|
More on GM
Weekly Times
21/01/05
John Hepburn of Greenpeace believes Professor Adrienne Clarke overstates the benefits and potential of gene technology (Letters, January 19th) however, his rhetoric demands careful review.
The study he quotes was not based on publicly available US Department of Agriculture data as Hepburn claims. Even the studies author only goes as far as to say his report "relies heavily" on USDA information and later admits, "The pesticide use estimates in 2004 ... are projections from recent trends" - not USDA data at all.
In contrast, the study quoted by Professor Clarke which concluded that gene technology in soybeans is saving US farmers more than 9 million kilograms of herbicide per year was based on communication with more than 30 researchers from universities across the US farm states, all of whom are listed in the study.
While claiming to support a scientific approach, Hepburn has failed to explain why Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, should now be so critical of the campaign group’s stance on gene technology.
Moore says, "The campaign of fear now waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic. In the balance it is clear that the real benefits of genetic modification far outweigh the hypothetical and sometimes contrived risks claimed by its detractors."
Gene technology is proving successful both overseas and in the Australian cotton industry that now plants eight out of ten hectares to cotton varieties with biotech traits. Greenpeace are denying both rural industry and consumers an important choice.
Paula Fitzgerald
Executive Director
Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited
Canberra
|
