News Archive

AUS - ** ANTI-GM BENBROOK TOUR ** 24 November 2005. Source: Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited The GeneEthics Network (www.geneethics.org) is hosting a visit by Dr Charles Benbrook to Australia from 29 November to 9 December. Benbrook is based in Idaho, USA and has spent most of the past decade critiquing the introduction and performance of GM crops in the USA and Argentina. He is affiliated with/undertaken projects for numerous organisations, including Greenpeace, which all have strong anti-GM and anti-globalisation stances. The tour is specifically targeting government decision-makers in each state and the rural communities of Horsham in Victoria and Orange in New South Wales. According to advertisements circulating about the tour, Benbrook will focus on what he perceives to be, the poor performance of GM crops, particularly herbicide tolerant crops and the emergence of herbicide resistance because of their use. Much of Benbrook’s written materials are available from Ag BioTech InfoNet (www.biotech-info.net). Benbrook’s claims are in stark contrast to much of the information available about the GM crop experience as outlined below. If GM crops performed as poorly as Benbrook claims, one must ask why more than 8.25 million farmers around the world continue to grow them. GM CROP PERFORMANCES GLOBAL OVERVIEW In 2004, 81 million hectares of GM crops were grown across 17 countries, including Australia, by 8.25 million farmers. These crops were traded around the world for both animal feed and human food use. This area dedicated to GM crops is equivalent to 15 times the size of the United Kingdom. The four major crops grown were: Soybean (herbicide tolerant) – 60 per cent of GM area Corn (insect resistant and herbicide tolerant) – 23 per cent of GM area Cotton (insect resistant and herbicide tolerant) – 11 per cent of GM area Canola (herbicide tolerant) – six per cent of GM area The area of GM crops has grown more than 47-fold since the crops were first commercialised in 1996. ISAAA’s Clive James has also reported that the economic benefits to producers from GM crops in the US in 2003 were estimated at $1.9 million while gains in Argentina for the 2001-02 season were $1.7 billion. China has projected gains of $5 billion in 2010, $1 billion from insect resistant cotton and $4 billion from insect-resistant rice which is expected to be approved in the near-term. By 2010, James predicts there is likely to be more than 150 million hectares of GM crops, with up to 15 million farmers growing GM crops in up to 30 countries (www.isaaa.org). Last year GM products once again began moving through the regulatory process of the European Union. The EU Commission approved, for import, GM corn for food and feed use. The Commission also approved an insect resistant corn variety - the first GM crop to be approved for planting in all 25 EU countries. According to James, “The use of this insect resistant corn, in conjunction with practical and equitable coexistence policies, opens up new opportunities for EU member countries to benefit from the commercialisation of GM corn which Spain has successfully deployed since 1998.” If GM crops were not performing this would be reflected by a decline in the area sown to such crops. This is not the case when looking at the statistics available for soybean, cotton and corn from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. In 2002, 75 per cent of the soybean acreage in the US was sown to GM soybeans. This grew to 85 per cent in 2004 and 63.8 million acres, or 87 per cent in 2005. Similarly, in 2002, 34 per cent of the corn acreage in the US was sown to GM corn. This grew to 47 per cent in 2004 and 52 per cent, or 42.4 million acres in 2005. In relation to GM cotton varieties, 71 per cent of the cotton area was GM in 2002, rising to 79 per cent, or 10.9 million acres by 2005 (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/). SOYBEANS IN THE USA AND ARGENTINA Benbrook claims GM soybeans have a yield drag and that Argentinean soybeans are inferior quality because they are GM. The evidence utilised by Benbrook to support such claims is refuted by Dr Christopher Preston from the University of Adelaide. Preston states that Benbrook uses crop variety trials to support his argument for yield drag and this is inappropriate because comparing crops as part of normal farm regimes which includes weed pressures for example would give a better picture of performance. Plenty of information is readily available with comparisons of GM herbicide tolerant and conventional types of soybeans with a range of herbicide regimes that Benbrook could have examined. In relation to the quality of GM soybeans grown in Argentina, Preston says that Benbrook has selectively cited the data and one must conclude at the moment that there is no evidence to support a contention that GM herbicide tolerant soybeans have lower quality than other soybeans (Christopher.Preston@adelaide.edu.au). Genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops have contributed to the uptake of sustainable conservation tillage practices in the USA. Conservation tillage is defined as “any tillage system that leaves the soil surface at least 30 per cent covered by crop residue.” Reduced tillage has been attributed to environmental benefits such as reduced soil erosion, improved moisture content in soil, healthier soil, reduced consumption of fuel to operate equipment once needed for plowing, less sediment and chemical runoff, less dust and smoke pollution and less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere (www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/BiotechPaper.pdf). COTTON IN AUSTRALIA Insect resistant GM cotton has been grown very successfully in Australia since 1996. The first GM insect resistant cottons, known as Bt cotton, allowed growers to reduce insecticide use by an average of 56 per cent each season across the areas it was grown. The Bt varieties have now been superseded by Bollgard II, which CSIRO scientists predict, will reduce pesticide applications by 75 per cent. The evolution of resistance in the target insects or weeds is the major challenge to the sustainable use of GM cottons according to the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC). As a result resistance management strategies are in place, and resistant insect populations have not been reported in Australia. According to ICAC, the Australian experience shows that herbicide usage has not increased with GM herbicide tolerant cotton varieties and that farmers are sufficiently aware of their management options to cease using the HT varieties once weeds are suppressed and only re-introduce when required (www.icac.org/cotton_info/tis/biotech/documents/expert_panel_2/english.html). The GM cotton experience in Australia has been so successful that 80 per cent of all cotton grown in this country is comprised of GM varieties. HERBICIDE USE AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE Benbrook claims herbicide use has increased because of the use of GM herbicide tolerant crops. A report by the US-based Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (CAST) responds with “Although there have been some relatively small increases in the total weight of herbicides applied to herbicide tolerant soybeans in the United States (where glyphosate often replaces other herbicides that are more persistent in the environment) studies on US herbicide use across all GM crops show there has been an overall decrease in use (http://www.ncfap.org); internationally, the decrease is about four per cent (www.pgeconomics.co.uk/GM_global_study.htm). Even with soybeans, higher use rates – when they happen – are more than compensated by permitting no-till agriculture, resulting in an overall lower environmental impact” (www.cast-science.org/). Preston says that in Argentina there has been an increase in the use of herbicide with the introduction of GM herbicide tolerant soybean, but that it is important to note that the adoption of GM soybeans is often accompanied by conversion to no-till agriculture (that is, no mechanical weed control) which requires more glyphosate use, but still offers environmental benefits. Preston states there were over nine million hectares no-tilled in Argentina in 2000 rising from 300,000 hectares in 1991, so it is not a surprise that glyphosate use has increased in Argentina. Preston states that it is not the amount of herbicide used but the type. Glyphosate (used on GM soybean) is more environmentally benign than other herbicides it is replacing (Christopher.Preston@adelaide.edu.au). Australia is not oblivious to the threat of herbicide resistance occurring in the major cropping weeds in agriculture. This was a recognised issue before the introduction of GM crops. Several organisations and initiatives are addressing this issue. There is an emphasis on promoting the sustainable use of the herbicide glyphosate in Australian agriculture, because it is one of the most valuable herbicides in Australian agricultural systems. The first glyphosate resistant weed population in Australia was confirmed in 1996. Priorities in Australia include increasing the sustainability of glyphosate usage; increasing collaborations and consistency among the glyphosate research and extension activities of key research, extension and industry groups; and, finally contributing to the development of research, development and extension initiatives aimed at improving the management of glyphosate (www.weeds.crc.org.au/documents/glyphosate_risk_guide_colour.pdf). According to a CAST report, the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds has been a problem for more than 30 years globally, long before the introduction of GM herbicide tolerant crops in 1996. This issue is not different for GM crops, and resistance has been slower to evolve for the key herbicide glyphosate than for many other herbicides. The report states, “The use of GM crops does not substitute for good land stewardship practices. Farmers who use GM crops are well aware that these practices include rotations and preclude the over-reliance on only a few chemicals” (www.cast-science.org/). Benbrook also claims glyphosate application might be toxic to microorganisms and allow pathogens like Fusarium to proliferate. Once again, Preston responds saying there is simply no evidence to back this claim. Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited has also produced a paper which refutes this Fusarium claim (www.afaa.com.au). GM CANOLA IN AUSTRALIA In 2003, two GM herbicide tolerant varieties of canola developed by Monsanto Australia and Bayer CropScience were approved for commercial cultivation in Australia by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) after six years of field trials and regulatory evaluation (www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir020.htm and www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/dir021.htm). Australia’s food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), has also approved the two GM canola varieties as safe for human consumption (www.foodstandards.gov.au/whatsinfood/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm). Despite approvals at the Commonwealth level, Australia’s canola growing states imposed bans to prevent the commercial cultivation of the GM canola varieties, claiming concerns related to the impact on current markets for Australian grain. These bans were implemented despite the following facts: Both varieties are approved for cultivation, production and food use in Japan, Canada and the United States of America. China also accepts GM canola imports. The European Union, an opportunistic market for Australian and Canadian canola, is the only market that stopped taking imports of GM canola from Canada in 1995, however it has since implemented new GM legislation and is once again approving GM products (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/index_en.htm). A number of independent reviews by industry and state governments relating to the impact of introducing GM canola confirmed that the introduction of GM canola would have no significant impact on Australia’s ability to export its grain products to current export markets (www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/index.htm). Disclaimer: Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited gives no warranty and makes no representation that the information contained in this document is suitable for any purpose or is free from error. Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited accepts no responsibility for any person acting or relying upon the information contained in this document, and disclaims all liability.