Media briefing by pro-GM scientists

Australian Science Media Centre – Monday 25 February 2008

Growing GM canola – the risks, the rewards and the regulation.

Friday 29 February 10.30am AEDT, Melbourne. Also offered online for interstate journalists

On Friday 29 February,  the moratorium on the planting of GM canola effectively ends in NSW and Victoria. Yet debate continues about what the impact of planting GM canola will be. While genetically modified cotton has been grown in Australia for the past ten years, the planting of GM food crops brings new questions about the role of GM in Australian farming.

Along with the potential for reward, planting GM canola brings risks. From reduced herbicide use to the creation of ‘superweeds’, uncovering the science behind these risks and benefits can be difficult. Which concerns are the most justified? What is to be gained or lost?  Which risks can be managed and which can’t?

Join this Australian Science Media Centre <http://www.aussmc.org/>  background media briefing on the day the Victorian moratorium lifts and hear from four leading scientists openly discussing the risks and benefits of GM:

·        Professor Sir Gustav Nossal – Chair of the Review of the moratorium of GM canola in Victoria – Lifting the moratorium: What is to be gained or lost?

·        Professor Rick Roush – Dean Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne  – What are the environmental risks of GM canola?

·        Dr Chris Preston – Programme Leader for the Weeds CRC and University of Adelaide – How can farmers manage the risks – what can Australia learn from Canada?

·        Dr TJ Higgins – Deputy Chief CSRIO Plant Industry – What are the health risks of GM and how are they managed and regulated?

BRIEFING DETAILS:

DATE: Friday 29 February 2008
START TIME: 10.30am AEDT (10am in SA, 9.30am in Qld, 8.30am in WA)
VENUE: Woodward Conference Centre,  Melbourne Law School, Level 10, 185 Pelham St, Carlton
DURATION: Approx 45 min
TO ATTEND: Due to Melbourne University security requirements, journalists must register to attend. Please contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email <mailto:info@aussmc.org>  to register.

Follow the briefing live from your computer
Journalists can follow the briefing online via audio-streaming as a silent observer and can watch the PowerPoint presentations online (there will also be an opportunity to ask questions). Each presenter will speak for 7-10 minutes followed by questions. Audio files of the briefing will be posted on the AusSMC <http://www.aussmc.org/>  website as soon as possible after the event.

For journalists to listen on the day:

1. Go to the briefing web page by clicking here 10 minutes before the start time <https://aussmcus.webex.com/aussmcus/onstage/g.php?t=a&amp;d=827748445>  or during the briefing.

2. Enter your name and email address

3. Click “Join”.

For those who have not “attended” one of our briefings online before and would like to make sure that they can connect, please contact us to arrange a quick test before Friday.

Once you have joined the briefing online, live audio streaming will enable you to hear the conversation.  Radio stations wanting to record the briefing can also receive higher quality audio by phone. Contact the AusSMC for further details.

(System requirements: You will need a broadband connection and audio speakers to hear the event.  Allow 1-2 mins for your computer to be configured correctly, install ActiveX, if asked)

For further information or if you have any problems with the online briefing, please contact the AusSMC <mailto:info@aussmc.org>  on 08 8207 7415.

Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC)
Ph: (08) 8207 7415
Fax: (08) 8207 7413

info@aussmc.org
www.aussmc.org <http://www.aussmc.org/>

PO Box 237
RUNDLE MALL  SA  5000

There is market demand to stay GM-free

Any submissions to the Victorian government about the bans on GM must be on marketing grounds only. There is absolutely no question that on market grounds alone the bans should stay in place:

• (a) In polls taken by AC Neilson, Roy Morgan, Millward Brown, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, Swinburne University and Choice magazine a majority of Australians did not want to eat GM foods.
• (b) No public poll taken to date has shown a mainstream market acceptance of biotech food in Australia or overseas.
• (c) 80% of farmers surveyed in a 2002 poll taken by the SA Farmers Federation support a ban on GM food crops.
• In a 2007 Sydney Morning Herald poll, 84 per cent of respondents don’t want it.
• (d) In an August 2003 Biotechnology Australia poll 74% of farmers surveyed were not considering using GM crops.
• (e) A Biotechnology Australia 2006 study found that “The Australian public see great risks from GM foods and crops and concerns are continuing to rise.”
• (f) On Sunday, April 4 2004, the ABC reported there was ‘no market’ for GM canola in Australia. Processors will not buy GM canola because “customers are not interested in buying GM product”.
• (g) The market will not bear the added costs of the necessary GM segregation that farmers, traders and shoppers demand. A report by DFAT’s David Morgan and Gavin Goh said:
  • • “a number of studies, including by the European Commission, have also estimated that the cost of such segregation and identity preservation systems would be significant. Estimates of the increase in farm-gate prices range from 6-17 per cent. Given the higher costs associated with GM food, GM product-tracing requirements could have the effect of discouraging traders and processors from trading or using GM foods.”
• (h) Worldwide, the market is withdrawing from GM. The European Union is currently discussing the official withdrawal by the biotech industry of five GM foods and crops: maize Bt176 (Syngenta); oilseed rape Ms1xRf1 (Bayer); oilseed rape Ms1xRf2 (Bayer); oilseed rape Topas 19/2 (Bayer); and maize GA21xMON810 (Monsanto). Even as they were being withdrawn, European taxpayers paid for disputes between these companies and the markets that refused them.

In a democracy and in a market, this clear message from shoppers, traders, processors and citizens must be followed. If the GM bans are on marketing grounds only, the market is telling the government it rejects GM food crops outright.

Overseas markets say no to GM

In the 2001 Eurobarometer study (16,029 people, roughly 1,000 people for each member state of the EU), 70% of Europeans did not want GM foods

The UK’s Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics (Vol 6 No 3 article 6) reported that of 2,568 consumers surveyed, only 2% said they’d eat GM breakfast cereals when asked: “Which would you choose when the prices are identical between GM and non-GM foods?”. 71% said they would choose conventional, with the remainder undecided or having no preference.

LINKS:

• No market for GM food in Europe
• Surveys show similar views among Americans and Europeans toward genetically modified foods
• Europe shows little taste for US biotech crops
• US consumers concerned about safety of GM foods
• Consumers still not ready for GM wheat
• Study shows decreasing US consumer acceptance of GM foods
• Five GM food crops withdrawn from Europe
• GM crops are economic disaster: report
• Most U.S. consumers still unaware of genetically modified foods
• millions of dollars wasted, as no market for GM sugar beet
• American shoppers believe organic foods are healthier, are confused about genetically modified foods
• Europeans show little appetite for biotech foods

Democracy and the market: mainstream support for organisations that oppose GM

There is empirical evidence that citizen-supported NGOs like the Public Health Association of Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Network of Concerned Farmers, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace , GeneEthics, and the Independent Science Panel, have widespread and mainstream electoral support.

REFS:

1. ‘Australians Find It Easy Being Green’, Roy Morgan Research, 2000, Finding No. 3309, published in The Bulletin, 13 June 2000
2. ‘Investigation Into Community Attitudes About Climate Change’, Australian Climate Action Network, 2002
3. ‘The Hydra-headed Monster’: Australian non-government organisations as danger to democracy, Tim Thornton, 2002, Overland 168, pp 28-33

But so far (at the time of writing), in a closed-shop meeting, the Victorian government has only consulted with the Monsanto-funded Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Such lobby organisations as the IPA are not representative of the electorate or of the market. It could be strongly argued that the Victorian Government’s meeting with this group, which campaigns to overturn the GM moratorium, is undemocratic. This group does not represent the views of citizens, or citizen interest. Meeting with the IPA makes no electoral sense, either. Voters don’t want GM.

Why the market rejects GM: science studies and news reports about the dangers of GM

• The Institute of Responsible Technology offers a quick guide to the safety issues of GM, complete with scientists’ quotes here.

• Geneticist Dr Mae Wan-Ho offers a great roundup here and here.

• There is also a Jeffrey Smith article here.

• Some quotes from scientists about health impacts here.
• Here is a very clear paper about horizontal gene transfer, possibly the greatest health and environmental hazard of GM.

LINKS:

• Illnesses linked to Bt crops
• Suppressed report shows cancer links to GM potatoes
  
• Scientists call for more safety testing of biotechnology products
• Tests show adverse effects of GM foods on rats
• Study shows disadvantages of GM foods to human health
• Unapproved GM rice found in food supply
• French study reveals liver and kidney damage from approved GM corn
• Indian cotton farmers betrayed
• International scientists back shock findings about GM
• Who are the regulators protecting? GM rice contamination
• Genetically engineered crops need more pesticide
• Research shows GM rice promotes cancer
• Judge orders moratorium on sale of GM alfalfa seed
• Could genetically modified crops be killing bees?
• Illegal GM products appear in Japan, Ireleand
• Scientists confirm failures of Bt crops
• Promises and perils of GM Golden Rice
• Send in the clones: FDA set to approve food from cloned animals
• Court says USDA violated law in approving GE alfalfa
• “Yuck factor” causes many to oppose cloning of animals for food
• Japan implements local control over GM crops
• EU official says US government puts corporations over consumers
• Third world countries reject GM, while agribusiness mounts front groups
• Corporations seeking to force GM food into reluctant markets are inventing fake citizens to wage internet campaign against their critics
• National Public Radio focuses on 10 years of GMOs
• What’s in the GMO pipeline?-GM food concerns
• Epidemic linked to genetic engineering
• Doctors critical of reports declaring GM safe
• GMOs Detected in Conventional Canola Seed in Maine
• Journal says biotech industry must address environmental issues dealing with genetic engineering
• Genetic engineering of food crops to produce drugs raises concerns
• Great Britain is key nation in food biotechnology debate
• What’s in the genetic engineering pipeline?
• Biotechnology company to end GM crop testing in Netherlands
• Organic proponents say coexistence won’t work
• Organic rice companies impacted by GM rice contamination
• EU split over labeling of GMO contaminated organic food
• UK’s science agenda distorted towards GM
• GMOs in agricultural inputs pose risks to organic, non-GMO farms
• GM ‘Golden Rice’: an exercise in how not to do science
• Approval of GM crops illegal, US Federal Court Judge
• GM companies don’t want public to know their motives
• Manipulated facts: how agri giants manage the GM campaign
• Rise in illnesses could have link with GM

Scientists on the dangers of GM

“Any scientist or politician who assures you that these products are safe is either very stupid or lying.”
—World-renowned geneticist Dr David Suzuki, speaking about GM.

_________

“Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. And the fact that the industry folks don’t deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you’re going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle. We’re in a crisis position…”—Emeritus Professor Richard Strohman, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley

___________

“The real threat to the future is the irresponsible and premature releases of the first generation of GMOs that are full of unsound scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, and arrogantly dismissive of valid concerns. The technology is inadequately developed to ensure its safety.”
—Professor Patrick Brown, College of Agriculture & Environmental Science, University of California

_____________

“The number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty.”
— Geneticist and Emeritus Professor Richard Lacey, M.D., Ph.D.

____________

“Many scientifically valid concerns are raised by independent scientists worldwide about the safety of these foods. GM foods were initially approved as safe as a result of political directive which overrode the warnings of the US Food and Drug Administration’s own experts.”
—Australian epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman

___________

This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.

—Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist,

_________________

“Genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.”
—Dr Mae Wan-Ho, Geneticist, head of Institute of Science in Society.

_______________

“I view the FDA’s policy and practices regarding genetically engineered food to be irresponsible [and] the consequent risk posed for public health to be substantial.”
—Professor Philip J. Regal, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota (St. Paul)

_______________

“We have such a miserably poor understanding of how an organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don’t get one rude shock after another.”
—Professor Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics, Harvard University

_______________

“A product derived from a GE organism can be devoid of genetic material, but can still unexpectedly contain potentially harmful alterations to a GE product, a novel toxin or elevated levels of a known hazardous substance.”

“We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something that is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe.” —Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, Guy’s Hospital, London.

______________

“In moving DNA from one species to another, biotechnology has broken into the harmony that evolution produces, within and among species, over many years of experimentation. Genetic modification is a process of very unnatural selection, a way to perversely reinvent the inharmonious arrangements that evolution has long ago discarded… not for the purpose of enhancing scientific understanding, but in the hope of competitive financial return.”
—Professor Barry Commoner, Senior Scientist, Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, City of New York.

________

“Where are the spectacular benefits of genetic modification we were promised? …the biotech crops that might really help feed the world’s hungry remain but a hazy future promise. Meanwhile, bold advances in conventional breeding mean that transgenic plants offer fewer advantages than we once thought. “
— New Scientist editorial

___________________

Many eminent senior geneticists, agricultural scientists, environmental scientists, molecular biologists, epidemiologists, nutritionists and science sociologists have refuted claims that GM food is safe to eat, grow, or feed to livestock. These experts include:

• Richard Strohman,
• Stuart Newman,
• George Wald,
• Barry Commoner,
• Geoffrey Lawrence,
• Samuel S Epstein,
• Norman Ellstrand,
• David Suzuki,
• Judy Carman,
• Richard Lacey,
• Hugh Campbell,
• Colin Blakemore,
• Mae-Wan Ho,
• Richard Hindmarsh,
• Shirlene Badger,
• Rosemary Stanton,
• Philip Davies,
• Adrienne Hallam,
• Richard Hil,
• Sarah Hindmarsh
• Kees Hulsman
• Stewart Lockie
• Kristen Lyons
• Monica Seini
• Vandana Shiva
• Arpad Pusztai
• Sujatha Byravan
• Suzanne Wuerthele
• Richard Lewontin
• Andrew Chesson,
• Gordon McVie
• Michael Antoniou
• Harash Narang
• Erik Millstone
• Murray Lumpkin
• Michael Hansen
• Joe Cummins
• Stenley Ewen,
• Sharad Patak,
• John Heritage,
• Kate Clinch-Jones,
• Charles Benbrook
• Vyvyan Howard
• Stephen Leeder
• Jonathan Rhodes
• Maarten Stapper
• and many other scientists.