GMW: Don't trust scientists, say farmers

[Guest guest]

GMW: Don't trust scientists, say farmers

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:34:02 +0100

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

This call for farmers not to trust scientists with a vested interested

in GM, like Jim Peacock of CSIRO, is exactly right.

 

CSIRO is supposed to be a public science institute, protecting public

interests and providing expert advice to government, but it derives

30-40% of its funding from the private sector. On the day of the

announcement of Australia's commercial approval for Bayer's GM canola

(oilseed

rape), CSIRO announced that Bayer would be extending its lucrative

investment in CSIRO " to develop modern biotechnology tools applicable to

cotton and other crops " . The press release said, " For Bayer CropScience,

the alliance with CSIRO is regarded as a model for global cooperation " !!!

 

It is a model of everything that's wrong in the relationship between

public science and private interests. An article in the journal

Australasian Science written by a former CSIRO senior executive

accused the head

of CSIRO of subverting the CSIRO's traditional roleof public research

in favour of lucrative consulting work for government

and the private sector. Research into GM crops, with its promise of

intellectual property and revenue streams, is 'in' at the CSIRO, he

reported; research into organic farming is 'out'. He described morale

among

staff as at rock bottom.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=187 & page=C

------

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2312

Farmers critical of scientist

Press release: for immediate release

 

In response to the pro-GM statements made by Australian Academy of

Science president, Dr Jim Peacock during a televised address at the Press

club, the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) are asking farmers not to

trust scientists that have a vested interest.

 

" It is rubbish to say that GM crops are going to feed the world when

non-GM varieties appear to be yielding more, " said Julie Newman, National

Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.

 

" Over 90% of the worlds crop is non-GM despite the huge push for these

patented GM crops over the last decade. The truth is being modified

more than the genetics and farmers aren't gullible enough to be conned

for

long. "

 

" The last people farmers should be listening to for direction and

advise is the scientists and industry players that have a vested

interest in

this patented product. We need to listen to our marketers who clearly

state the advantage of being GM-free. "

 

The NCF claim Mr Peacock should have revealed the financial ties that

scientific sectors such as CSIRO have with companies such as Monsanto.

Mr Peacock stated in his address the science sector had failed to win

public support for transgenic crops. Mrs Newman explained that a major

reason for failing to gain support from farmers is because the reluctant

public buy farmers products, the sums don't add up to a profit and the

costs are too high on those that do not want to adopt GM crops.

 

" Farmers need to be aware that the real yields fall well short of what

has been promised and this has been proven by independent trials. We

should be very suspicious that further independent trials have been

rejected by the GM companies until there is an unhindered clear

pathway for

commercialisation. It is obvious they don't want us to know the truth

until it is to late to salvage our GM-free status. "

 

The NCF claim there is some support for GM but it is based on farmers

being frightened of the future and want to urge farmers to base

decisions on facts, not unsubstantiated claims.

 

The NCF believe that GM may soon be an outdated technology superseded

by better non-GM biotechnology advances. Mrs Newman gave an example of

non-GM biotechnology techniques capable of short-cutting the breeding

processes by crossing arctic grasses with cereal crops for frost

tolerance. The NCF believe that because scientists will financially

benefit

more from GM technology, they are reluctant to explain these better

non-GM

alternatives.

 

" If GM is released commercially, it is highly unlikely that we will be

able to market as GM-free so we need to listen very carefully to our

markets. It is clear that market rejection is worsening and we need to be

extremely cautious to ensure we have risk management to prevent non-GM

farmers being affected. "

 

Mrs Newman explained that consumers prefer a non-GM product and non-GM

farmers were expected to be liable for testing costs, duplicate storage

and handling and trying to keep GM out of their product. If segregation

failed, non-GM farmers were to be liable for the cost difference if the

product is downgraded to GM or for economic loss experienced if the

product can not be sold. The NCF believe it will not be possible to

control contamination to satisfy market and legal demands.

 

" Those pushing GM crops must realise that non-GM farmers will not

accept any contamination if we are expected to be liable for the economic

loss caused by it, " insisted Mrs Newman.

 

" A strict liability regime is essential to ensure the polluter pays not

the polluted. "

 

Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644

-----------

Related stories:

 

GMOs

 

The Canberra Times - Growers urged to back GM canola - Australian

Academy of Science president Dr Jim Peacock has urged Australia's canola

growing industry to follow the cotton industry's example to gain approval

for commercial plantings of genetically modified crops. Addressing a

National Press Club audience yesterday, Dr Peacock said that transgenic

cotton had boosted yields, quality and profits while dramatically

reducing the use of pesticides and other chemicals. ''The environment has

benefited enormously and farmers and farm workers have a better

quality of

life,'' he said.

 

He said the canola industry should become ''intimately involved'' in

trying to overturn moratoriums imposed by the states and territories on

commercial plantings of transgenic canola. ''It is not a question for

individual farmers to decide or even small groups of farmers, it needs to

be an industry decision,'' Dr Peacock said. The former head of CSIRO

Plant Industry, which leads Australia's research effort into developing

transgenic crops, said that moves by the states to ban commercial

plantings of transgenic canola were not based on scientific evidence.

 

''The major premises on which the moratoria were based are without

foundation,'' he said. The ultimate decision-makers were persuaded very

successfully by negatively directed groups like the Network of Concerned

Farmers. ''I don't think there is any doubt that the majority of farmers

in the country would have voted whole- heartedly for the introduction

of transgenic canola.''

 

''Dr Peacock said it was 'a little futile' for Australia to invest in

research to develop transgenic crops but fail to allow the outcomes of

that research to be delivered. The science sector had failed to win

public support for transgenic crops. ''Scientists really didn't cope with

the situation, so the technology got ahead of the communication game,''

he said.

 

''It's really hard to make up and there is no simple way of doing it.''

Dr Peacock also criticised the Federal Government's decision not to

appoint a full-time chief scientist to replace Dr Robin Batterham whose

term of office ended on May 31. ''The academy did put an opinion to the

Government that we needed a full-time chief scientist,'' Dr Peacock

said.

 

Advertisements for the position appeared last week, indicating it might

be several months before a new appointee would take up the position. A

spokesman for the Minister for Education, Science and Training Dr

Brendan Nelson, said the chief scientist position would remain a

part-time

position to allow the successful applicant to maintain significant links

with industry and the science sector. He said the process to select Dr

Batterham's successor would begin ''as soon as practicable'' and

anannouncement would be made " in the near future''.

 

 

 

---------------------