Leading Australian scientist attacks GM moratoria

With a nationwide freeze in place on commercial production of genetically modified (GM) canola, Australia's leading plant geneticist delivered a warning to GM-shy state governments yesterday: use it, or lose markets.

Dr Jim Peacock, chief of CSIRO Plant Industry, told journalists, "It's odd that some of our states are... putting out the message that they are champions of biotechnology, seeing it as a driver of the future industries of Australia whilst, at the same time, they are rejecting the use of some of the most powerful and beneficial biotechnologies available."

Peacock, who is also President of the Australian Academy of Science, said Australia could find great difficulty maintaining its position in global markets if it did not move to embrace agricultural biotechnology. "Six years after the introduction of GM cotton, we now have moratoria or freezes in five states and one territory against commercial GM canola," he said. "Why have we come up with a negative position?"

The major issue that had driven state governments to apply moratoriums was concern over market access, but Peacock said such concern was "without factual basis".

In Canada, Australia's principal competitor in the international canola market, transgenic varieties already accounted for 85 per cent of production.

Not only were Canadian farmers enjoying the increased yields of new hybrid canolas with transgenic herbicide-tolerance transgenes, Canada was having "absolutely no difficulty" marketing the crop. Most of it went to Japan, which accepts both transgenic and non-transgenic canola.

Peacock said there suspicion that at least some of the moratoria were based in politics.

"The public have concerns about the technology, driven largely by media reports, often fed by activist groups who for one reason or another speak ill of GM crops.

"Just what their agenda is, I don't know, but in most cases their messages are not supported by factual information."

Scientists partly to blame

Peacock said scientists, generally, had been ineffective in helping the public understand what gene technologies could do for Australia's industries, its food supply and the environment,

But scientists had not failed in every case. The introduction of the first GM cotton varieties into Australia six years ago had been uncontroversial, and an outstanding commercial success.

The cotton industry had recognised it did not have a sustainable system, and would fail because of its dependence on chemical insecticides, and the ability of cotton's pests to develop resistance to them. The chemicals were also damaging the environment, and threatening waterways, so farmers were aware of the need for new technology, and a new way of farming.

CSIRO had worked with the Monsanto corporation to introduce the company's proprietary Bt insecticidal gene into Australian-bred cultivars -- CSIRO's own cultivars were widely recognised as the best in the world in terms of yield and quality.

Farmers had been extensively involved in field trials preceding the commercial release of Bt cottons, and a strategy to minimise the risk of pests becoming resistant to the Bt endotoxin was put in place. "This is a technology we can't waste," said Peacock. "Correct management has to go hand-in-hand with the new genetics."

Global markets for cotton lint and seed were assured before commercial production began, extensive communication had ensured the community was aware of the crop and its potential advantages, and regulatory bodies had ensured every potential hazard was examined.

"I believe that transgenic cotton provides a model example for the successful entry of this new and sustainable technology into productive agriculture," Peacock said.

"Our cotton crop isn't alone in the world. Fifty-eight million hectares of transgenic crops were grown in this past year and all of them found ready markets. They include cotton, canola, soybean and maize.

"Most of these crops entered the food chain. I've calculated that at least 30 billion meals involving the products of these crops have been eaten in the last six years... and there is not a single report of adverse health effects.

Environmental impact

Peacock cited a report on the environmental impact of GM crops by Swiss researcher Prof Klaus Amman, delivered last week to the International Congress of Genetics in Melbourne.

Amman had examined some 200 reports on transgenic cropping, and found not a single case of adverse effects on biodiversity or the environment.

"The claims that are often made... that GM foods are potentially harmful to our health and to the environment simply have no factual basis," Peacock said.

Such claims were mischievous and misleading. "I would go further -- they can be cruel in their effects."

The African nation of Zambia had recently refused shipments of US maize donated as food aid because it contained some GM seed. As a result, many people starved.

The world would have to double its food supply to meet expected population growth over the next 30 to 40 years, and would need all the new technologies as they were developed to meet the challenge of producing more food on the same amount of arable land -- or less than the area under production today.

Not all gene technology research led to GMOs or transgenic crops -- Peacock cited the example of his division's discovery two years ago of a naturally occurring barley mutant that produces a high-amylose starch in its grain.

The barley promised positive health benefits. "It has a low glycaemic index, very favourable insulin metering characteristics and is likely to be of considerable value in both the avoidance and management of diabetes.

"In the past couple of years, we have conducted trials with rats, pigs, scientists and now, humans," Peacock joked.

Human trials were now under way to confirm predictions that barley could also lower serum cholesterol, and protect against bowel cancer.

CSIRO had found the same mutation in the international barley germ plasm centre at Fort Collins, in the US, and Plant Industry researchers had been able to duplicate the mutation in other barley varieties using gene technology.

"It creates no new proteins, no chance of allergens, no new genes, just a volume control to turn down the activity of that one starch gene," Peacock said.

But in contrast to the natural mutant, and the Fort Collins strain, these barleys could not enter the food chain because they were genetically modified. "Ridiculous, isn't it?" Peacock said. "In this case it doesn't matter because we have the non-transgenic barley plants that can enter the food chain right away."

Although the new barley was not a GM crop, it offered an example of a how gene technology could be used to identify, or develop, new crops that would have positive health benefits, by preventing some of the many diet-related diseases in Western nations.

"We are just at the dawn of realising how important agriculture will be as a preventative health industry."

Similarly, gene technology could be applied to developing crops like 'golden rice', which is enriched in vitamin A to prevent blindness due to vitamin A deficiency in nations where rice is a dietary staple. Rice enriched in the natural protein haemoglobin, which is present in all plants, could also help reduce disorders resulting from iron deficiency in rice-eating nations.

Peacock said gene technology would be of major importance in bringing food security to developing nations -- 800 million of the world's people were undernourished, and malnourishment killed 6 million children a year, most under the age of five.

Some 30 per cent of Africans were undernourished, and Africa relied on massive food imports to feed itself. Gene technology could help lift families out of subsistence farming, and allow them to earn money to improve the health and education of their children.

The beauty of gene technology was that resistance to pests, diseases and other desirable traits could be delivered in the seed; the new technology was not reliant on other infrastructure, and farmers could save seed and use it from year to year.

"Returning to the question of where we have gone wrong in Australia in recent years, I'd say that in the case of canola, in contrast to the cotton situation, we didn't have all the bits of the jigsaw together," Peacock said.

"It should be possible to put everything in place within the next one or two seasons. GMOs do not deserve to have a reputation as something to be avoided or feared."