News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 GM debate is over, time to embrace change: Peacock 

GM debate is over, time to embrace change: Peacock

24 Jun, 2009 08:50 AM
AUSTRALIA'S former chief scientist says the time for debate over genetically modified crops in Australia has past and farmers need to get out and talk up their safety and benefits or be left behind.

Dr Jim Peacock, who was the country's top scientist between 2006 and 2008, told delegates at this week's National Farmers' Federation congress in Brisbane that it's time to trust the regulators and get on with growing crops that will have major benefits for not just farmers, but also for human health and the environment.

Dr Peacock explained there are about 125 million hectares of GM crops grown in the world which was now a significant proportion of the total arable cropping area of the planet.

He said in each of these crops, between one and three genes has been added to the plant's existing 30,000 genes, yet those one to three genes have made a big difference to the plant, in protecting them against weeds and insect pests, and now in boosting the health attributes of particular cereal and oil-based foods.

So far, the direct benefits have been to the farmer and to the environment, but Dr Peacock said soon we will see GM crops and food products begin to have a direct effect for the consumer.

In a couple of months supermarkets will be marketing the first breakfast cereal made from a low glycaemic index, high fibre barley variety called Barley Max.

Trials of Barley Max have shown it to be of "positive value in relation to glucose concentrations in the bloodstream and in the concentrations of fibre in the colon", Dr Peacock said.

"This type of barley was first developed by GM research knowledge with the addition of one single gene aimed at stopping the action of another gene in barley, with marvellous results for human health," Dr Peacock said.

"The adjustment of the nutritional value of grains and other crop products will be one of the most important strategies in increasing the value and global competitiveness of our agricultural products in the future.

"The adjustment of the make-up of the starches, proteins, oils, and anti-oxidants in our food grains will be of extreme value to huge numbers of people around the world in preventative health."

Dr Peacock believes the changes in these plants means farmers will also be able to produce what the consumer really wants to have and what the market says is needed.

"In these situations there still needs to be full safety testing of the modified plants but I think it's clear that we can expect to have products on the supermarket shelves that will be of value and convenience to the consumer in the future," Dr Peacock said.

"I'm honestly convinced that the time for argument about the need, safety and benefits of GM crops - including benefits to the environment, farmer and consumer - that time is gone. It's just not an argument any more.

"What we need to do is to make sure that in every single case proposed there should be the highest possible regime of safety testing and performance testing."

Dr Peacock argued it was now time to trust the regulatory authorities – which were excellent, he said - to regulate food crops in the same way they are trusted with non-food crops.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
GE scientist Jim Peacock has disingenuously failed to mention that Barley Max is not actually genetically engineered. In fact there are no commercially available GE crops with improved nutritional value. There have still been no long-term studies looking at the health effects of consuming GE food. However the animal studies that have been conducted give ample cause for concern. For example, when Roundup Ready canola was fed to rats it resulted in increased liver sizes of 16 per cent. No studies have been done to determine what the implications could be for human health, yet the canola will be entering our food supply unlabelled this year.

The environmental problems associated with GE crops are well documented and include increased herbicide use and negative impacts on biodiversity. Concerns over the adverse effects of GE corn led Germany to follow France’s lead and ban the crop this year. GE crops continue to be widely rejected around the world. 85 per cent of GE crops remain confined to just four countries – the USA, Brazil, Argentina and Canada. Australia should take its lead from the rest of the world and reject GE food and crops.

Posted by Lou, 24/06/2009 12:15:52 PM
oi seriously
Posted by THE GILGIE, 24/06/2009 2:38:13 PM
can u gives us one mention on this articles comments please! ily
Posted by THE GILGIE, 24/06/2009 3:03:30 PM
Now on a serious note I think the environmental problems associated with GE crops are well documented and include increased herbicide use and negative impacts on biodiversity. Concerns over the adverse effects of GE corn led Germany to follow France’s lead and ban the crop this year. GE crops continue to be widely rejected around the world. 85 per cent of GE crops remain confined to just four countries – the USA, Brazil, Argentina and Canada. Australia should take its lead from the rest of the world and reject GE food and crops.
Posted by gilgie, 24/06/2009 6:01:26 PM
On thing is for sure, and that is that when politicians and scientists start to tell people the debate is over, it most certainly isn't. Why do these people try to talk down to their so-called inferiors when they could actually have debate that allows people to express their views without being called a flat earther or other such names? If GM passes me by I won't care, I just hope that I can pass a landscape onto my children that looks better than I recieved it and that includes having no super weeds caused by GM!
Posted by walta, 24/06/2009 9:23:14 PM
11 European countries are right now demanding to be allowed to make their own decision to NOT GROW GM! Germany refused to allow Mosanto corn and the Courts upheld that right! Imagine... a company trying to force a product on you that you do not want, and telling you they have trade agreements that negate your right to safe food of your choice. The arguments have been ridiculed and supressed, but the truth is coming out regardless. We have cold, salt and drought tolerant heritage and hybrids; we do NOT need GM. French organic growers have increased massively in the last year, surely this is telling something! Consumers do NOT want GM!
Posted by amicus curiae, 25/06/2009 12:37:20 AM
I was at the congress, and Jim Peacock very clearly stated that the Barley Max being sold is NOT genetically modified, but only was discovered by the science of GM. He also referred to the fact that Australian cotton growers have reduced chemical usage by 90 percent due to GM over 14 years and no superweeds. I am one of those cotton growers and can vouch for the veracity of that. The biggest percentage of the world's traded corn, canola and soybeans i.e. that which is sold between countries and not consumed internally, is GM. This puts the lie to the tune that no one will buy GM. Jim Peacock and the congress farmer speaker Andrew Wiederman were right when they both called for us to get on and give farmers the choice. The time for debate IS over. We have debated it for all the 14 years we have grown GM cotton in this country and we are still waiting for the superweeds. We are still waiting for the increased chemical usage. We are still waiting for any genuine peer reviewed study that shows any health disadvantage. We have seen our competitors in third world countries, and countries whose farmers are subsidised, leapfrog us in their access to and use of technology. Advanced technology update has been the only reason our farmers have remained viable on an uneven global playing field, and those against GM have disingenuously used fear and false innuendo to relegate us to a follower of our competitors with cheaper production cost bases. It is time to move on from the debate. It is time to unshackle our growers and give them the choice.
Posted by JB, 25/06/2009 5:07:11 AM
When Jim Peacock says the time for debate is over, it is a sure sign that public scientists are feeling the heat and want to sweep the issue under the carpet. The evidence against GM is well documented by the Institute of Science in Society (London-UK) and it is this evidence that CSIRO ignores. Science should be a continuous process of testing the facts: all of the facts.
Posted by Mangiri, 25/06/2009 5:45:21 AM
If Peacock thinks the GMO debate is over, he is sadly mistaken. He, and others, have attempted to jam GM down our throats. That's not going to happen whilst there are known risks and dangers associated with growing and consuming GM. There has been vast wastage of time, money and facilities expended in Australia on GM, and for what - ZIP, the famous pea! If GM is so good, why not label it so, "This product contains GM, developed with the aid of a virus, grown with the aid of toxic chemicals, known to cause significant damage in laboratory animals and the environment, suspected of causing a dramatic increase in consumer allergies. Consume at your own peril!" Peacock, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you will not fool all of them all of the time!
Posted by ggwagga, 25/06/2009 5:48:54 AM
Gee Jim all over is it? How about a couple of recent reports from the USA: The American Academy of Environmental Scientists has raised serious doubts about the safety of genetically engineered foods; And the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that after 20 years and 13 years of commercialisation, GE has failed to increase yield.

A quote: "traditional breeding outperforms GE hands down." Any interested parties (including Jim Peacock) can find a lot more here: www.i-is.org.uk/US_Opposition _to_GMOs.php

Posted by John Newton, 25/06/2009 6:01:30 AM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Dr Jim Peacock
Dr Jim Peacock
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
22 June, 2009
21 June, 2009
19 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Is the Grains Council of Australia worth saving?

Yes
(31%)

No
(50.9%)

Undecided
(18.1%)

Total Votes: 332
Poll Date: 21 June, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ

Irwin Hunter 160x160
 
Banjawarn Station


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...