BIO 2008: GM - the passion and the politics

In November last year, the government of Victoria ended a four-year moratorium on genetically modified canola crops, allowing farmers to grow the crop if they want. GM canola is engineered to be resistant to the weed killer RoundUp and thus less herbicide is needed when growing the crop.

The ban has now been lifted also in New South Wales, but remains in force in South Australia and WA. Queensland did not institute the ban and has been able to grow GM canola since the national Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved it for Australian farmers in 2003.

The Victorian decision followed the completion of a review on the impact of GM canola chaired by Victoria's chief scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, and released in November 2007. The final report advised that GM canola is safe for human health and the environment, and offers considerable benefits.

Victorian State Premier John Brumby said that ending the ban would generate $115 million over the next eight years for growers in his state alone. Agriculture Minister Joe Helper added that the move would now give farmers a choice.

Both governments said lifting the ban would advantage farmers in the competitive global canola market, much of which trades in GM product. Interestingly, WA politicians use the same argument for maintaining the ban - apparently, the Japanese are busy cancelling orders with NSW and Victoria and signing a deal with WA growers. Similarly, SA Premier Mike Rann extended the GM canola moratorium because of concerns about potential damage to their agricultural sector presented by GM food crops.

"Farmers want to maintain their clean green image, which we (the government) recognise as critical to the marketing of SA's food and wine products," Rann said. He also refers to the fact that some of this season's markets showed significant premiums for GM-free canola.

Canola growers themselves appreciate the economic benefits potentially offered by GM crops, but according to a recent Rural Press Marketing Survey, the majority wanted to stay on the cautious side and maintain the ban for now.

The Nossal report essentially analysed the stated safety, economic and ecological benefits of GM canola. It also allayed some of the fears about growing the GM crop, including the need for effective separation of GM and non-GM canola. Lack of such a buffer zone would negate choice once again for the grower as every farm in a region would have to be deemed GM if separation was not achieved.

However, many still oppose ending the moratorium on GM canola, including scientists, growers, nutritionists and interested consumers. Some are calling for a complete ban on GM food crops in Australia, proposing alternative farming practices instead, while others just want to allow further research and long-term validation of safety issues.

As one very experienced scientific expert remarked, it is harder and more expensive to fix problems in this area after they happen. This ongoing 'war' between pro- and anti-GM proponents is exemplified by the seemingly paradoxical pro-GM position of the National Farmers' Federation (which they refer to as pro-choice), while more than half the farmers growing the crop want to be completely sure before going ahead and were happy with the ban.

---PB--- Oils ain't oils

The response to Sir Gustav's report and the subsequent state government announcements certainly reminded all just how polarised and political the debate on GM food crops is in Australia. "Both sides simply accuse each other of lying most of the time," one industry source says. "We need to remember that very big commercial interests are at work here and they are only motivated by profit."

A press briefing organised by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) about the review process did not help the situation, drawing immediate criticism from a variety of sources. Many were annoyed by the perceived bias of the whole exercise as the briefing panel comprised only scientists who campaigned in support of lifting the bans.

Independent scientists voicing such criticism and with solid reservations about GM food include nutritionist and biochemist Dr Rosemary Stanton, biomedical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman and crop research scientist Dr Maartan Stapper.

Meanwhile, seven senior agricultural scientists have issued a joint statement saying the decision to lift the ban is good for the economy, the environment and the future of gene technology research.

So what is the public to make of all this - when all the people actually doing the science and growing the crop cannot even agree? One Victorian canola farmer, Bob Mackley, likens the GM crop debate to religion or politics - "talking about it has become bad etiquette".

Back in 2003, the OGTR considered a range of issues in approving GM canola in Australia and deeming it as 'minimal risk'. This list included potential toxicity, allergenicity, gene transfer to other crops, potential for weed problems and possible impacts on wildlife and soil microorganisms.

Now in 2008, with controversy still reigning and states split on the recent governmental decisions to lift the ban imposed in 2004, it is important to revisit the facts and issues (often two different critters) of GM canola.

The benefits of GM canola seem clear-cut on paper. Since GM canola is engineered to be herbicide-resistant, it requires less chemical spraying to target weeds and allows the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides.

This more effective weed management can increase both crop yields and ultimate value of the crop. Other environmental benefits of GM canola include the increased adoption of minimum till farming (conserving soil nutrients, water and preventing erosion). Genetically engineered crops have also been hailed as the solution to global food shortages for those who most need it.

Another major argument for lifting the ban on growing GM canola was to give farmers back a level playing field in an increasingly valuable international canola market, while protecting current non-GM markets. Thus the grower has a choice. Consumers will also have a choice to make once planned labeling is introduced, although the labeling issues also remains an issue.

The arguments against GM canola centre on issues of potential danger to human health, failure to realise promises of lower costs and higher yields, and the domination of the global food chain by a few multinational companies. Industrial agriculture is not seen as the future by all in the business, particularly in the face of declining oil production and decreased phosphate extraction for fertilisers.

Studies of overseas experiences plus a very recent report in the literature suggest that the yields from GM crops are no better than those achieved with conventional canola. In fact, a very recent study carried out in Kansas over the past three years showed that GM soy is 10 per cent less productive than non-GM varieties, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology.

No adverse health effects have been associated with the consumption of GM crops. However, the consequences of GM canola on human and animal health remain unknown because those actual studies have not been done, according to Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research.

In addition, Rosemary Stanton highlights that the introduction of products like GM soy overseas coincided with the skyrocketing of soy allergies. Others say that the planned labeling of foods containing canola oil will not adequately address these direct health issues.

Regarding the segregation of GM and non-GM crops, CSIRO agronomist Dr Maarten Stapper says that buffer zones just won't work. Supported by many others, including anti-GM campaigner Geoffrey Carracher, Stapper has long argued that GM crops cannot be quarantined because of windborne seeds and seed persistence. Experiences in other countries like Canada suggest that gene contamination is inevitable and highlight that attempts at segregation are costly and likely to fail.

Experts in plant biology and agriculture consequently argue that GM crops are hazardous for GM-free agriculture. They have been deemed a danger to the environment and ecosystem biodiversity.

---PB--- Debate will carry on

One of the biggest issues in the GM canola battle is the potential for a few very large corporations to monopolise global food production, basically from the gene right through to the dish. Such a situation is undesirable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the difficulty for producers in transitioning to the more localised agriculture needed in the future. At present, large slices all over the globe are being sold to or managed on behalf of large foreign-owned agribusiness companies like Bayer and Monsanto.

From a national economic standpoint, Australia will lose its export market as a GM-free country with the lifting of the ban, and possibly with it international markets such as Japan. On this point, however, Robert Green, president of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, dismisses arguments that big Australian customers, such as Japan, will not buy GM canola.

Finally, the claim that GM food crops will feed the poor is just not credible, according to opponents, based on the solid evidence to the contrary. Food shortages are not a problem of food quantity, but of power and distribution. This was highlighted in a recent report from the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a coalition of 4000 scientists from around the world initiated by the World Bank.

The IAASTD report clearly states that the current generation of GM crops does not provide a way to tackle hunger. The final report was signed by over 60 governments, with exceptions including Australia and the US. It calls for a fundamental change in farming practices to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters, and this change does not include GM.

On the international stage, the approval of GM canola will allow some Aussie farms to join over 22 other countries currently growing this product. The US, Canada, Brazil and China are big players, while Europe stands out as a bastion of anti-GM sentiment. In February of this year, France officially banned a strain of GM corn produced by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, citing concerns about the product and the level of opposition even among scientists.

However, one Australian commentator claims that Europe's stance on GM has severely affected their agricultural industry and forced plant biotechnologists to look for work elsewhere at a time when agriculture is booming globally, largely driven by the increased demand from China and higher prices for goods.

And so, the battle goes on. The nature of this debate and the push to pick sides has made any discussion on GM canola seem biased and self-interested, whatever the personal philosophy or expertise of those involved. AusSMC's CEO Susannah Eliot agrees that the issue is so polarised that even selecting an expert panel for a press briefing becomes tricky.

"Many scientists are happy to discuss the issues privately but aren't willing to speak publicly because they don't want to be labelled as pro- or anti-GM," she says.

The question remains how to best communicate the issue to the Australian public in a rational and useful manner. Although similar difficulties exist with other complex scientific subjects such as global warming and stem cell research, the issue of GM food is really about the consumer in the end and the ultimate choice lies with them, informed or otherwise.

As Julian Cribb of the University of Technology, Sydney and editor of the website ScienceAlert said recently: "whether the Australian public is willing to eat GM foods will depend on the benefit to themselves as consumers which they see in those foods - this is what all public opinion research tells us." It seems the debate still has a few more laps to run.

---PB--- Who thinks what

Professor Mark Tester, Federation Fellow at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and the University of Adelaide, welcomes the lifting of the moratorium on GM canola. "It provides farmers with more choices, including the option of using a much safer herbicide," he says. "The safety and marketability of these crops have been carefully evaluated by numerous independent, refereed studies, and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports this technology."

Dr Maarten Stapper, farming systems agronomist from BioLogic AgFood and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science & Technology. In contrast to some others in his field, Stapper does not see GM as the solution to problems in agriculture and calls for generational studies to become part of the OGTR regulations for approval. With the rapid advances in gene technology and functional discoveries, making assumptions about the unknown and releasing products too early is hazardous for the future, he believes. "A major concern with GM developments is the loss of independence in food production as a few multinationals will control the seed-chemical-fertiliser supply chain and its regulation. There is no independent science possible on GM crops as companies don't supply seed for such studies unless they see results first to prevent negatives becoming public. Hence experiments are designed to get the answers wanted."

Professor Snow Barlow, from the School of Agriculture and Food Systems at the University of Melbourne, says the debate on GM needs to get back to rational scientific debate and analysis. "Together with ... [the] benefits are the challenges and risks of GM canola - its successful integration into farming landscapes in the face of lingering concerns of gene flow to native populations," he says. "I believe these concerns have been satisfactorily answered scientifically but after this acrimonious debate they will linger. Therefore it is essential that the proposed monitoring is carried out diligently and reported regularly. This was done very successfully with GM cotton and should be repeated. I believe that gene flow to native and non GM populations will always be the risk with GM crops rather than the human health risks which have not been demonstrated. In the case of GM canola they have been satisfactorily addressed."

Professor Ray Rose, head of the University of Newcastle Node of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Legume Research (CILR), is pleased with the State government decisions, reminding people with concerns of the strong national regulatory system in Australia. "It is now 25 years since the first functional genes were introduced into plants and in regulated lab-based research it has lead to a much greater understanding of plant function and how plants interact with their environment and the systems they use against insect pests and pathogens. Together with traditional plant breeding strategies, new technologies like genetic modification offer sustainable agriculture, particularly in Australia where we have wide ranging climate extremes and often fragile soils."

Dr Christopher Preston programme leader for the CRC for Weed Management. "In Australia, most farmers practice minimum tillage, with shallow cultivation, or no-till with no cultivation. In these systems, canola seed is left on the soil surface. Recent surveys of farm canola seed banks in South Australia have shown the seed banks decay rapidly and are almost extinct by 3.5 years after harvest. Farmers in Australia can manage canola seed banks easily by ensuring no deep tillage and no tillage over the summer months in order to leave the seed on the surface."

Dr Peter Vesk, lecturer with expertise in ecological management at the University of Melbourne's School of Botany, argues against the comments on seed persistence by Christopher Preston, saying it is likely there will be persistence of GM seed for over 10 years after a single GM crop. "While much of the decline in soil-stored seed happens in the first year or two, some seeds last for a good deal longer. [There have been] no long-term studies of this so far. It will come down to what risk of GM-contamination people are prepared to bear."

Professor Mark Westoby, plant ecologist with the Department of Biological Science at Macquarie University. "GM crops are difficult to confine. The small percentage of GM canola seeds surviving after 10 years still amounted to about 100 GM seedlings per hectare. We should assume that GM organisms cannot be confined, and ask instead what will become of them when they escape, or when the genes they contain escape to wild relatives. In the particular case of GM herbicide-tolerance, there is no reason why it should have competitive advantage anywhere except where herbicides are being used. So its escape is a potential problem for crop production but not for natural ecosystems."