Oils ain't oils

The response to Sir Gustav's report and the subsequent state government announcements certainly reminded all just how polarised and political the debate on GM food crops is in Australia. "Both sides simply accuse each other of lying most of the time," one industry source says. "We need to remember that very big commercial interests are at work here and they are only motivated by profit."

A press briefing organised by the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) about the review process did not help the situation, drawing immediate criticism from a variety of sources. Many were annoyed by the perceived bias of the whole exercise as the briefing panel comprised only scientists who campaigned in support of lifting the bans.

Independent scientists voicing such criticism and with solid reservations about GM food include nutritionist and biochemist Dr Rosemary Stanton, biomedical scientist Professor Stephen Leeder, epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman and crop research scientist Dr Maartan Stapper.

Meanwhile, seven senior agricultural scientists have issued a joint statement saying the decision to lift the ban is good for the economy, the environment and the future of gene technology research.

So what is the public to make of all this - when all the people actually doing the science and growing the crop cannot even agree? One Victorian canola farmer, Bob Mackley, likens the GM crop debate to religion or politics - "talking about it has become bad etiquette".

Back in 2003, the OGTR considered a range of issues in approving GM canola in Australia and deeming it as 'minimal risk'. This list included potential toxicity, allergenicity, gene transfer to other crops, potential for weed problems and possible impacts on wildlife and soil microorganisms.

Now in 2008, with controversy still reigning and states split on the recent governmental decisions to lift the ban imposed in 2004, it is important to revisit the facts and issues (often two different critters) of GM canola.

The benefits of GM canola seem clear-cut on paper. Since GM canola is engineered to be herbicide-resistant, it requires less chemical spraying to target weeds and allows the use of more environmentally friendly herbicides.

This more effective weed management can increase both crop yields and ultimate value of the crop. Other environmental benefits of GM canola include the increased adoption of minimum till farming (conserving soil nutrients, water and preventing erosion). Genetically engineered crops have also been hailed as the solution to global food shortages for those who most need it.

Another major argument for lifting the ban on growing GM canola was to give farmers back a level playing field in an increasingly valuable international canola market, while protecting current non-GM markets. Thus the grower has a choice. Consumers will also have a choice to make once planned labeling is introduced, although the labeling issues also remains an issue.

The arguments against GM canola centre on issues of potential danger to human health, failure to realise promises of lower costs and higher yields, and the domination of the global food chain by a few multinational companies. Industrial agriculture is not seen as the future by all in the business, particularly in the face of declining oil production and decreased phosphate extraction for fertilisers.

Studies of overseas experiences plus a very recent report in the literature suggest that the yields from GM crops are no better than those achieved with conventional canola. In fact, a very recent study carried out in Kansas over the past three years showed that GM soy is 10 per cent less productive than non-GM varieties, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology.

No adverse health effects have been associated with the consumption of GM crops. However, the consequences of GM canola on human and animal health remain unknown because those actual studies have not been done, according to Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research.

In addition, Rosemary Stanton highlights that the introduction of products like GM soy overseas coincided with the skyrocketing of soy allergies. Others say that the planned labeling of foods containing canola oil will not adequately address these direct health issues.

Regarding the segregation of GM and non-GM crops, CSIRO agronomist Dr Maarten Stapper says that buffer zones just won't work. Supported by many others, including anti-GM campaigner Geoffrey Carracher, Stapper has long argued that GM crops cannot be quarantined because of windborne seeds and seed persistence. Experiences in other countries like Canada suggest that gene contamination is inevitable and highlight that attempts at segregation are costly and likely to fail.

Experts in plant biology and agriculture consequently argue that GM crops are hazardous for GM-free agriculture. They have been deemed a danger to the environment and ecosystem biodiversity.