1MG FlippingBooks
The science is settled GM food is safe
Boundless Plains to Share
In recent years there has been a scare campaign against genetically modified food. Asher Judah finds not only is the technology safe, it is necessary if Australia is to fulfil its agricultural potential.
The science is settled. The debate is over. Genetically modified (GM) food is safe. It is safe for animals, safe for people and safe for the environment.
In fact, GM food is so risk-free that humanity and its vast food production systems have functioned for almost 20 years without one single reported health incident.
Since 1996, almost 100 billion food producing animals in the US have consumed genetically modified food products. And the science shows that throughout the lives of each of these animals, no animal health agency has recorded a GM related animal health incident.
The same is also true for human consumption of food products containing GM ingredients. According to the European Commission, in the past 15 years an estimated two trillion meals containing GM food products have been consumed. These meals have been eaten by hundreds of millions of people across dozens of countries all over the world. And during this time, not one health incident has been reported by a recognised human health authority.
So why all the fuss?
If genetically modified food is safe, and if this food enjoys the same nutritional equivalency of non-GM food, why all the fuss?
Why, after thousands of scientific studies confirming that GM food has no effect on human health, are people still worried? The answer is simple. The anti-science lobby has been infinitely more effective at spreading fear than the pro-science lobby has been at disseminating fact.
Organised opposition to genetic modification technology is one of the biggest challenges preventing Australia’s embrace of more productive farming techniques. At present, community opposition to GM technology consists of environmental activists, anti-GM farmers, food advocacy organisations, dedicated organic farmers, religious organisations and those opposed to what they call “the private ownership of life”.
The methods employed by these groups are both obvious and varied. But the most effective strategies have involved the deployment of emotive fear campaigns arguing any number of the following fallacies: erroneous or unsubstantiated health risks linked to eating GM foods, the release of dangerous genetically modified organisms, a reduction in natural enemies, the rise of secondary pests, the destabilisation of insect ecologies, the rise of herbicide resistant superbugs, increased herbicide and chemical use, and the loss of international consumer markets.
As a result of these emotive and effective campaigns – none of them based on evidence – significant damage has been done to Australia’s once envious scientific record. Australia has grown GM cotton since 1996 and was a world leader in the science. More than 95 per cent of Australia’s cotton crop is now comprised of some form of GM cotton (Senate Estimates, May 2011, Supplementary Brief, p. 2), lifting farm income by $395 million – an average of $180 per hectare (National Press Club Address, 20 September 2012, Graham Brookes, The global economic and environmental impact of GM crops).
But today, Australia is arguably about a decade behind its main international competitors, exposing farm communities and the biotechnology sector to economic risk and obsolescence. If Australia is to reverse this trend before the development gap becomes insurmountable, it will need to act boldly and quickly.
Why does it matter?
Why should we be so concerned? Aren’t Australia’s farmers successful enough to go without the need to purposefully alter nature? A fair enough question, but the uncomfortable truth is that nothing stays the same forever. Just as computerisation and mechanisation have revolutionised the way we work, genetic modification is changing what we grow and how productively we grow it. And the evidence internationally is very clear.
Since 1996, GM crop hectares have increased a hundredfold to 181.5 million hectares in 2014. The US is now the world’s largest agricultural exporter and grower of genetically modified crops, with 73.1 million hectares under cultivation. It also enjoys a near 90 per cent average adoption rate across all biotech crops (ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM Crops: 2012, Executive Summary, New York, 2012, Table 1) – a clear sign of community acceptance.
The US is not alone: 28 other nations across both the developing and developed world embraced genetic modification technology in 2014. Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India, China and South Africa all have vast tracts of land in GM crop production. Combined, the nations within South America, Asia and Africa are now responsible for 54 per cent of global GM crops farming a total of 94.1 million hectares – more than 100 times Australia’s share.
Due to the many well-documented productivity improvements, global interest in producing GM crops has exploded, with double digit growth rates ocurring for twelve years straight, according to industry body ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications).
As of 2012, 81 per cent of global soybean planting, 81 per cent of global cotton planting, 35 per cent of global maize (corn) planting and 30 per cent of global canola planting used genetically modified crops. Interest in genetically modified alfalfa, sugar beet, potato, papaya, squash, poplar, tomato and rice are also all now gaining ground.
The undeniable benefits
The reason for the rapid global uptake is clear. Genetic modification is one of the most important technological innovations of our lifetimes. It is also one of the most powerful. By allowing its users to modify organisms to exhibit new traits to the benefit of the modifier, genetic modification gifts its users the power to change the world. Some of the many benefits can include:
- higher living standards
- stronger productivity
- better yields
- accelerated cultivar development
- increased farm incomes
- lower input costs through less use of pesticides, herbicides,
- fertilisers and water
- improved environmental outcomes.
At the farm level, GM technology can also bring about many significant productivity improvements worth a great deal to farmers. These include:
- resistance to pests and diseases
- different development and ripening speeds
- production of larger fruits and seeds
- higher nutrient levels
- improved post-harvest qualities
- greater absorption of light, nutrients and water
- better resilience for storage and transportation
- stronger tolerance for climates previously deemed too dry, high, wet, cold, frost effected, saline or nutrient deficient.
Put simply, genetic modification technology is revolutionary. Managed successfully, it could transform the agricultural productivity of the entire planet. But Australia is at risk of missing out on this opportunity.
The possibilities for Australia
As the sixth largest nation by area in the world, Australia is home to 5.9 per cent of the world’s land. With this tremendous land endowment comes great responsibility – and great opportunity. With the benefit of genetic modification technology, Australia’s farmers could open up new areas to agriculture and lift yields in poor performing areas. They could help counteract soil salinity and help grains fix their own nitrogen, augmenting the growing cycle. They could kill pests and disease and extend produce storage life.
If managed correctly, the possibilities of GM could be endless. Imagine the economic benefits of being able to grow what we want, where we want, at the most economically efficient price we can. In the hands of responsible and entrepreneurial farmers, GM could redefine the meaning of prime agricultural land and return degraded land to production.
It could breathe new life into Australia’s poorer rural communities and unlock the tropical Far North and temperate south to greater investment, increase national income and economic activity.
Put simply, GM technology has the potential to transform vast sections of Australia’s land mass into agriculturally productive territory. It could also ensure large parts of the Australian environment remain undisturbed, by boosting yields on existing farmland. Whether it is to expand or protect, enhance or specialise, the possibilities for our continent are limitless.
We must act now
Australia presently faces the very real possibility of becoming uncompetitive in the world’s agriculture, aquaculture and forest product markets. As of 2012, only 700,000 hectares of Australian farm land hosts genetically modified crops, largely cotton and canola (ISAAA Brief 44-2012: op. cit., Executive Summary, Table 1). This represents less than 0.005 per cent of the total amount of land used for genetically modified crops worldwide.
If Australia is to secure a growing share in global agricultural markets, unlock the continent’s full potential and become a leader again in genetic modification, fundamental policy reform must take place. There are several key areas where action must be taken. These are:
- reducing the cost of genetic modification commercialisation
- accelerating genetic modification trial approval
- removing state genetic modification moratoriums
- creating a stable regulatory environment
- lifting segregation tolerance levels
- repelling genetic modification labelling requirements
- boosting community confidence in genetic modification products.
If Australia can undertake these reforms, then the vision of boundless plains of opportunity could be truly realised. If not, the nation risks missing out on the next step of its economic and technological development.
Since the Neolithic revolution, humanity has almost continuously laboured to improve the productivity of its agricultural activity. This process has transitioned through various stages of revolution from the ancient domestication techniques, to the first Columbian Exchange, to the British Agricultural Revolution, to the adoption of mechanisation and more recently, through the Green Revolution.
Wherever one looks, humanity has nearly always strived to lift its agrarian productivity through the eager embrace of technology and improvements in operational technique. But over the past 20 years Australia has walked away from this history as a result of fear, misunderstanding and mistruths.
The time has come to reaffirm our faith in science and embrace the economic and developmental opportunity which accompanies it. Australia has a great farming future ahead of it. It’s time we go back to growing it.
About the author: Asher Judah is a policy and media professional with over twelve years’ experience with industry associations in the property, construction, manufacturing and farm business fields. He is the author of the public policy book, The Australian Century. He has been published on a number of public policy matters including cities, planning, population growth, agriculture, China and the environment. He is also a contributing author to the public policy books, Right Social Justice: better ways to help the poor and Really Dangerous Ideas.
NEWS
Prodoz, a Proudly Australian and family-owned agribusiness, based in Melbourne, is strengthening its positions as national/international leader in advanced crop – science solutions through a growing portfolio of global innovation partners and a distribution footprint supported by all major distributors - includes Nutrien Ag, Elders, Lindsay Rural and Independent Rural stores.
Australia’s climate is tougher than ever. Heat spikes, dry periods, salinity, waterlogging and sudden frost events are becoming an everyday part of farmers lives.
Trace minerals are required for optimal growth, reproduction, and immunity. Optimising trace mineral status relying solely on oral supplements across a herd may fail because of variation in individual intake and reduced absorption due to antagonism of other ration components and minerals. The use of injectable trace mineral supplements has been associated with positive reproductive outcomes including improved conception rate, increased odds of pregnancy and greater final in calf rate. A study conducted on 2,168 dairy cows, administered injectable trace minerals, four weeks prior to calving and again four weeks prior to the start of mating showed treated animals had a 3.3 per cent greater final in-calf rate, and a reduced time from start of mating to conception, compared to control animals 1 . The Importance of B12 Dr Carl Eden, Technical Services Veterinarian with Boehringer Ingelheim says “Vitamin B12 is sometimes referred to as a ‘super vitamin’ because it is only required in very small amounts but vital to many essential metabolic pathways. However, demand for B12 can vary considerably during the year and we see serum levels of B12 fall at critical times, such as the first few months after calving.” Vitamin B12 contains cobalt, so deficiency in cobalt can lead to deficiency in vitamin B12 because ruminants get most of their B12 as a byproduct of ruminal fermentation where the bacteria in their rumen assemble B12 from cobalt for use by the cow. Sub-optimal trace mineral and vitamin B12 status at calving, mating, and drying off has been shown to negatively impact growth, reproduction, and immunity. Using a trace mineral injectable containing vitamin B12 can improve trace mineral and vitamin B12 status at these critical times. Marks-Min with Vitamin B12 – The Evidence In the largest trace element study to date, Marks-Min Injectable Trace Mineral with Vitamin B12 demonstrated remarkable results when compared to a reference trace mineral injection. “Given the differences between Marks-Min and other products on the market, we wanted to generate a compelling data set to demonstrate how effective it was compared to the pioneer product. We entrusted this work to a third-party research company” says Dr Eden. “We chose farms that were at the top of their game from a reproductive perspective. We made sure that the farms had no evidence of trace element or vitamin B12 deficiencies or excess.” Across all outcomes of interest, Marks-Min demonstrated clear non-inferiority when compared to the reference product. Outcomes measured included submission, pregnancy and conception rates, and six week in-calf rate. Marks-Min demonstrated it is highly suited as an alternative treatment to the reference product. Reference: 1. Hawkins, D., and B. V. S. Franklin. New Zealand Dairy Veterinarians Newsletter 24 (2007): 12-16 Company website: livestockfirst.com.au Company email address: CustomerCare.Australia@boehringer-ingelheim.com Company video: https://vimeo.com/1138807630?fl=pl&fe=cm
Find out why the first summer drench can be so important in protecting your flock’s health, plus what to look for in your summer drench of choice.
A NSW-based innovator has developed a patent-pending, front-mounted firefighting and utility system for tractors, giving farmers instant, in-cab-controlled fire suppression, water and fuel on hand, and safer solo operations.
Barko Security is bringing drone technology to agriculture while building on a decade of security and a lifetime of agricultural know-how.
