasons that the public are indifferent (or worse) to GM crops is that the traits to date have generally been “input traits” that have primarily provided benefit to farmers (and fair enough – they pay higher prices for the seed; they deserve the benefit they’ve paid for). Any increased benefit to the consumer through low price for canola oil or lower grain price due to greater yields is not actually perceived by the consumer since they tend not to understand where their food comes from. Perception is everything, so the consumers don’t think they get a benefit.
We would also agree about the potential issue of inflation, and the disaster it would be if it led to all of the bad things you mentioned, but I didn’t discuss them (but would have agreed with you if I did) so I’m at a bit of a loss to why you thought to hurl insults. Must be that internet rudeness thing – re-read the text above through the lens that I am also concerned about farmers’ costs, and believe they are being held back by limited access to yield-enhancing technology which would be valuable for all (including consumers!). I hope that access improves quickly – we need higher-yielding, environmentally advantageous cropping and GM should help us out (along with better parent varieties, farming techniques, choice for farmers etc. etc.). Activists are trying to limit our choices. Read in that context I hope you won’t compare me to poultry or suggest I was on any sort of horse, high or not.
I enjoy the blog and enjoy the comments of all contributors – long time reader, first time poster of any length. I might have to think about wording any future contribution to avoid misinterpretation.
Darren
Apologies Darren. We are on the same page. I’d have to say the hyperinflating costs of producing food are scary to say the least (even though I own Incitec Pivot shares).
Johnathon Wilkes – “I take it speculating in oil futures right now, is helping the economy and people too?”
Damn straight speculators are helping you and society as a whole. Left in your cheap oil trance you’d have consumed to the barrels ran dry only to be left with bare knuckles to nut the future out. The market signals being sent out are amplified with speculators because thats what you numbskulls need. Market signals that crucify your ignorance. Cheap oil is gone. Get the infrastructure built you are going to need to function without cheap black gold while there still is comparitively abundant reserves left (albeit expesnive). At least there is oil still left to fuel whatever work we need to do to get to a new fossil fuel free economy, even though I doubt with 6.5 billion comparatively spoilt brats that transition will be bonding for the global community. A suggestion. How about you think before you type. I’ve got no patience for the ideologically bereft.
Speculators deliver the message in the extremes needed to change the world for the better. I’m more than happy to jump on board that bandwagon to profit from ignorance and drive sustainable change.
It costs about US$200 million to put just one variety of GM seed on the market, and that’s merely to pass the testing required to satisfy regulatory authorities.
Meanwhile, putting out seed mutated by radiation or chemicals costs about as much as conventional breeding, because regulators don’t care.
Regulators don’t care, because activists don’t care.
Perceptive, informed people will immediately notice what’s wrong with this picture.
Spot on Aaron. And right now, a bit flood resistant wheat and corn, would help tide us over! http://business.smh.com.au/perfect-storm-in-grains-market-20080622-2uxa.html
Note: I agree with the post, and think lots of GM crops in Victoria would be great.
However this comment:
“Further, regarding genes and genetic engineering: I have always understood that genes are strings of amino acids called proteins. There are only a limited number of these, and they are are the building blocks of all life on earth, and found throughout the biosphere. Proteins are created by plants, which are broken down during animal digestion into individual amino acids, to be used by the body. As I understand it, GM technology is a method of rearraging existing genes (strings of amino acids) It does not create alien amino acids, so cannot possibly be of any threat to human health.”
is wrong on a number of levels. First “there are only a limited number of genes”; there are, but there’s no reason to suppose that that finite number might not be very large (much larger than the number of particles in the universe say). No-one knows how big the number is. Second proteins are created by all living things, not just plants. Third “rearrangement of amino acids” can make novel proteins. This is often exactly what we want; for instance novel insulin analogues with better binding properties. Fourth GM could easily be a threat to human health if someone did something daft with it, e.g. put a cyanide gene in a broccoli, and tried to flog it to the public. The truth is that most people are not (that) daft, and in any event there’s a (necessary) regulatory framework in place to stop that kind of thing.
PSC, After posting I realised my comments could interpreted as you have done. My apologies for not being clearer. To correct, I understand that amimo acids are created by plants and are of a limited number of types. From amino acids proteins are created etc. As I said above, my knowledge of this field is basic.
I also posted in reponse to Anne mentioning some rare amino acids that there are checks and balances to discourage development of toxic food. Like regulations and ambulance-chasing lawyers.
I was disappointed that my own State, SA, has extended the morotorium on GM crops.