Unless we throw a crowbar into its wheels, GM technology will reduce costs to farmers and eventually consumers. The technology allows plant output to increase while reducing use of herbicide, water and nutrients. As the technology develops we will see healthier food (and vitamin A enriched rice is about to become available with immense benefits in reducing infant blindness) and food with more appealing tastes.
All cultivated plant food we now eat has been created by the application of breeding techniques. Previous techniques could bring haphazard changes and unwanted side effects. The new technology ensures this does not happen by excluding genes that might have such effects. Moreover, unlike any previous food product, GM foods undergo exhaustive testing prior to general release.
Contrary to Louise Sylvan's claims [AFR, 13 July], countless scientific studies have demonstrated there is no health issue with these products. Nor have any herbicide superweeds been created. The noted US expert Dr C S Prakash, who visited Australia two weeks ago, has launched a web site which 3,000 scientists have signed saying the "techniques ... can contribute substantially in enhancing quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment". And that, "The responsible genetic modification of plants is neither new nor dangerous". To put all fears to rest, in the past few days, seven premier scientific academies, (including the Chinese and Indian science academies,the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences) have a issued a joint report promoting the benefits of the technology and their need to feed a growing world population with increasing aspirations for food quality.
What then of the labelling issue? The technology's most fanatical opponents are engaged in crop burning to prevent the products being proved effective. Others are seeking to use red tape to hamper the technology's spread.
Some are opposed to things that are "unnatural", "not necessary", "may create unforeseen consequences". These terms sound familiar to food historians because they were used by those opposing pasteurisation of milk. Proven effective in 1908, it was not until after 1945 that the objections of the faddists and knee-jerk opponents could be overcome to allow widespread use of pasteurisation, a technology that has saved countless lives. Those opposed to GM technology, like those who sought to prevent pasteurisation and other earlier advances in food quality, are seeking to demonise it.
Requiring labelling so that consumers can make their own choices sounds innocuous enough. But a moments thought unveils the difficulties this entails. First, a great deal of food comprises fresh food which carries no label. Much is consumed in restaurants and fast food outlets where labelling is also impracticable.
Other difficulties of labelling occur because almost all the GM foods presently available are identical to the foods they replace. The characteristics of the GM plant which produces the food are not found in or difficult to detect in the food itself. This is because the technology improves the insect repelling qualities of the plant or allows it to grow on a shorter stem. To make a clear statement that a product does not contain any GM material (and processed foods contain hundreds of ingredients) would entail a vast cost. We would, in fact, be introducing a GST on food but collecting no revenue and bringing no benefit in terms of health.
If some consumers want to avoid GM foods,sufficient demand for the absence of these ingredients will cause suppliers to make the products available. This already happens with "organic" foods. But organic food producers could not agree to a standard that guaranteed their produce to be 100% organic, since it is impossible to be certain of an absence of an admixture of modern technology.
Hence, the best solution is to leave niche suppliers to market non-GM products to the customer (if they can do so truthfully). The rest of us can also buy the products we want without having a needless tax imposed.
These issues are of immense importance to Australia with our considerable highly competitive agricultural industries. Some claim that "GM free" might prove a winner in markets overseas. While there may be niche markets, as there are for "organically" grown foods, they can never be sufficient to offset a loss of farm productivity. Already, GM technology brings cost savings to the farmer of about 6 per cent. These savings will be doubled as the technology becomes more sophisticated, a saving that few Australian farmers could afford to reject.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment