Debate will carry on

One of the biggest issues in the GM canola battle is the potential for a few very large corporations to monopolise global food production, basically from the gene right through to the dish. Such a situation is undesirable for a number of reasons, not least of which is the difficulty for producers in transitioning to the more localised agriculture needed in the future. At present, large slices all over the globe are being sold to or managed on behalf of large foreign-owned agribusiness companies like Bayer and Monsanto.

From a national economic standpoint, Australia will lose its export market as a GM-free country with the lifting of the ban, and possibly with it international markets such as Japan. On this point, however, Robert Green, president of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, dismisses arguments that big Australian customers, such as Japan, will not buy GM canola.

Finally, the claim that GM food crops will feed the poor is just not credible, according to opponents, based on the solid evidence to the contrary. Food shortages are not a problem of food quantity, but of power and distribution. This was highlighted in a recent report from the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a coalition of 4000 scientists from around the world initiated by the World Bank.

The IAASTD report clearly states that the current generation of GM crops does not provide a way to tackle hunger. The final report was signed by over 60 governments, with exceptions including Australia and the US. It calls for a fundamental change in farming practices to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters, and this change does not include GM.

On the international stage, the approval of GM canola will allow some Aussie farms to join over 22 other countries currently growing this product. The US, Canada, Brazil and China are big players, while Europe stands out as a bastion of anti-GM sentiment. In February of this year, France officially banned a strain of GM corn produced by the US agribusiness giant Monsanto, citing concerns about the product and the level of opposition even among scientists.

However, one Australian commentator claims that Europe's stance on GM has severely affected their agricultural industry and forced plant biotechnologists to look for work elsewhere at a time when agriculture is booming globally, largely driven by the increased demand from China and higher prices for goods.

And so, the battle goes on. The nature of this debate and the push to pick sides has made any discussion on GM canola seem biased and self-interested, whatever the personal philosophy or expertise of those involved. AusSMC's CEO Susannah Eliot agrees that the issue is so polarised that even selecting an expert panel for a press briefing becomes tricky.

"Many scientists are happy to discuss the issues privately but aren't willing to speak publicly because they don't want to be labelled as pro- or anti-GM," she says.

The question remains how to best communicate the issue to the Australian public in a rational and useful manner. Although similar difficulties exist with other complex scientific subjects such as global warming and stem cell research, the issue of GM food is really about the consumer in the end and the ultimate choice lies with them, informed or otherwise.

As Julian Cribb of the University of Technology, Sydney and editor of the website ScienceAlert said recently: "whether the Australian public is willing to eat GM foods will depend on the benefit to themselves as consumers which they see in those foods - this is what all public opinion research tells us." It seems the debate still has a few more laps to run.