News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Attitudes to GM crops are changing: Glick 

Attitudes to GM crops are changing: Glick

13 Nov, 2009 07:47 AM
A MORE detailed understanding of just how big an issue food security will be over the next 100 years is altering the public’s perception of GM technology, according to Monsanto’s director of research Harvey Glick.

He acknowledged that there had been strong consumer resistance to GM products in places such as Europe, but said he believed the tide was turning.

“You look at the recent report from UK science academy, the Royal Society, and they produced a lengthy report that came out quite strongly on the need for biotechnology to meet food security needs.”

He said the perception of Europe as a stronghold of anti-GM opinion was not matched by the figures.

“Europe is one of the world’s leading importers of GM products, in the form of corn and soy beans, so you have to take these calls that Europe will not accept GM with some perspective.”

Dr Glick said he believed food security would be one of the largest issues confronting the world in the face of rising populations and said a suite of technologies needed to be used to meet the challenge.

“You look at the challenges ahead, why would you restrict yourself from making use of technologies that can boost yields, while also providing environmental benefits?

“I think the solution will be to make use of as many beneficial technologies as you can, whether they be with biotech or agronomic advances or whatever.

“I don’t think we should be limiting ourselves from using useful products on the basis of ideology.

“Australia is a good example, you’ve got some of the most efficient growers in the world, growers who are first to take up new practices, why should they be denied the most advanced technology available?”

“In the long run, GM technologies have to be part of the solution to the food security issue.”

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Attitudes to GMOs are certainly turning. More and more scientists, consumers and farmers are waking up to the deception of current generation GMOs. They are undeniably unsafe, unsustainable and unnecessary. The stench and trail of deceit, revolving doors and spin permeates the whole GMO patenting process. GMOs are not about feeding the world, they are more about taking – taking away farmers' and consumers' choices. The lunacy of basing our food system on such a narrow selection of varieties is sheer madness. Take a look at history in Ireland when a narrow varietal base brought about the demise of over 1 million people, simply because the popular variety of potato was not able to withstand the rigours of the potato blight. We have already, for a variety of reasons, lost a host of crop varieties, and we are about to see those remaining contaminated with the GMO scourge. It will be extremely difficult to turn the clock back once this contamination kicks in. Australian made a dreadful blunder 150 years ago when they let loose the rabbit. GMOs are a far greater threat to the family farm, consumers and the environment.
Posted by ggwagga, 13/11/2009 4:07:30 PM
You really start to get sick of this spin by the large salary earning staff of Monsanto. It really is a pity to see people put out there to push this. Wake up... Australians do not want GM other than the odd few farmers who think they may make money. Why is America subsidising all the GM farmers? Ever since we started with chemicals we have needed more chemicals and have more weeds and now this GM will create soil problems as well and guess what ANOTHER CHEMICAL WILL BE CREATED. IT IS A NON STOP CON. Also Dr Glick, forget the food shortages, GM will do nothing to feed the world - it is very expensive technology you will need to see a return.
Posted by Malley, 15/11/2009 1:50:32 PM
It's great to see intelligent criticism of GMOs!! I think for those of us who actually use GMO crops and see the benefits they bring not only to management but also in terms of showing real potential to feed the world, we can only shake our heads in disgust.
Posted by TT, 16/11/2009 4:07:46 AM
TT, corporate greed and the progressive corporatisation of Australian farming will not feed the world!
Posted by Marc, 16/11/2009 6:35:19 AM
aaah, the Royal Society, whose director in 1999, Peter Lachmann, threatened the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, with 'implications' for his personal position as editor if Horton published Dr Arpad Pustzai's peer-reviewed paper. This incident eas published in The Guardian on November 1, 1999. It appears that the biotech industry has put aside aggression for - let's be kind and call them terminological inexactitudes - when pushing their products. How exactly GE crops are going to help in food security has yet to be explained - or indeed any figures offered to prove that Europe is accepting more and more genetically engineered corn and soy products. Show us the proof Dr Glick.
Posted by john Newton, 16/11/2009 11:19:21 AM
And while I'm at it - tell me what you farm and where TT?
Posted by john Newton, 16/11/2009 11:21:12 AM
He is deceiving himself. People are turning against GMO. Just because the converts are trying to overpower the market with volume of public comment and papers does not mean it is so. TT you have been conned and are now forever in their clutches; keep the money rolling says Monsanto.
Posted by denis, 16/11/2009 11:27:13 AM
Dr Glick is very slick. Unfortunately he has yet to prove that GM produces bountiful crops! If the hard, independent evidence was there, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, but it isn't, so they can't. At the risk of repeating myself I say again, Alan Chartres respected scientist, ex chief adviser to the Australian Water Commission said, that after 25 years and millions of dollars spent no drought resistant or bountiful crops had been produced by GM. Now I may be gullible to some extent but I have been reading what these slick snakeoil salesmen and their supporters have been claiming but I tend to accept what one of our own scientists has to say than some smooth talking lackey of an American corporation who wants to "feed a starving world". Somebody should tell them we are not starving! Take their wonder seeds to Africa where there are starving people! Oh! I forgot! They haven't enough money! So much for philanthropy! Despite many requests I have yet to receive a coherent answer to the cause of the Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster from Monsanto's experts. Still it was only 37 people who died and fifteen hundred incapacitated. The court said there was little doubt etc
Posted by creeker, 16/11/2009 2:15:31 PM
Will someone tell the slick Glick to stop flogging a dead horse – GMOs are not only unsafe, unsustainable and unnecessary, they are obsolete. GMOs are not, will not and never will be acceptable. Marker assisted selection (MAS) of plant varieties renders genetic engineering obsolete and completely unnecessary. Anyone who doesn’t understand the damage caused by GMOs, environmentally, economically and socially, must take off the blinkers and wake up to the deception, contamination and waste this dreadful technology has caused and will continue to cause if permitted. Real farmers have a far greater passion and understanding of their soil and produce than those who subject theirs to the detrimental rigours of GM lunacy. Weeds, disease and problem pests are an indication of poor soil management; none of which can be resolved by GM or toxic chemicals. Never have I seen a soil test that identifies a deficiency of toxic chemicals or the need for GMOs – never.
Posted by ggwagga, 16/11/2009 4:07:32 PM
TT – GMOs will never, spelt N.E.V.E.R., feed the world. To the contrary the world will face mass starvation if GMOs are allowed to proliferate. May be that’s the objective. If, as you say you are, a farmer who has prostituted your farm with GMOs, you should be totally ashamed for allowing yourself to be deceived. Shake your head violently in disgust, it may bring you to your senses!
Posted by ggwagga, 16/11/2009 4:48:32 PM
1 | 2  |  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.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
12 November, 2009
13 November, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the emissions trading debate changed your voting intentions?

More likely to vote Labor
(10.5%)

More likely to vote Coalition
(47.2%)

Less likely to vote Labor
(12%)

Less likely to vote Coalition
(3.2%)

No change
(21.8%)

Other
(5.4%)

Total Votes: 685
Poll Date: 08 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


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...