To the editor:
The GM debate continues heatedly, as it should, but the amount of propaganda coming out of the GM free camp is concerning. It was with alarm that I saw some of this misinformation coming from a magazine to which I have been a subscriber and, an advocate.
I’m talking about the article titled “GE (GM) canola a flop” in issue 1 of The Organic Way. The article referred to the results from the 2008 GE canola trials. The article didn’t link to the report so I’m assuming that I have the correct report: http://www.grdc.com.au/uploads/documents/GM%20Canola%20Roundup%20Ready.pdf If this is the correct report there are a number of statements in your article that need clarification.
The first statement that, GE canola yielded 17% less than both of the non-GE herbicide tolerant canola varieties it was compared with, can’t be ascertained from that report. So I’m not sure where that information came from?
Also the article makes this statement:
“…the announcement sent shock waves amongst many farmers who believed the industry spin and expected higher yields with GE (GM).”
What announcement does this refer to and what farmers? Case studies of some of the farmers who undertook the trials were included in the report and the majority were supportive of the RR canola and happy with the outcome of the trials. This is a sweeping statement and should be backed up by facts or attribution.
Due to my concern with the information in this article and my interpretation of the data personally, I thought it would be fair to get the opinion of an expert. I contacted Dr Jason Able from the School of Agriculture, Food & Wine at the University of Adelaide.
Dr Able made the following comments about the data in the report:
“Unfortunately the 2008 growing season was a difficult one [and] in that only two of the five national variety trails (NVT) were suitable for analysis to produce the results that are presented, in addition to two other independent trials and one independent Better Canola demonstration of RR canola in its inaugural year (see page 4). Over subsequent years, when conditions may be more favourable, additional sites will be able to be compared.
“There were a few agronomic issues that were raised from the NVT. These are important and need to be factored in when considering the performance of the Roundup Ready (RR) canola compared to the non-genetically modified (GM) canola trialled. These agronomic issues are listed on page 5. Perhaps most importantly is the point regarding variety performance. Given that previous to the NVT, moratoria were in place in both NSW and Victoria (among other states), development of superior RR canola varieties was hindered/ceased. Over time, we will see superior hybrids being released that have a superior yield advantage over their non-GM counterparts. However, this will take time as the plant breeders play ‘catch-up.’ As the Ryan family (page 20) state, “The varieties are not the latest and best genetics, again due to the fact that we had the moratorium.”
“The key messages from the NVT were that all RR canola varieties produced yields that were not significantly different from the site mean yield, and that the RR canola varieties were not significantly different from the highest yielding Triazine Tolerant (TT) and Clearfield varieties (page 7, 8 and Dr Jason Able concurs that this is correct based on the data presented in the table presented on page 8). Of equal importance (and a message that substantiates the comments made in the previous paragraph regarding variety potential) is that a number of unreleased breeding lines were also used – the data of which is promising, yet not presented in this document.
“Reading through the farmer comments it was evident that there is a great deal of support for RR canola. This is very well summarised on page 4 of the document under the heading, Positives with Roundup Ready canola in 2008.”
Dr Jason Able adds these specific comments below after having read each individual case study.
“Many of the farmers commented that they used RR canola because of the perceived financial benefit that it would bring, or the fact that RR canola resulted in less herbicide being displaced into the environment. This last comment is a particularly important comment to note. As Chris Sweeney states, “The RR canola is another tool in the box for herbicide resistance management.”
“Indeed this is one of the primary drivers as to why scientists are working towards genetically manipulating agriculturally important commodities. Through the development of transgenic strains that confer herbicide (like RR canola), insecticide, and/or disease resistance, farmers will be in a better position to improve their yield potential as a direct result of less competition from weeds, and reduced attack from insects and/or diseases.
“A further benefit of such GM crops is that they will provide a direct positive impact on the environment (through reduced herbicides and insecticides being sprayed into the air, water courses and soil).”
One thing that I (the writer of this letter) found particularly concerning after reading the case studies was the pressure farmers were feeling from non GM farmers, in addition to the usual pressures of farming life.
Your readers should have also been provided with a copy of the report to allow them to make their own judgments.
Kind regards
Susan Kirk
Journalist
www.lingo.net.au/blog
![[Facebook]](http://www.susankirk.com.au/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.susankirk.com.au/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.susankirk.com.au/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.susankirk.com.au/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating.
Sue, Anita's husband who went to school with us, has been working with gm produce since we were teenagers. I remember eating peaches from his experimental farm "way back when". He works with the University of Sydney, in these matters. It might be of interest to you if so ring me and I'll put you in touch.
Hi Michelle,
I've got two words to say to you. Get Skype. It's a great program and we can talk for free. Just download it then add me from the logo on the front page of my blog. You can also use it for chat. I would be most interested to talk to Anita's husband.
Susan, the details for "Canola being a flop" are located at http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID… which clearly states that "The GRDC National Variety Trials showed Roundup Ready GM canola yielding 0.7t/ha while non-GM Triazine Tolerant and Clearfield canola yielded 0.8t/ha". and as for the increase in cost "Even at these low yields, the GM fees for 500 ha would amount to an additional $25,820 which would require an additional yield increase of 15% to pay for itself. It looks like the farmer pays 15% more but gets 17% less which is a big loss of 32% of the value of the crop."
So would you say that those details would confirm that GM is a flop? To me it certainly does. Not only do you have less yield but the extra cost to the GM farmer is quite substantial. The other thing to consider is this price is the "Honeymoon" price that Monsanto charge before full contamination when they increase the price to at least fourfold as per what happened in Argentina. Australia should look to other countries that have taken it on and see the reality of farmers that are leaving the land because they can no longer afford the seed to produce our food. This WILL create food shortages.
The US food shortage itself was mainly caused by biofuels. When the US used 40 percent of their food crop for biofuels they had to buy food in from other poor countries who were starved of food. This is not even mentioned in any government pro-GM reports is it?
As a consumer I have every right to know what I am being forced to eat. I also have every right to say no to GM as the scientific evidence is clearly showing that GM is unsafe. Have you read any of the scientific evidence at all? Read the full report and look at about page 120 and see, even in the Monsanto reports, "blackening of liver found" written by the scientist which is not reported in the summary and hidden deep in all the Monsanto reports.
Do you know that the farmer signs an agreement that says they are liable for any health issues? Do you think that is a dangerous road to travel that the creator of this product does not want the responsibility of the health issues? Farmers and buyers of GM products beware!
So it seems that you edit out comments you don't like. This is not journalism. I refuse to send any more.
Hi Vicki,
Sorry for the delay. I do moderate comments, only for spam, so comments are not immediate.
Great blog, Susan! So glad that I discovered you through FLX.
Peace – Jen
So we can put this into context for other readers, as a lot of this discussion went on at another website, I would point out the following:
Firstly, I'm still waiting confirmation from the editor of the Organic Way as to where the information for the article written in Issue 1 came from. See the first paragraph in my original post. According to Vicki Wilson it came from this site http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID… and yes that appears to be correct. That satisfies my question of where the information came from but not the how.