Australia’s leading GM Crop commentator David Tribe [aka GMO Pundit] writes:
Voters in WA are being offered to make a choice about GM crop technology.
But if Labour still retains power after the election, choice about GM technology will be out of reach for WA farmers…
The current choice for voters is between the WA Labor policy of banning genetic modification of crops, which closes off options for crop innovation, and the Liberal’s policy which allows for farmer choice, and also opens up a future with profitable new cropping possibilities such as insect-protected cotton on the Ord River.
A good example of how Premier Alan Carpenter’s [pictured] GM ban stymies innovation is its entrenchment of WA canola grower dependence on atrazine herbicide.
Atrazine herbicide is currently banned in Europe, and is a marketing disadvantage when selling canola into that market.
The acceptable daily intake of atrazine is sixty-fold lower than that for the safer alternative glyphosate.
Labor’s GM ban prevents replacement of WA’s current widely used atrazine tolerant (TT) canola varieties with environmentally superior and better performing GM varieties that allow glyphosate to replace atrazine..
Labor’s Premier Alan Carpenter’s campaign slogan is Vision, Stability and Leadership.
Stability of sorts — more of the same — but precious little vision when it comes to capturing cost-savings and new market opportunities for farmers.
It’s a strange vision that seeks to promote the state a clean and green by locking farmers into using atrazine if they want to get good canola yields. Its tunnel vision that locks’s out viable cotton growing on the Ord.
To get away with this charade, Carpenter is hoodwinking city voters into thinking he’s protecting them from GM vegetables and fruits appearing in the supermarkets. He’s announced a million dollars of spending to test food products for content of GM components (undermining in the process the existing Food Standards Australia and New Zealand as the national food regulator), and posing for photos while making announcements in front of fields of radish.
There are no GM fresh vegetables being marketed in Australia.
Fortunately both the WAFarmers Federation and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association are standing up to protect farmer’s choice on this matter. And WA Liberal’s Colin Barnett is supporting trials of GM cotton and canola.
The big issue of the current global food crisis, and the part that modern crop science is playing in providing better food security has been getting a good run in the general media lately.
Lets hope that WA voters have been tuning into these serious big picture messages, and also that more voters (especially those in city electorates) realise that farmers deserve the right to make their choices about what they plant and don’t plant.
Decisions about how to make farms more profitable and sustainable have to be taken away from politicians like Carpenter.
.
…………………………………………………………………
.
Have Your Say!
.
Related Posts
- David Tribe - Australia’s Leading GM Agriculture commentator.
- Hopes for Crops Fading in Southern NSW & Northern Victoria.
- Peter Gargan says High Court decision Means the end of all Magistrates Court
- Meet David Gray - Video of the Day
- Meet David Edwards - Quilpie Mayor - Descendant of ‘Kidman boys’
Tags: Allan Carpenter, David Tribe GMO Pundit, GM, WA
Being a WA lad I can hardly miss this one…
GM aside… seriously the Libs are a disaster case and hopefully the ALP get back in… no vision at all.. and I’m not being ALP biased as I’m a greens voter and have preferenced Libs in my past.
There is certainly more credible science and debate against GM crops than there is Global warming….
It would be interesting to study the parallels between the “myth” of the global food shortage and the benefits of GM crops… which basically puts all the grain patents in the hands of a few multinational powers such as Monsanto, removing traditional seed and farming practices….
based upon piles and piles of highly questioned science convincing people that the science is “in” and GM crops are essential to avoid catastrophe…
And the “myth” of climate change, as some here like to put it…
Lets face it GM crops in Australia will do nothing to get food in to the mouths of hungry Africans any more than Australia going it alone will actually reduce global warming. Both require massive changes to the international community and trade…
The only difference I can see is that your traditional right leaning conservative would be pro-GM and anti GW, but your left leaning fellah would be the opposite.
Oh yeah and the parallels with the new push for nuclear power….
These three all use the same scientific rigour in peer review etc…
Interesting Matt, that you mention evidence against GM crops but don’t say what it is.
There are at least 200 reports about their safety in the Medical literature (200 plus safety studies here), about a quarter of which are completely independent reports (50 plus independent studies here)
. In all, there is no credible evidence in these 200 plus studies that any commercialised GM food presents any risk that is different to the existing foods. Thats not just my judgement, Matt, its that of EFSA and experts in scientific reviews (EFSA and other safety reviews here)
An the statement that growing more food here in Australia won’t help staving people overseas is wrong too. It ignores the role of global trade. The drought water irrigation failures here that have prevented Australian rice exports are an accepted contributer to the current rice price crises that made food very costly for the poor in much of South East Asia.
It is very clear that GM crops have contributed extra food for hundreds of millions of people over the last ten years (Study on yield improvement from GM here)
.
The increases in food production needed over the next ten years are huge. Are we just going to stop still and say “No worries mate, let ‘em starve”? How long do you think it takes to increase output from every farm by say 30% with less water and less fertiliser?
THEY DESTROYED THE AWB
I got a shock last night when it came on ABC TV news that the AWB board had got the reforms through and Allan Kolher said AWB had an increase in their share price.
HOW DID THEY GET THAT THROUGH?
I heard former nationals minister John Anderson say that he had voted for the reforms.
All sides of politics should be charged with treason. They have all been working to sell us out to American corporations. Under Howard they cooked up the plot Oil for Food scandal to sabotage the AWB now they have got rid of ordinary farmers off the board.
It is despicable and very very serious - next thing they will do is try to bring in GM wheat and force us to grow it or go broke.
A lot of people in government , in the media , on boards , in agricultural and bio-security organisations are all doing their best to wipe out small producers.
Their is no democracy only massive lies told by both sides of politics. We live in a fascist corporate state.
This is what we are up against :
Economic Hit Men push global warming genocide plan
Economic hit man, Jeffrey Sachs arrived in Australia this week to join fellow cohorts pushing the global warming hysteria. This anti-carbon mafia intend to destroy our economy and enslave us in poverty and death; based on the scientific swindle that carbon dioxide is supposedly a pollutant responsible for a climate apocalypse.
Sachs, nicknamed “Dr Shock” for his economic shock therapy, has destroyed national economies the world over. His major claim to fame was his “rescue” of the Bolivian economy, by shutting down industry, and building up the cocaine trade. His “reform policy” reduced Russia’s industrial potential by 30% from 1991 to 1994. Now he’s meeting Kevin Rudd and many of Australia’s elite.
Sachs protégé and Reserve Bank board member, Warwick McKibbin has long pushed the climate change barrow, recently calling that “we need something like a Reserve Bank of carbon setting the short-term costs of carbon in the framework of a long-term market that prices the long-term carbon price.” As Brendan Nelson’s key adviser on climate change, McKibbin opposes Ross Garnaut’s emission trading scheme, but this “difference” is merely window-dressing the same swindle in an attempt to give the impression of a diversity of political opinion.
Meanwhile the financial oligarchy’s mass media largely ignores the thousands of scientists shouting from the rooftops that carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor a danger in any way. In fact, increased concentrations would be welcome to improve plant growth. Even a doubling, tripling or quadrupling of concentration would not cause a climate disaster. Scientists at the top level are under enormous political pressure to play the economic hit man’s game—some do, but many remain silent for fear of losing their job—or even their life.
Last year Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center remarked that “the top level, the very top-level climatologists or meteorologists, they don’t join the IPCC, because the IPCC is too political. They stay away. So there’s lots of—I don’t know if it’s the majority or not—but there’s lots of silent people there… …people have to be careful, you could be assassinated.”
This is not an overstatement. For example, Timothy Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received several death threats for his active role in speaking out on this issue.
Best-selling author, John Perkins gives an insight as to how economic hit men (EHM) operate in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: “We EHMs are crafty… …We appear humble, normal. We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages. We profess altruism, talk with local papers about the wonderful humanitarian things we are doing… …We are on the record, in the open. Or so we portray ourselves and so are we accepted… …if we fail, an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we EHMs refer to as the jackals… …When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown or die in violent ‘accidents.’ And if by chance the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and to die.”
So, whether it’s Britain’s Lord Nicholas Stern, former chief economist and Senior Vice President of the World Bank; mining tycoon Ross Garnaut; banker Warwick McKibbin; hedge fund owner Al Gore or the infamous Jeffrey Sachs—none are scientifically qualified but they are all economic hit men whom we must stop to avoid an economic death camp.
Think you are rather misjudging Jeff Sachs Von (eg see Jeff Sachs in Malawi).
Also Sachs is recently on the record questioning the economic sanity of many Global Warming “solutions”.
I’m not sure you can tar everything and everyone in economics with the same brush.
As far as Global warming is concerned, I’m very skeptical about the economic sanity of a lot of actions. As long as the do good even if the climate doesn’t change much, Id agree with them though.
Saving money of fuel for instance, is good.
David….
I don’t doubt that on the science of GM… but again you must see the comparison with GW… just replace EFSA with IPCC…
I bet I could spend a day on google and find a good few blogs with damning evidence against GM crops by scientists with letters after their name…
Look I know the linear arguments of more production = more food for the poor, but the world has never actually had not enough food to feed the poor in Africa… it just does not get there…
The right needs better PR people though if on both counts you are right on the science on GM And GW and yet have lost the hearts and minds of public opinion.
Just look at these links:
Science Alert
ABC News
The Age
Comments like:
“But the Federal Government says the science is in and the latest report on GM crops is proof that state bans on the technology should be lifted immediately.”
Those opposed to GM crops grasp at any argument…… These arguments, which science shows to be baseless…
I think there’s a lot of fear mongering going on and I think the world markets are accepting of these technologies now and I’m willing to bet my livelihood on it.
If a recent survey is to be believed, 70 per cent of Australians agree (GM is safe and should be used).
Craig Cormick is from Biotechnology Australia, which has tracked public opinion on GM technology since 1999.
Furthermore you hear of Monsanto suing farmers whose crops are GM because of contamination for growing GM without a license.
It is also slightly ironic to me that Agmates, the bastion of the fair go for a family farmer, would be desperate to support the powers of Monsanto et al to control the livelihoods of GM crops. Behind the scenes the potential politics is at least as scary as those who claim that GW is a conspiracy…
Is it maybe time for a Greens/Nats coalition to negotiate introduction of GM crops, 50% reduction in CO2 by 2050, and freeing up U-mining restrictions and opening the door to the possibility of N-power plants?
For mine is it clearly hypocritical to stand by the scientific world on GM crops, and then act as though credible science is unreliable on the GW debate…
Well Matt Mate,
I’d not want you to stand behind the scientific world just because they are scientists.
Its the reasoning and particularly evidence they present that’s important. Everyone should be listened to as well, not just some so called expert.
When I mentioned the EFSA it was just shorthand for saying they are well qualified government scientists and worth listening to. But it’s their facts and logic that are what I take notice off, and I do take the trouble to check them out.Its a lot of work.
Your comments about Monsanto should be set against the fact that you don’t have to buy the seed unless you reckon its good value for money.
Your suggestion is that a closed examination of EFSA (which is in your area of specialty) makes you think they are right…
So why not the opinion of the vast majority (yeah yeah someone will show me things like the Manhattan Dec) of scientists who specialize in Climate.
Anyway I wasn’t trying to discredit EFSA… just pointing out some startling similarities between the issues of the day.
Sorry to not figure out exactly which direction your coming from until now Matt. Ive never had to deal with the comparison you are making before.
There’s a similar, but at the same time completely different argument to yours:
Many over the top anti-GM zealots would claim the science is doubtful on GM but rock solid on GW and not realise how there’s an inconsistency in this tack. That’s the angle I’m more familiar with.
Another inconsistent set of approaches is the organic food crowd: they question all the GM stuff and call for utmost care about hypothetical unproven risks, but when you question the safety of organic methods (eg manure on uncooked veggies) they threaten you with legal action. E coli O157 , Listeria and Salmonella in manure are not hypothetical risks - they really do kill people, and a major spinach contamination, linked to manure on a farm undergoing transition to organic in the US last year put many people in hospital and killed one person.
Spinach O157 outbreak
I think its fine to put any science under the blow torch of criticism and see how it survives. Question GM and question GW and listen carefully to what the evidence is.
With GM, most of the nonsense comes from people with little modern biology training and very poor standards of evidence. Just today, Organic guru Scott Kinnear put an ad in a WA paper about some Russian GM nonsense about rats that’s never been properly published and is full of errors. All it proves is the Russian labs were cruel to rats (see
Toxicity tests are tricky).
As far as Global warming science is concerned I’ve still got an open mind on the issue. I currently assume CO2 has some warming effect but that there a lot of other stuff going on that the IPCC crowd ignore and that satellite measurement are the most reliable way of tracking temperature changes.
Over the last 10 years these satellite measurements don’t give any support to the global warming crowd, and they mainly now talk about anything else but these satellite measurements. eg polar bears.
I suspect we need another 5 years before we’ll really know the answers about GW and we should be careful what we spend out money on during that time.
For sure David,
It was the first time I’d thought of things in that light as well. Good to know I’m breaking new ground in the debates:) For all I’m a greenie certainly half the green crown would disown me on many issues.
For mine I’d rather put the brakes on for 5 years and find out GW was all bulldust, rather than carry on business as usual and find out it was fair dinkum…
whoops I obviously don’t know how the bold feature works:)
was really just meant to be “the science is in” and “proof” bolded…
Fixed it for you Mate. I like your reference -
“Agmates - the bastion of the fair go for family farmers”
The GM crops is a debate we need to have and there is no one more qualified to present the scientific based facts than David the GMO pundit from Melbourne Uni.
As always Matt - we strive for facts not emotion and want whats best for rural 7 regional Australians.
Hope this is more accurate than the global warming sea ice post that was quickly discredited by MattB.
Farmers have a right to choose what they grow, so long as it is within the public interest - i.e. farmers can’t grow certain weeds and, for now, GM.
G’day Joe,
Interesting Comment. Just like you to explain exactly how MattB discredited the story on sea ice.
See my reply to Matt here